The Voice From The Back Row

A number of years ago, I took an art class, just for fun.  It wasn’t because I thought I was a great artist.  I enjoy creating things, and wanted a “time out” of enjoyment, and also perhaps to improve my mediocre drawing skills.  My drawings remained unremarkable, but I learned the necessity of looking at things the way they are, trying to observe their details with accuracy.  I also learned the concept of negative spaces.

Negative spaces does not mean unpleasant or objectionable areas.  It simply means that what an artist creates is not defined by the actual image created, but by the blank spaces around it.  One example is that of the sculptor, who chisels away what is NOT his image to reveal what is.  The creator of drawings does the same; if the negative (empty?) spaces are noted and reproduced, the image itself emerges.  One might think that this phenomenon is limited to art.  However, science has a similar concept when it studies black energy – the energy we do not see in which the energy which we can perceive is immersed.

It would appear, then, that everything that exists in our three-dimensional world is created through the simultaneous creation of its opposite.  Joy and sorrow are two sides of the same coin, as are peace and war, abundance and want, wet and dry, and so on.  Things that exist seem to be defined as much by what they are not as by anything we can say about them.   Most of us, though, do not recognize this duality as a part of creation.   We want everything to be the same, and so take one of  a pair of dualities and demonize that side, rather than understanding it.

We make the same mistake when we think about justice, civil rights, and how to accept what is.  Instead of understanding and allowing for differences, coming to a balance within variety, we tend to want everything to be the same, and we judge what is not.   The error is that creation itself is sustained by differences; without differences, creation devolves into a mass of sameness, similar to the amorphous mass called the Dominion from the Star Trek series Deep Space Nine.  We seem unable to assign full value to that which is different from ourselves without first making it same.

Gender, race and ethnicity are three “biggies” of the current times.  In order for all to be treated equally, all must first be made the same. Yet, differences remain. There are different genders, and different cultures within races and ethnicities, and exceptions to patterns.  True equal treatment cannot happen until those differences are taken into account, valued, and just action taken incorporating those differences.  Treating everyone as if all were same invariably violates the needs of someone.  Equal valuing and equal meeting of needs can be possible; equal sameness is an unachievable illusion, unless one wishes to reduce our rich and varied society to mass anonymity.

No, we should not grant more resources, more privilege, more respect to some than to others.  That is neither justice nor equality.  Each of us benefits from the differences of our fellow members of creation.  My neighbor’s need to play loud ethnic music may conflict with my need for relative quiet. Neither his music nor my preference for quiet are better. What is needed is to value both, talk with each other, and agree on how to respect each other’s needs.  A law about who can play what when is not necessarily a fair solution for us both, as such a law also decides when he may party and when I must sleep. It also discourages constructive communication between us.  Although we can legislate large, basic issues such as traffic flow and not shooting each other, we cannot legislate fairness.  It must be negotiated issue by issue on the basis of those involved.  We create our own reality as we decide individually and together what we will and will not do.

Legislated, top down, get-on-the-bandwagon campaigns for answers are rarely solutions.  Let us instead stand apart from the bandwagons and speak and listen to each other with mutual respect.

Peace,     Diane

 

The news has been full of controversy over what constitutes a man or a woman and what public bathroom(s) are to be open to whom.  Emotions are strong on each side.  From an observer’s point of view, however, the primary message seems to be confusion.  Words simply do not mean what they have always meant.  Take, for example, the legislation in North Carolina, which states that a person is the gender noted on his or her birth certificate, and must use the bathroom indicated for that gender.  Minus the birth certificate, that is what always has been done.  However, transgender people, defined as people who are one gender inside (how they feel they are) and another gender outside (what their bodies show)  can and do change their physical appearance upon adulthood to reflect with their bodies the gender they feel they are.  In North Carolina, then, a man born as a woman would have to use the women’s bathroom – not a comfort for either them or the women who regularly use the bathroom reserved for them.  Sound confusing?  It is.

Other states dispense with the birth certificate requirement, and say simply that anyone can use whichever bathroom they feel they are.   Thus, at any given moment, an apparent man may turn up on the women’s bathroom or an apparent woman may turn up in the men’s bathroom.   After all, some men are not really men and some women are not really women.  (doublespeak??)

Yet other states throw up their hands in frustration, and say anyone can use any bathroom at any time; all communal bathrooms are now unisex.  This is to provide equal rights to women who are men inside or men who are women inside or to those who have undergone change of sex operations.  It is to avoid being wrong by discriminating.  After all, men and women are no longer distinct, as they are what they claim to be.

I respect the difficulties that transgender people undergo, especially when they are young and unable to make the choice to have a sex-change operation.  They do have rights, rights to be respected, rights to not be bullied or disparaged, rights to be employed on the basis of their ability to do a job, rights to the same legal rights we all have, including being able to use public bathrooms.  However, those of us who are not transgender also have rights.  Some of us have religious  restrictions about how much of our bodies we can reveal to the opposite sex.   Many – I would even say most – women do not want a man in the bathroom with them, not just when they are using the toilet, but also when they are applying makeup, or just chatting with the girls.  I am sure that there are also men who are uncomfortable with women sharing the same bathroom with them.  These people also have rights.  They have rights to privacy and comfort, rights which are being taken from them in the name of not denying the rights of a minority.   Given that transgender adults have the option of having a sex-change operation, what is then wrong by simply saying if a person has the body of a man, s/he uses the men’s bathroom; if s/he has the body of a woman, s/he uses the women’s bathroom?  After all, a bathroom is a place where bodily functions are taken care of, not where inner issues are resolved.  (A more costly remedy would be to replace all common public bathrooms with a series of private unisex bathrooms, thus providing everyone with the accommodation needed.)

Which leaves the problem of transgender children, who cannot yet undergo sex-change operations.   Private bathrooms is the kindest solution for all concerned.  Some elementary schools already have these – an attached bathroom for each classroom.   Transgender children would prefer to be recognized not as transgender, or “odd”, but as the gender they want to be.  From thence comes the desire to use the bathroom of the opposite (body) gender. However, using any particular bathroom will not keep their secret.  The classmates generally know what is going on. Forcing traditionally oriented children to accept that there is no longer much meaning to boy or girl, as both sexes are same (instead of equally valued) is not an answer.   Instead of doing handstands about bathrooms, why not teach the children to respect those who are different, whether transgender, handicapped, emotionally or academically different, without teasing, bullying and ostracizing?   That is where the real problem lies.

It is not necessary to engage in convoluted brouhaha about bathrooms, or to change the definition of words so that they no longer mean exactly what they have meant.   It is necessary for people to accept themselves for what they are, problems and all, and for people to accept others who are different as equally valuable people.  It is necessary to respect each others’ “rights”, and to realize that no one is entitled.   Rights are not seized by force or legislation.  They are granted to each other by mutual respect and cooperation,  and with the realization that we are all connected, and each of us has value.

All of us have “rights”,  those who are transgender, those who are gay or traditional or handicapped or whatever the difference.  Let’s drop the conflict, keep intact the definitions of words, which allows for coherent conversation, and begin the conversation without dividing into opposing camps.

Peace,  Diane

 

I do not like guns.   I do not own a gun, and would be quite happy living in a world where guns had not been invented. Bows and arrows suffice quite well for any needed hunting.  That said, I find myself in the strange position of disagreeing with the anti-gun lobbyists, whose opinions range the spectrum from denying guns to citizens,  to creating a barricade of regulations, to holding manufacturers and sellers of guns responsible for what owners of guns do with those guns.

A maze of restrictions and regulations will do little to ameliorate the situation we seem to have developed over the past decade of guns being used by people, insane, criminal or otherwise, to murder innocent children and adults.  On the surface, it might seem that the regulations will keep guns out of the hands of violent people, but in actuality, whoever wants a gun badly enough will manage to get one, through the underground, by theft or by some other means.  The history of getting around prohibited items by criminal means attests to this.  It would need to be a more draconian regime than has heretofore existed to eliminate guns by enforcing regulatory means.  I think most of us would not like to live under such a regime.

A stronger step, taking guns away from private citizens (except, perhaps, from registered hunters) also creates more problems than it solves.   Assuming that it can be successfully done (draconian regime??), that would leave guns in the hands of the police and the military.  We have already seen examples of what happens when the police are armed and the populace are not.  Those examples have been quite prominent in the news.  History shows that an armed military and an unarmed populace tends to end in those guns being used to enforce martial law.  Well, then, some might say. Let’s take the guns away from the police and home-based military, too.  Are we willing to have the police and the military at home equally deprived of guns?

The problem with such solutions seems to be one of “who will bell the cat?”  Who will be the first to give up weapons?   After all, if we are not ready to fight back, someone may well attack.  It is a problem of human attitudes towards one another, and towards life generally.  We are competitive, untrusting, and determined to get the best for ourselves, irregardless of how we do that.   In such a milieu, disarming some while arming others does not seem like a very good idea.

So, not having a ready solution, we turn to another option – the scapegoat.  We blame the gun manufacturers and the gun salespeople for the situation of murderers using guns.  Yes, we cite background checks, done or not.  Background checks are good, but even if they are religiously done, it is not possible to find out through them who it is that is inclined to kill people.  SOMEONE, we say, has to be accountable and pay the price for others’ suffering.  So we create a scapegoat, and push for the punishment of the scapegoat.

We are not thinking of what really needs to be done.  The underlying assumption of a society in which guns are perceived to be needed either for aggression or defense needs to be altered.  The idea that one cannot prosper without the equivalent loss to someone else needs to be changed.  The idea that one cannot be good unless someone else is bad, winner unless someone else is loser, needs to be debunked.  The thought that bullying shows strength needs to  be shown for the false idea that it is.

Granted, this is a tall order.  Things have become quite complicated since the days of small towns where people could leave their doors unlocked.  But, if that level of trust existed once, certainly it can again, if people are willing to embrace it.  The addition of more regulation, attempts to police such regulation, or even attempts to make guns scarce will not work.  The creation of scapegoats will not work.  I do understand the pain of those who have suffered.  I do not believe that this is how the human experience was designed to work.  However, the creation of scapegoats will serve only to postpone awareness of the real problems, and further delay steps in creating a less violent world.  Each of us, in our own small way, needs to start now to create more trust, compassion and sharing with those around us.  May we succeed in that endeavor.

Peace,   Diane

“What a perfect day!  The trees are blooming, the birds are singing, and a warm breeze blows.”   “What an excellent day! The sun is shining, the sky is blue, and there is no traffic on the road!”

These are different statements with different details, yet the words “perfect” and “excellent” are interchangeable between them.  In fact, most people use these words as synonyms, and many, including myself, are tripped up by the assumption that excellence and perfection are the same.  A deeper look, however, reveals an essential difference.

The American Heritage Dictionary, new College edition, defines “excellent” as “being of the highest or finest quality, exceptionally good, superb”.  It defines “perfect” as “complete of its nature or kind; without defect”.   The Unabridged edition of the Random House Dictionary is not much different, defining “excellent” as “remarkably good’ extraordinary”, and “perfect” as “beyond practical or theoretical improvement; without flaws or shortcomings; correct in every detail”.

What stands out is that perfection is a completed process.  It is a destination, a final state, beyond which growth does not occur.  It is static.  Excellence, on the other hand, is exceptional and extraordinary, but it is not a completed process.  It is ongoing and dynamic.  It is growth.

I submit that, dictionaries aside, there is no real definition of perfection.  If asked for details of perfection, a hundred different people will have a hundred varied answers. Perfection is subjective, an assumption in the minds of individuals.  Humanity cannot agree on perfection.  Perfection is static, having ceased to grow, hence to live.  Perfection, in fact, does not exist. It is an illusion to which people subscribe.

Excellence, on the other hand, is a continual engagement in learning, growing, becoming at a greater level than the one at which one currently exists.  It is alive and enlivening. It fuels our lives, our progress and our success, to the extent to which we realize and embrace excellence.  Excellence does, in fact, exist.

It is therefore useless to chastise oneself for not being perfect.  One CANNOT be perfect, because perfect does not exist, at least not on a plane that humans can understand. Penalizing oneself for not being perfect is akin to punishing oneself for being alive.  It is operating from the base of a fairytale, an ungrounded assumption.

The pursuit of excellence, however, is most beneficial.  As excellence is an ongoing process, we are guilt free for not having achieved a specific end.  We are enlivened by the pursuit, and nourished by the achievement of steps along the way.  Excellence brings hope.  We are not stuck and doomed where we are, because we are not at a final end.  The pursuit of excellence carries us forward.  Excellence is life force, waiting for us to partake of it.

May we all let go of guilt over not reaching an illusion.  May we all drink deeply of the life force of excellence.

Peace,     Diane