The Voice From The Back Row

Election night came as a shock to me, as it did to many other people.  How could this person, who exhibited no sign of culture or civilized behavior, who had been spewing vitriol at almost everybody, except other vitriol spewers,  and towards whom I felt gut-prompted physical recoil even more than a mental disagreement – how could this person win? One of my fellow election night watchers burst into sobs as the result became evident.

I am not known for being “politically correct.”  I do not consider “progressive” to be holy writ, nor do I give the term “staunch conservative” the status of sacred tradition.  I tend to land somewhere in the middle, and to speak out, often bluntly offending the sensitivities of both polarized sides. This election has obliterated the middle ground, sundering our nation into two polarized and warring camps.  I can only hope we do not devolve into civil conflict.

In 1982, Dark Crystal, a perhaps prescient film, one ahead of its time, premiered.  Through the medium of animation, it tells the story of a deep division in the world, symbolized by a fractured crystal.  The parallel to now is striking.  It is not new or old; it is timeless.  I recommend viewing it, if at all possible.  Then, discuss it.

The truth is that we need the right and the left, the progressive and the conservative.  Listening to each other without recrimination, opening to the expectation that some of what the other avers may actually be valuable, is the key to healing our rift and finding middle ground.  If we cannot do that, then our nation is indeed in trouble, even in danger of ceasing to exist as a democracy.  We need to incorporate the idea of being our brother’s keeper, to question how our own beliefs can accommodate the needs and values of each other.  Forcing people to become righteously left or stalwartly right does not work.  It has brought us to where we are now.

This election has been a wake-up call.  It is up to us where we go from here.  Can we heal our nation and ourselves?  May we wake up in time.

Peace,  Diane

I tend to get a fairly large number of solicitations in the mail. They are not quite as voluminous as the ones received over email, but it still takes time to go through them and decide to which, if any, of them I am willing and able to respond.  Some end up filed in the wastebasket, some are saved for further consideration, and some make it through to a response.

Recently, I received a communication from a fairly well-known religious organization (exactly which one is not relevant here) asking for money to finance efforts to convert people of other faiths or not faith to the “one true religion”  (theirs).   I do not argue with faith.   However, it seems a dauntingly difficult task to figure out from the outside which of the many “one true” religions is the real thing.  Adherents of each religion understandably believe that theirs is the best.  Otherwise, why would he or she participate?

Although not always apparent, there is a great depth to religious faith, a liberating depth that enriches those who encounter and remain in it.   Religion has been with us from the beginning,  and in its presence, the deeper concepts of humanity have developed and grown.  Yet, there are also negatives, often glaring ones.  People have been oppressed and murdered in the name of religion, and cultures destroyed.  Some, seeing only the negatives, wish to marginalize or destroy all religion. Others continue to doggedly battle from their perspective for the “one true” religion (or the “one true” non-religion).   Perhaps none of those is correct.

With the possible exception of religions with which I am not familiar, such as Satanism,  I know of no religion which does not have at its core such values as acknowledging the presence of a higher power called God, the One,  the Divine, the Force, or by many other names,  respect for life, love as a way of being, some form of prayer, discipline in one’s practice, charitable actions, non-violence as a preference, and stewardship.

It is the forms of our religions which differ.  By forms, I mean not only rituals, but also the ways we perceive, express, and understand God.  The forms are decidedly different,  enough to create friction between practitioners of each when it is primarily the form that is focused upon.  We live in a physical universe.  It is easy to comprehend the physicality of bodies, nature, even the cosmos.  Less obvious is that thoughts take form as well.  However timeless and formless their origin, the energy of thought passes through the human mind as it enters the physical world, and becomes thought.  (I am not speaking here of any possible thought processes of plants or animals.)   In that process of entering physicality, the singular energy of thought origin is formatted by our mind into what humans can perceive and understand.  That varies by culture, situations, and experienced history.

For example, the Native American who perceives God in every atom of nature is not (mistakenly, as some would judge)  polytheistic. His religion certainly understands the One Great Spirit.   However, he perceives and honors that Spirit through Its creations.  What is the conflict with those whose strongest perception is One, only, but that creation also needs to be cared for?

It seems to me that where we stumble, fail to live up to the core values of respect, loving kindness, non-violence, connection with the Divine, is our insistence that everything be “same”, that if it is not “same” that it is ipso facto “more” or “less”.    We are obsessed with sameness, as if sameness were defined as as oneness or equality.  It is as if we are telling the Divine that only one of its expressions is valid.  No wonder we get out of balance!

Does that mean that the forms of religions are wrong?    Far from it.  To be in physicality means to have form.  The core values, the spiritual messaging we get from the formless and timeless realm of the Divine must be perceived in form by us who are physical.  It is not the form that is wrong.  It is the construct of the form without the content of the central message, the core values.   That kind of form is in actuality not religion  It is empty form, and it does not act in accord with Divine values.

 

Which form is the true one, then?    It is the one which best allows the practitioner to apprehend the Divine, and to understand the direction in which humanity is meant to progress.   Religions exhort their adherents to be faithful in their discipline and exercise their virtues, and even to witness how those have helped them.  True religion, however, forbids us to judge each other, to make any “better” or “worse”, except in the context of the personal choice which suits us best and for which we are each responsible.

 

Let us then, refrain from rending religion from the fabric of our existence, leaving behind a gaping hole of emptiness.  Let us also use language responsibly, naming religion for what it is, form filled with living values from the timeless and formless realm of the Divine.

 

Peace,  Diane

 

It is an exquisite fall day;  a plenitude of sunshine dances with a wind of change. The temperature is mild, and the door of my workplace is open to the invigorating autumn air. The day is at once energizing and peaceful.  It is a welcome hiatus. However, the winds of change still blow, and beyond this present moment in this present spot, changes are struggling to be born.

The specific changes are myriad.  Some are moderate, some radical.  Some bring new perspectives, while others are firmer and deeper manifestations of the what currently exists.  Often, the nascent changes are accompanied by struggle, by protest or resistance.  Resistance is a double-edged technique. It raises awareness and stops the smooth, unhindered progress of the status quo.  Resistance also tends to create or attract more of what is being resisted.

That is not to say that resistance and protest are useless for remediating injustice or stopping undesired action.  On the contrary, voices need to be raised, marches made, demonstrations documented.  The light of awareness needs to be cast upon injustice or on that which can no longer serve, pulling these things out of the underground of silence, where they can continue unnoticed and unhindered.

The catch is that the momentum of protest, even strong protest, eventually runs its course and dissipates, as does a storm.  The awareness raised sinks back into the anonymity of silence, and the status quo continues. The injustice can weather the storm.  Protest can also raise resistance against the protest itself, with a resultant vortex  of oppositions that circle, going nowhere.

Protest is a highly effective short term tactic.  It is effective when it is followed by its long term sibling, creativity.  It is not enough to protest what is not desired.  Another, more viable way, a way which serves all of those involved, must be bought forth to replace that which is no longer useful.  The winds of change may blow in the idea, but it needs to progress into a more stable and grounded form.  True creativity constructs a working model, a blueprint and a prototype, to demonstrate that which is desired.  It then expands the model, bit by bit. As the quote attributed to Gandhi says, “Be the change you wish to see.”

Whether the change we wish to see is a more equitable arrangement of household chores, a more human-centered workplace, the cessation of fossil fuels piped across our land, a technology that respects and includes the Earth, the equitable sharing of wealth, a cooperative and sustainable lifestyle, or any of a myriad of changes, we need to create, along with others of like mind.  The vision of what we desire must precede us.  Protest can raise awareness, but for a change to be born and flourish, it must also be lived.

Let us live our visions of justice, love, peace, sustainability, the fruitfulness of the Earth, and the well-being of our fellow travelers upon our planet.  Let us in that way create what we wish to see.

 

Peace,  Diane

I teach children.  I teach them not in public school, but after school, in the afternoons and evenings.  I have taught children from preschool through seventh grade, mostly in various kinds of language arts, and sometimes in social studies and basic math.  The nice thing about this kind of teaching is that I also get to teach them things not on a curriculum or in a course – things such as kindness, adherence to truth, work habits, appreciation of their talents, and the like.   The down side is observing that the children seem to be learning less and less in school, with the exception that they have mostly become expert at making computers do things for them.

This progression towards mastering the computer, apparently at the expense of some other kinds of learning, has been fairly rapid.    When I started teaching my first class in 2001, children were still using the chalkboard, pencils and paper, books and workbooks, learning English phonics, syntax, penmanship, and even memorizing addition facts and times tables.

Now, with the exception of children who read books with attention, and whose parents talk with them at home in educated English, reading skills have generally devolved. Reading material  now includes material such as used to be relegated to comic books (which are now often called graphic novels, readily available on the Internet), and the classics are rarely read by choice.  The memorization of poetry or sections of classic literature or historical passages has all but disappeared.  Writing skills, both stylistic and structural, such as grammar, have deteriorated;  penmanship and proofreading are becoming unknown (the computer does those), memorization of addition facts and times tables are relegated to computer assisted tasks,  and children find it more difficult to compile in their own words information that used to be found in books, but which is now gleaned from the Internet.   (It is easier and more convenient to use the copy and paste function than to copy by hand from several books and include that unfortunate copying in one’s handwritten or typed essay – in other words, easier to plagiarize,)

The child who cannot read or write well, or calculate well, is handicapped, but can still function on an average level, given computer assistance.   The child who cannot master use of the computer is as sidetracked as is an illiterate person. Teachers, bless them, are often being given larger classes and required to teach more via the computer than in the personal manner that allows them to connect individually with students. Increasingly, schools are not using books for lessons.  Testing is standardized and online.  In some schools, it is increasingly difficult for a parent to get a personal interview with a teacher about his or her child; the expectation is that everything – conferences, homework, projects, record keeping – is handled online.

There is another related trend, too.   It is called STEM – science, technology, engineering and math.   This group of subjects is being encouraged, even pushed, at the expense of what are considered “soft” subjects, such as the arts, music, drama, or even non-competitive physical education.  The money goes to STEM.   The money goes to technology.  The arts-related creative subjects suffer for lack of funding, time and recognition.   Why?

The most often cited reason is that the computerized system saves money, as it requires fewer teachers, books, materials, and record keeping time.   Another common reason given is that the jobs of the future are all STEM related, and that if one wants one’s child to succeed, one will ensure that STEM classes are mastered.  Yet another given reason is efficiency, and an easier ensuring that all children receive the same education.

I wonder, though.   At home, too, parenting is often done by technology such as the TV, video games, computers.  Tired parents find it easier to let technology occupy their children until bedtime, with homework performed on the computer or entertainment generated in cyberspace.   The trend is not complete, but it seems our children are being led deeper and deeper into Cyberspace, away from the Earth, and away from us.   Even their communications with each other are often done with devices, rather than face to face.   If I am correct, then humanity may be headed in a direction that we have not thought about and toward which we may not wish to go.

Cyberspace is virtual.  It has little connection to created Earth, if one believes in Creation, or to Earth as it has naturally evolved.  It is a world unto itself, dependent for now only on a source of energy from the Earth.  Skills necessary in Cyberspace are not the ones needed to live physically on Earth.  We have already lost many of those skills. Cyberspace does not take care of the Earth; such issues as pollution, destruction of habitat, or climate change are irrelevant in Cyberspace.

Technology is a wonderful and powerful tool.  It can also be addictive, and create a dependency upon it beyond its use simply as a tool.   There is an old illustration of the dangers of dependency:  to hire a cook, if one can afford to,  is a pleasing luxury.   However, even with a cook, one needs to know how to negotiate a kitchen and prepare food. Otherwise, what happens if the cook suddenly leaves or if one can no longer afford the cook?  It may not be possible to find another quickly.   Similarly, what happens if the power is out for a long period, for whatever reason?   What if our computers and devices cease to work?  We need to rethink where we are going.   Do we want a world in which lives are lived in Cyberspace instead of nature?  Do we want to forget the skills that have served us well, skills of memory and knowledge and practical application?  Even if a computer can do many of these for us, do we want to be dependent on the computer to do for us that which we can no longer do for ourselves?

Let us make a conscious choice instead of simply going with the flow without thinking about it very much.   Let us adjust our teaching, parenting and living to suit.    It is worth the effort.

 

Peace,  Diane