It's difficult to offer a "bon mot" to cover almost two weeks of illness and hence frustration. Something that would fit into a comix format, for instance, like the Calvinistic: "Snow Goons are bad news. " Or the Hobbesian rejoinder, "Live and don't learn, that's us."
It's worthy of note that Job prayed to die, but didn't. He never knew the "whole truth and nothing but the truth"; perhaps after God's "Speech" or encounter, better said, he knew better than to ask.
Hezekiah on the other hand was wont to want his own life back even after Isaiah told him of his looming sickness unto death. So he went over the prophet's head and got another 15 years, but in so doing set the stage for the Babylonian Captivity. "Life" is not an unqualified good; yet, "What will a man give in exchange for his life?" Not only his own skin, but the punishment of all around him, as his ancestor David did when he asked God to sent a plague on the people--for his own sin- rather than go through being harassed again for a season, something he already knew how to tolerate. Not unto David's death, mind you, but unto persecution, a sickness not unto death. (The implied promise was that he would survive being chased around Israel, as happened before he became king.)
Speaking of kings, Jesus noted that, "scarce for a good man would someone die," much less for his enemies. David did not intend to die or even take punishment for his countrymen, most of whom had done him no harm, or had greatly helped him.
(I must quickly add here that I certainly hope, if there were no other choices, that I would take a fatal hit for my wife; there is that protective instinct which I have, and most men have, however atrophied; that I hope would overcome my instinct for survival at any cost; but without His Spirit, I would as likely fail as Peter failed Jesus.)
I really don't know how to pray because I don't know how to wait, much less to let the results up to Someone other than myself. Yet our faith in ourselves is "little faith," in which, according to our internal/secret evaluation of our track record, we always come up short and hence are never satisfied with anything or anyone. As I told someone today, there is not an individual who is not a hypocrite, who lives up to his own standards, much less anything higher. And there is no one that doesn't operate by a double set of rules, no matter how negative or pessimistic or pietistic etc. they may be.
Overall, we could learn more from Job than we can from the late Hezekiah, at least that is what I have learned from my most recent internment. I did not, by the way, pray to die so y'all are still stuck with me. For now. (Wannabe Job's friend? Facebook!!!)
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Tuesday, in Plague Time
I did just finish "The Plague" and I have numerous thoughts about it. It is supposed to be written by Dr. Rieux, who is also the protagonist. But Camus' emphasis of course is not mere science but philosophy in general and ethics in particular. Interestingly, every character in the book is seen sympathetically, even Cottard the criminal who takes advantage of the plague to make lots of money off his desperate fellow-prisoners. It is a bit like Dostoevsky's survey, from the inside, of prison life in Siberia, since no one is allowed to leave the town of Oran once plague is identified as their ague.
The fashion in which these two great writers treat their characters isn't unlike the way doctors have to experience things--we literally have to find some worthwhile aspect of every human life we treat or even contemplate treating, even if our some of our patients are at war with each other, us, and with the rest of the world. Particularly when we are on call and have almost no choice as to whom we will treat--and all have to be considered with the same intensity and quality as the "alpha male" so to speak.
On the other hand, when Sartre alleged that there was no difference, to him at least, between the lowest drunk in the gutter and the most powerful king in the world--one might hope that he was being egalitarian, but his other judgments tend to cast doubt on that hypothesis, like the quote from "No Exit" which Dennis and I discussed earlier, "Hell is other people." Camus could also get quite irritated at some people, but he saw this as a limitation of his vision, not a final verdict.
My immediate thought at the end of the book, however, is I believe grounded in current medical practice, and is the same reaction as I had to the 9/11 sabotage, which is this:
"Well, that's a one-trick pony!" (And the pony died doing its act)
What happened on flight 93 could reasonably be expected to happen consistently in future attacks of the same nature. Passengers and pilots had been trained to be passive and just wait. The feeling in the plague city was the same, that one was at the mercy of factors beyond their personal or collective control. But the lies that were told to the people on those flights were exposed to the entire world instantly--no terrorist who commandeers an airplane again will ever be taken at his word, and the assumption now is that it's not money or political prisoners they want, but the death of every one on the plane and at the target site. So? "Let's Roll!" Nothing to lose, everything to gain. And so forth.
Similarly, what happened in Camus' fictional city would not happen again at least in the Western world, because shortly after his book was written, numerous groups of antibiotics were discovered to treat the plague bacillus. Streptomycin would have been the first available. But there is also instant worldwide publicity and a marshaling of international effort that regularly occurs now; but even so, much less need to panic than in the past, this novel being set in the late 1940's I would guess.
I am concerned of course about places like Myanmar/Burma, where my son Mark is going, and where the junta does not allow international help and where medical care is worse nowhere else in the world, as I understand. So if you are a praying person, that's yet another reason to pray. He'll be there two solid years, based in Thailand where medical help is very good, thanks in part to my alma mater, the U of Illinois, which has greatly helped to modernize the med school at Chengmai (sp?) and other major cities.
I wonder if I should give him plague vaccine before he goes.............
The fashion in which these two great writers treat their characters isn't unlike the way doctors have to experience things--we literally have to find some worthwhile aspect of every human life we treat or even contemplate treating, even if our some of our patients are at war with each other, us, and with the rest of the world. Particularly when we are on call and have almost no choice as to whom we will treat--and all have to be considered with the same intensity and quality as the "alpha male" so to speak.
On the other hand, when Sartre alleged that there was no difference, to him at least, between the lowest drunk in the gutter and the most powerful king in the world--one might hope that he was being egalitarian, but his other judgments tend to cast doubt on that hypothesis, like the quote from "No Exit" which Dennis and I discussed earlier, "Hell is other people." Camus could also get quite irritated at some people, but he saw this as a limitation of his vision, not a final verdict.
My immediate thought at the end of the book, however, is I believe grounded in current medical practice, and is the same reaction as I had to the 9/11 sabotage, which is this:
"Well, that's a one-trick pony!" (And the pony died doing its act)
What happened on flight 93 could reasonably be expected to happen consistently in future attacks of the same nature. Passengers and pilots had been trained to be passive and just wait. The feeling in the plague city was the same, that one was at the mercy of factors beyond their personal or collective control. But the lies that were told to the people on those flights were exposed to the entire world instantly--no terrorist who commandeers an airplane again will ever be taken at his word, and the assumption now is that it's not money or political prisoners they want, but the death of every one on the plane and at the target site. So? "Let's Roll!" Nothing to lose, everything to gain. And so forth.
Similarly, what happened in Camus' fictional city would not happen again at least in the Western world, because shortly after his book was written, numerous groups of antibiotics were discovered to treat the plague bacillus. Streptomycin would have been the first available. But there is also instant worldwide publicity and a marshaling of international effort that regularly occurs now; but even so, much less need to panic than in the past, this novel being set in the late 1940's I would guess.
I am concerned of course about places like Myanmar/Burma, where my son Mark is going, and where the junta does not allow international help and where medical care is worse nowhere else in the world, as I understand. So if you are a praying person, that's yet another reason to pray. He'll be there two solid years, based in Thailand where medical help is very good, thanks in part to my alma mater, the U of Illinois, which has greatly helped to modernize the med school at Chengmai (sp?) and other major cities.
I wonder if I should give him plague vaccine before he goes.............
Saturday, August 7, 2010
No Voz
Stricken as I am this weekend with laryngitis, I am shunned even by Dr. Dragonspeak, so I am not in pain, but reduced to typing only. Aren't you glad I can't write cursively over the net? Or, maybe not...is that a double negative, as I fear? (I can do long strings of negatives- I've got "great lumps of it 'round the back!!!"
I thought it might be mildly interesting, to me at least, if I let das blogn'reader know what I am currently reading, as I did a few months back:
"Berlin Diaries 1940-1945" by Marie Vassiltchikov and the newest bio on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, both of which I have mentioned recently. Both were involved in plots to kill Hitler but only she survived; also Chuck Colson's version of Watergate written after his conversion; Francis Schaeffer's "No Little People"; "The Merry Wives of Windsor"; and I am "getting very near the end" as the Beatles once sang, of "The Plague". What a relief that will be--now if I could just get rid of my mini-plague!
Being of largely German extraction I am again fascinated by Germany's worst years, and it occurred to me again that, "Uneasy is the head that wears the crown." Time magazine recently featured an Afghan woman on the cover who had had her nose, among other parts mutilated, cut off by yonder Taliban. This was journalistic speculation as to what may happen, again, to women if we totally give up in that region. Anyone who has seen "The Kite Runner," has a good feel for what is being presented in Time--but will it be "in time?" I have been reading Nat Henthoff's series on drone warfare; which totally undercuts the whole "hearts and minds" thing....better the devil you know next door than the aliens swooping without warning out of the sky.
I cannot really delve into the Afghan much less the Muslim mind; but I can say I know what it is like to be religious and hyper-religious, pretty much from both sides of the Sanhedrin or our current halls of Congress.
But my observations from history is that once one moves from being excluded to the point of being in significant power and especially in possession of lands and landmines, organizations and great halls -see Beowulf- one becomes totally a target for hit and run raiders and terrorists who see our possessiveness of our privileges as the weakest element of our humanity. Once the Taliban was "out", it was "in"!!! And we are no sooner "in control" than we are out of control. It's easy to see the Eastern doctrine of maya-illusion and the parallel Western existential/absurdist response as valid, except that the very complexity of life mitigates against such over-simplifications. But..will yonder Taliban outlast yonder Babylon???!!!
Against such a background it might be easy to be pessimistic-- but if one holds everything with a loose hand, then there is a kind of freedom that certainly evades most of us, who would rather imagine ourselves sitting at the right or lift hand of Master Damocles....but then there's that pesky stewardship issue and our very real impact on those whom we care about, and whose care is entrusted into our hands; withdrawl is not only illusion but the privilege of the rich and idle who delight only in providing guru-guidance for the rest of us--been there, done that, ain't gone back.
Mendota may be a backwater, but I rarely question any more as to "where I belong" or "who I am"; the more relevant question is, Whose I am.
Right, dear? Yes, dear!
I thought it might be mildly interesting, to me at least, if I let das blogn'reader know what I am currently reading, as I did a few months back:
"Berlin Diaries 1940-1945" by Marie Vassiltchikov and the newest bio on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, both of which I have mentioned recently. Both were involved in plots to kill Hitler but only she survived; also Chuck Colson's version of Watergate written after his conversion; Francis Schaeffer's "No Little People"; "The Merry Wives of Windsor"; and I am "getting very near the end" as the Beatles once sang, of "The Plague". What a relief that will be--now if I could just get rid of my mini-plague!
Being of largely German extraction I am again fascinated by Germany's worst years, and it occurred to me again that, "Uneasy is the head that wears the crown." Time magazine recently featured an Afghan woman on the cover who had had her nose, among other parts mutilated, cut off by yonder Taliban. This was journalistic speculation as to what may happen, again, to women if we totally give up in that region. Anyone who has seen "The Kite Runner," has a good feel for what is being presented in Time--but will it be "in time?" I have been reading Nat Henthoff's series on drone warfare; which totally undercuts the whole "hearts and minds" thing....better the devil you know next door than the aliens swooping without warning out of the sky.
I cannot really delve into the Afghan much less the Muslim mind; but I can say I know what it is like to be religious and hyper-religious, pretty much from both sides of the Sanhedrin or our current halls of Congress.
But my observations from history is that once one moves from being excluded to the point of being in significant power and especially in possession of lands and landmines, organizations and great halls -see Beowulf- one becomes totally a target for hit and run raiders and terrorists who see our possessiveness of our privileges as the weakest element of our humanity. Once the Taliban was "out", it was "in"!!! And we are no sooner "in control" than we are out of control. It's easy to see the Eastern doctrine of maya-illusion and the parallel Western existential/absurdist response as valid, except that the very complexity of life mitigates against such over-simplifications. But..will yonder Taliban outlast yonder Babylon???!!!
Against such a background it might be easy to be pessimistic-- but if one holds everything with a loose hand, then there is a kind of freedom that certainly evades most of us, who would rather imagine ourselves sitting at the right or lift hand of Master Damocles....but then there's that pesky stewardship issue and our very real impact on those whom we care about, and whose care is entrusted into our hands; withdrawl is not only illusion but the privilege of the rich and idle who delight only in providing guru-guidance for the rest of us--been there, done that, ain't gone back.
Mendota may be a backwater, but I rarely question any more as to "where I belong" or "who I am"; the more relevant question is, Whose I am.
Right, dear? Yes, dear!
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
ANOTHER PLEASANT VALLEY TEWSDAY
The above title, now that I think about it, should be dedicated to Pastor Jerry Tews, the man who was my boss when I first came to Mendota and I started practice in St. John's Lutheran Church where there used to be a school. Yes, yes, it's a long story but I honor him in absentia.
Speaking of pastors, my pastor used the famous Pogo quote, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" , on Sunday, but had no idea of the source of the original quote or that this was a parody of the quote, "We have met the enemy and they are ours!" It seems some of the commonalities of historical statements are no longer so common. The original quote comes from Adm. Oliver Hazard Perry after a set-to in the war of 1812 in which Adm. Perry captured numerous British vessels in the Battle of Lake Erie and wrote those words to the then future president William Henry Harrison and also included a more sundry account of the spoil, all of which is easily captured online, FYI.
My pastor, Steve Adamson, is also loaning me the book, "Stanley M. Horton, Shaper of Pentecostal Theology." At least two of my pastors have had Dr. Horton and at one time early in my Christian life I wrote to this gentleman with some personal/scientific questions and he was gracious enough to send me a reply on at least two occasions, replies which were not only helpful and timely but extremely practical. By this time he is known around the globe at least in Pentecostal circles. His original training was in science but he found he had a gift for teaching and a passion for higher education and so has he had a tremendous worldwide influence on literally millions of people.
I would imagine by now I have lost two thirds or three quarters of my audience. Maybe 100%!
Most other non-Pentecostal denominations and pastors do not believe there is such a thing as Pentecostal theology, systematic or otherwise, and frankly wish that Pentecostals would simply go away. I don't want to get in an argument on this basis but I am recounting that I owe a lot to this man personally as well as theologically. He is now in its mid 90s and still fit and active, still doing some writing and teaching and so forth. He does have his credentials from Harvard and also went to Gordon Divinity School; but the real point is that Dr. Horton, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, cut his theological teeth on liberal theology. Sadly, it was largely the liberal theologians of Germany who went along with Hitler along with the vast majority of German Christians. To say that these theologians, to whom the whole world looked at the time, did a tremendous and organized job of undercutting people's confidence in Scripture, would be to contradict the clear record of history. "Higher criticism", which originated in Germany for the most part not only survived Adolf Hitler and his Reichs-church which encouraged this kind of theology, but their systematic (but doubtful) doubt went on to unabashedly grow in worldwide influence even up until the 70s and 80s, basically until mainline denominational members in the Third World began to question and challenge the basic assumptions of these writers and scholars.
So Dr. Horton came from one world, immersed himself in another, and came to the conclusion that I have frequently come to myself, which is that the dividing line between contemporary liberals and conservatives in the seminary at least, is the willingness to countenance the supernatural existence of God as opposed to the cultural construct view of "God." Of course this is the same division as I have shown to have existed between Pharisees and Sadducees.
Dr. Horton is certainly not of the opinion, any more than Jesus was, that one is necessarily better than the other. I believe he would affirm the view that the only way to transcend this duality is by the genuine reception of the Holy Spirit and by a gradual "putting away of childish things," which not only includes the new toys of the progressives but the old toys of the conservatives. As Jesus said, the blind cannot lead the blind and expect to find anything other than the gutter. "Blind guides" is an equal opportunity designation for anyone at all who would purport to lead and that probably encompasses our political leadership as well.
"We have met the enemy and he is both of us!"
Speaking of pastors, my pastor used the famous Pogo quote, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" , on Sunday, but had no idea of the source of the original quote or that this was a parody of the quote, "We have met the enemy and they are ours!" It seems some of the commonalities of historical statements are no longer so common. The original quote comes from Adm. Oliver Hazard Perry after a set-to in the war of 1812 in which Adm. Perry captured numerous British vessels in the Battle of Lake Erie and wrote those words to the then future president William Henry Harrison and also included a more sundry account of the spoil, all of which is easily captured online, FYI.
My pastor, Steve Adamson, is also loaning me the book, "Stanley M. Horton, Shaper of Pentecostal Theology." At least two of my pastors have had Dr. Horton and at one time early in my Christian life I wrote to this gentleman with some personal/scientific questions and he was gracious enough to send me a reply on at least two occasions, replies which were not only helpful and timely but extremely practical. By this time he is known around the globe at least in Pentecostal circles. His original training was in science but he found he had a gift for teaching and a passion for higher education and so has he had a tremendous worldwide influence on literally millions of people.
I would imagine by now I have lost two thirds or three quarters of my audience. Maybe 100%!
Most other non-Pentecostal denominations and pastors do not believe there is such a thing as Pentecostal theology, systematic or otherwise, and frankly wish that Pentecostals would simply go away. I don't want to get in an argument on this basis but I am recounting that I owe a lot to this man personally as well as theologically. He is now in its mid 90s and still fit and active, still doing some writing and teaching and so forth. He does have his credentials from Harvard and also went to Gordon Divinity School; but the real point is that Dr. Horton, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, cut his theological teeth on liberal theology. Sadly, it was largely the liberal theologians of Germany who went along with Hitler along with the vast majority of German Christians. To say that these theologians, to whom the whole world looked at the time, did a tremendous and organized job of undercutting people's confidence in Scripture, would be to contradict the clear record of history. "Higher criticism", which originated in Germany for the most part not only survived Adolf Hitler and his Reichs-church which encouraged this kind of theology, but their systematic (but doubtful) doubt went on to unabashedly grow in worldwide influence even up until the 70s and 80s, basically until mainline denominational members in the Third World began to question and challenge the basic assumptions of these writers and scholars.
So Dr. Horton came from one world, immersed himself in another, and came to the conclusion that I have frequently come to myself, which is that the dividing line between contemporary liberals and conservatives in the seminary at least, is the willingness to countenance the supernatural existence of God as opposed to the cultural construct view of "God." Of course this is the same division as I have shown to have existed between Pharisees and Sadducees.
Dr. Horton is certainly not of the opinion, any more than Jesus was, that one is necessarily better than the other. I believe he would affirm the view that the only way to transcend this duality is by the genuine reception of the Holy Spirit and by a gradual "putting away of childish things," which not only includes the new toys of the progressives but the old toys of the conservatives. As Jesus said, the blind cannot lead the blind and expect to find anything other than the gutter. "Blind guides" is an equal opportunity designation for anyone at all who would purport to lead and that probably encompasses our political leadership as well.
"We have met the enemy and he is both of us!"
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Good for you!!! And good for you, 2!!!
What to write, what to write...ah, yes...write what I know...which is very little...write WHO I know may just work better. Ideas and Ideals come as easy to us as dreams--but to confront in order to understand, not to combat, that's a gift and skill we covet far too little.
Actually, I recently got into a stream of thought about "What is good" and "Who is good". First off, "He hath shown you O man what is good/and what does the Lord require of thee/ but to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God." -from the song from Micah 6:8. So it helps me to come to the table with the attitude that I am "without excuse." When we claim no longer to be able to identify the good things, that is a choice, never an inevitable conclusion. What it means is that we no longer have any taste or desire for the good, and that is a learned response or a jaded response or both.
More difficult and personal is the question, Who is good? If one has any access to one's inner thoughts or dreams, as in the recent movie "Inception", one must give up on the notion that, "I am good, that's who's good!!!" As absurd as this looks on paper, yet we still most often act as if it were true; then there is an even a more absurd thought/action, "Well I may not be all that good--but I'm always right!" As in the tee that states, "You have every right to my own opinion!" And in honor of the absurd we both see and know, we begin to stop trying to achieve "the good"--which is not, sometimes, a bad place to start--or re-start!
Most difficult for us, esp. Christians, is to understand what Jesus replied to the Pharisees and Sadducees. i.e. "Why do you call me good?" Humanists often seize on this as proof that Jesus was a "good" (by what standard???) teacher but not God. The following sentence doesn't make it any easier for humanists or Christians but is ideal for the Deist, i.e. "God alone is good."
But do notice that Jesus did not deny being good any more than he denied being God. Because his questioners were not interested in His answer anyway, Jesus went straight to the Jewish method of answering questions with more questions, in so doing not only contradicting the questioner but exposing his motives as well. The person who starts to question Jesus with the preface, "Good teacher,what must we do....?" was and is usually speaking ironically and possibly sarcastically.
The motive is to dismiss Jesus and thereby dismiss all assaults on our self-made righteousness, which I would claim is a universal human response.
Jesus started with the assumption, and complete knowledge, that these men were in fact plotting to find an excuse to kill Him. And no one knew that better than He did, who also understood what is really Good, not just pleasant to all-too-human ears,the feelings of men, and our religious reflexes just to name a few.
Men in general try to, as Einstein observed, "Dismiss Christ with a bon mot."(my paraphrase) But, we usually say let's just do it, and the sooner the better, lest we be forced to deal with our own inadequacies, and our contradictory lust for Godhood and absolute autonomy, the latter being the greatest of all obvious lies, since we have never been autonomous at all, even at our "inception." Hence it would be better if we abandoned the insane attempt towards absurd levels of autonomy, for which we are so obviously not designed, and attempt rather what the AA slogan says,"Look for The Good", which, with the help of the Designer, is actually a reasonable goal."And your reasonable service."
Isn't Jesus GOOD?
Actually, I recently got into a stream of thought about "What is good" and "Who is good". First off, "He hath shown you O man what is good/and what does the Lord require of thee/ but to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God." -from the song from Micah 6:8. So it helps me to come to the table with the attitude that I am "without excuse." When we claim no longer to be able to identify the good things, that is a choice, never an inevitable conclusion. What it means is that we no longer have any taste or desire for the good, and that is a learned response or a jaded response or both.
More difficult and personal is the question, Who is good? If one has any access to one's inner thoughts or dreams, as in the recent movie "Inception", one must give up on the notion that, "I am good, that's who's good!!!" As absurd as this looks on paper, yet we still most often act as if it were true; then there is an even a more absurd thought/action, "Well I may not be all that good--but I'm always right!" As in the tee that states, "You have every right to my own opinion!" And in honor of the absurd we both see and know, we begin to stop trying to achieve "the good"--which is not, sometimes, a bad place to start--or re-start!
Most difficult for us, esp. Christians, is to understand what Jesus replied to the Pharisees and Sadducees. i.e. "Why do you call me good?" Humanists often seize on this as proof that Jesus was a "good" (by what standard???) teacher but not God. The following sentence doesn't make it any easier for humanists or Christians but is ideal for the Deist, i.e. "God alone is good."
But do notice that Jesus did not deny being good any more than he denied being God. Because his questioners were not interested in His answer anyway, Jesus went straight to the Jewish method of answering questions with more questions, in so doing not only contradicting the questioner but exposing his motives as well. The person who starts to question Jesus with the preface, "Good teacher,what must we do....?" was and is usually speaking ironically and possibly sarcastically.
The motive is to dismiss Jesus and thereby dismiss all assaults on our self-made righteousness, which I would claim is a universal human response.
Jesus started with the assumption, and complete knowledge, that these men were in fact plotting to find an excuse to kill Him. And no one knew that better than He did, who also understood what is really Good, not just pleasant to all-too-human ears,the feelings of men, and our religious reflexes just to name a few.
Men in general try to, as Einstein observed, "Dismiss Christ with a bon mot."(my paraphrase) But, we usually say let's just do it, and the sooner the better, lest we be forced to deal with our own inadequacies, and our contradictory lust for Godhood and absolute autonomy, the latter being the greatest of all obvious lies, since we have never been autonomous at all, even at our "inception." Hence it would be better if we abandoned the insane attempt towards absurd levels of autonomy, for which we are so obviously not designed, and attempt rather what the AA slogan says,"Look for The Good", which, with the help of the Designer, is actually a reasonable goal."And your reasonable service."
Isn't Jesus GOOD?
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Papa sang bass--Med School Tales Part III
I supp hose that there may be readers out there who would like me to stay on task, so here goes--I am rained out of the great outdoors soooo
It would only be appropriate to throw in the mention of the fact that, by virtue of my girlfriend and her mother, I was somewhat peripherally involved in a form of religion for about 4 1/2 years while all this was going on. It was based on the philosophy of Rudolf Steiner who was at one time a student of Annie Besant, the woman who founded Theosophy, one of the first successful British movements to embrace Eastern religion, with total rejection of Christianity. Dr. Steiner felt this was entirely inadequate but was still drawn to mysticism and eastern concepts; so his reaction was to found a philosophy called Anthroposophy, which is an attempt to merge Eastern philosophy and Christianity and science, by means of what he called spiritual science, and that involved clairvoyance, which was a pretty big deal at that time in Europe. It was actually an outgrowth of Gnosticism and repeated all the mistakes thereof, perhaps unknowingly, perhaps knowingly. In order to obtain higher knowledge, it was a matter of working towards it, in the usual religious manner of hoisting one's self up by one's own bootstraps and/or petards. In this way an elite is theoretically formed by works, a kind of a priesthood, but not of "all believers".
To my mind all of this is reactionary to the Person of Christ, if not the religion called Christianity, or perhaps both. The desire of probably all of us to belong to some ultraknowing in- group may be universal as far as the human race is concerned. Not once during all this time was I led to acquaint myself with the concept of Grace, all I knew was the tune, not the words much less the reality. At any rate, I am not unfamiliar with religion, both conceptually and experientially. As to the supernatural, I never did attain to any thing like clairvoyance but I did ask God to break in on occasion,albeit in my usual pushy and inappropriate manner. To say that this was undermotivated and halfhearted would be understated!
Some of you may be acquainted with Esperanza Schools, which are Steiner's most notable legacy and his most widespread currency of influence.
Meanwhile, back at the ranchero de Guadalajara, I was pressing said girlfriend to get me an early interview with her medical school, Chicago Medical School, in hopes of gaining an early entrance to avoid Vietnam and Mexico both, as well as get back to the girl. Even though I was learning a lot, much more than I knew which would eventually be most useful (Spanish), I did not want to do a second semester at the Automata.
Amazingly enough, she actually managed to do this so that I was actually able to get an interview and an acceptance while I was still in the United States for Christmas vacation!!! I suppose it didn't hurt anything that there was a profound Jewish influence at this school, so that Christmas vacation didn't get in the way very much!
Thus, I never returned to Mexico except for a brief vacation in Veracruz during my semester -long sabbatical that was to follow. The next six months were filled with activities such as getting interviews with the University of Illinois and Loyola, both of which went very well for some reason, unlike my experience at Stony Brook a year earlier. It was also six months of intense independent study. I found one of the first programmed texts, ironically on neuroanatomy, which gave me a very solid education on my own brain, at least as much as we knew at the time--compared to now, not very much. I am one of the few to graduate from medical school with almost no acquaintance with any cadaver! But I am getting ahead of said self...
Next time: THE TEST
It would only be appropriate to throw in the mention of the fact that, by virtue of my girlfriend and her mother, I was somewhat peripherally involved in a form of religion for about 4 1/2 years while all this was going on. It was based on the philosophy of Rudolf Steiner who was at one time a student of Annie Besant, the woman who founded Theosophy, one of the first successful British movements to embrace Eastern religion, with total rejection of Christianity. Dr. Steiner felt this was entirely inadequate but was still drawn to mysticism and eastern concepts; so his reaction was to found a philosophy called Anthroposophy, which is an attempt to merge Eastern philosophy and Christianity and science, by means of what he called spiritual science, and that involved clairvoyance, which was a pretty big deal at that time in Europe. It was actually an outgrowth of Gnosticism and repeated all the mistakes thereof, perhaps unknowingly, perhaps knowingly. In order to obtain higher knowledge, it was a matter of working towards it, in the usual religious manner of hoisting one's self up by one's own bootstraps and/or petards. In this way an elite is theoretically formed by works, a kind of a priesthood, but not of "all believers".
To my mind all of this is reactionary to the Person of Christ, if not the religion called Christianity, or perhaps both. The desire of probably all of us to belong to some ultraknowing in- group may be universal as far as the human race is concerned. Not once during all this time was I led to acquaint myself with the concept of Grace, all I knew was the tune, not the words much less the reality. At any rate, I am not unfamiliar with religion, both conceptually and experientially. As to the supernatural, I never did attain to any thing like clairvoyance but I did ask God to break in on occasion,albeit in my usual pushy and inappropriate manner. To say that this was undermotivated and halfhearted would be understated!
Some of you may be acquainted with Esperanza Schools, which are Steiner's most notable legacy and his most widespread currency of influence.
Meanwhile, back at the ranchero de Guadalajara, I was pressing said girlfriend to get me an early interview with her medical school, Chicago Medical School, in hopes of gaining an early entrance to avoid Vietnam and Mexico both, as well as get back to the girl. Even though I was learning a lot, much more than I knew which would eventually be most useful (Spanish), I did not want to do a second semester at the Automata.
Amazingly enough, she actually managed to do this so that I was actually able to get an interview and an acceptance while I was still in the United States for Christmas vacation!!! I suppose it didn't hurt anything that there was a profound Jewish influence at this school, so that Christmas vacation didn't get in the way very much!
Thus, I never returned to Mexico except for a brief vacation in Veracruz during my semester -long sabbatical that was to follow. The next six months were filled with activities such as getting interviews with the University of Illinois and Loyola, both of which went very well for some reason, unlike my experience at Stony Brook a year earlier. It was also six months of intense independent study. I found one of the first programmed texts, ironically on neuroanatomy, which gave me a very solid education on my own brain, at least as much as we knew at the time--compared to now, not very much. I am one of the few to graduate from medical school with almost no acquaintance with any cadaver! But I am getting ahead of said self...
Next time: THE TEST
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
When in doubt...
Here are a few excerpts from a letter of CS Lewis dated February 24, 1961 to Mary Willis Shelburne:
"... And as the comic Beatitudes says,' Blessed are they that expect little for they shall not be disappointed.'" -- Apparently Mary was getting married....
(I have been using this in modified form since I was at Northern Illinois University in 1967. I have not heard it very much since so I began to think it was original with me. Double rats! On the plus side, it actually works pretty well in many instances. Universal application is contraindicated.)
Resuming the MS:
"I hope and pray you will be able to do them some good, but probably if you do, it will not be by any voluntary and conscious actions. Your prayers for them will be more use. Probably the safe rule will be,'.When in doubt what to do or say, do or say nothing.' (Moriarty: "Curses, foiled again!" Stop)
"I feel this very much with my stepsons. I so easily meddle and gas: when all the time what will really influence them, for good or ill, is not anything I do or say but what I am. And this unfortunately one can't know and can't much alter, though God can. Two rules from William Law must always be in our minds:
1. 'There can be no surer proof of a confirmed pride than a belief that one is sufficiently humble.
2. I urge earnestly beseech all who conceive they have suffered an affront to believe that it is very much less than they suppose.' "
And finally for my father and all cat psychologists:
"I hope your vet is not a charlatan? Psychological diagnoses even about human patients seem to me pretty phony. They must be even phonier when applied to animals. You can't put a cat on a couch and make it tell you what it dreams or produce words by free association. Also -- I have a great respect for cats -- they are shrewd people and will probably see through the analyst a good deal better than he would see through them."
(And if you think there is a great deal of consistency between "scientists" of the behavioral kind in regards to the diagnosis in any given individual I have some interesting studies to share with you! It really still depends on the atmosphere of the moment and on even more so on what the patient wants you to believe. As I've said before, usually people are either exactly what they say they are or the exact opposite. Telling the difference is opaque even to the most brilliant, or should I say, especially to the most brilliant minds who have a far greater capacity to rationalize and deceive themselves than the rest of us.)
"... And as the comic Beatitudes says,' Blessed are they that expect little for they shall not be disappointed.'" -- Apparently Mary was getting married....
(I have been using this in modified form since I was at Northern Illinois University in 1967. I have not heard it very much since so I began to think it was original with me. Double rats! On the plus side, it actually works pretty well in many instances. Universal application is contraindicated.)
Resuming the MS:
"I hope and pray you will be able to do them some good, but probably if you do, it will not be by any voluntary and conscious actions. Your prayers for them will be more use. Probably the safe rule will be,'.When in doubt what to do or say, do or say nothing.' (Moriarty: "Curses, foiled again!" Stop)
"I feel this very much with my stepsons. I so easily meddle and gas: when all the time what will really influence them, for good or ill, is not anything I do or say but what I am. And this unfortunately one can't know and can't much alter, though God can. Two rules from William Law must always be in our minds:
1. 'There can be no surer proof of a confirmed pride than a belief that one is sufficiently humble.
2. I urge earnestly beseech all who conceive they have suffered an affront to believe that it is very much less than they suppose.' "
And finally for my father and all cat psychologists:
"I hope your vet is not a charlatan? Psychological diagnoses even about human patients seem to me pretty phony. They must be even phonier when applied to animals. You can't put a cat on a couch and make it tell you what it dreams or produce words by free association. Also -- I have a great respect for cats -- they are shrewd people and will probably see through the analyst a good deal better than he would see through them."
(And if you think there is a great deal of consistency between "scientists" of the behavioral kind in regards to the diagnosis in any given individual I have some interesting studies to share with you! It really still depends on the atmosphere of the moment and on even more so on what the patient wants you to believe. As I've said before, usually people are either exactly what they say they are or the exact opposite. Telling the difference is opaque even to the most brilliant, or should I say, especially to the most brilliant minds who have a far greater capacity to rationalize and deceive themselves than the rest of us.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
