Showing posts with label inner skills. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inner skills. Show all posts

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Piaf by Cotillard: An Insight into Deep Learning

16 October 2011

I have just finished a run-through of "La Vie En Rose," the filmed biographical portrayal of Edith Piaf, as performed by Marion Cotillard.

In brief, Ms. Piaf's short life was not at all a happy one, though it was long on adventure, discovery, improbable twists and creativity.

The French love this film, which despite being created in the French Language, saw Ms. Cotillard win the 2007 Best Actress Academy Award for her performance. (She bested Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth, among others.)

My comment here is brief. What fascinated me is how Ms. Cotillard studied for her leading role in the film. She spent many hours reviewing historical information and documentary footage concerning Ms. Piaf.

However, she emphasizes that she never attempted to imitate Ms. Piaf's voice, gestures or mannerisms. Rather, she immersed herself in understanding who Ms. Piaf was....

The consequence? Critic after critic remarked that she had captured the very spirit of Edith Piaf.

The immediate lesson? Comprehension trumps imitation.

Once having seen it, you will not be able to forget this film. It burrows into deep places, and thus lingers afterwards.

The broader life lesson?

Don't plan a life based on "what" or "how" you want your life to be. Focus on who you want to be. The rest will follow.
_

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Background Music

20 August 2009

I play background music all day when I'm at my office. I do so as well on the rarer occasions when I have a little time to relax at home in the evenings.

The secret of background music is that it has to be interesting and agreeable, but unobtrusive. Thus, heavily orchestrated arrangements don't work well.


Here are a few examples of CDs that I have found to constitute enjoyable background listening:

My present favourite is Sol Gabetta's Il Progetto Vivaldi, gorgeous, rich, complex, unobtrusive and in fact perfect cello. I am so entranced by Gabetta's graceful performances that I literally can't stop playing this particular CD.

Alexander Paley's refined and subtle interpretation of Bach's Goldberg Variations are a delight to the ear.

I am also enjoying the Ornette Coleman Trio, "At the 'Golden Circle' Stockholm."

Consider as well Newsound's two-disc Charlie Parker collection (image unavailable).

For those of you who have listened only to R. Carlos Nakai, try Kyle Councillor's "Livin the Good Life" for traditional North American Aboriginal flute music, one of my great favourites.

John Coltrane's Giant Steps is one of the greatest of all jazz classics, and unobtrusive enough to serve as auditory context for a mellow day.

And Blue Trane is also a great backgrounder.

On a classical note, try the Orford String Quartet's "Mozart String Quartets."

For classical Spanish guitar, "The Legendary Segovia" cannot be faulted.

Julian Bream's "Music of Spain" provides perfect melodies and rhythms when used to add context to almost any worthy activity.

From the classic jazz page, consider Brubeck's milestone recording, "Time Out" for some adventures in time - that is, adventures with variable time signatures.... "Take Five" was the first jazz instrumental to sell a million copies. ("Time Further Out" is also worth taking a look at.)

One of my perennial favourites, and one of the first albums I ever owned, is Miles Davis' Sketches of Spain. It's easy to listen to, and I particularly like this one late at night.

Now I'm going to get into some picks that may or may not work for you as background music, depending on the circumstances. But I consider all of these too interesting not to mention. Only this summer, we visited the Big Jonathan Centre of the Selkirk (Northern Tutchone) Nation in the Yukon, where Jerry Alfred is an elder. His recordings are featured at Big Jonathan House. I've been listening to Mr. Alfred's music for years - a combination of traditional and contemporary elements. It is haunting and hypnotic. Try Etsi Shon (Grandfather Songs) as an introduction.

While we're talking about old favourites, try Skeleton Woman, inspired by the writings of Clarissa Pinkola Estes.

Another of Susan's and my great favourites, usually played during the Christmas season, is James Galway's "Winter's Crossing," telling the tale in music of the men and women who crossed by sea from Northern Ireland to North America. Caution, these compositions are haunting, magical and spiritually dense.

And while we're talking dense, magical and complex, consider Oliver Schroer's brilliant, dissonant violin renderings recorded in Spanish cathedrals during the artist's pilgrimage through Spain.

And as we wander further afield, please direct your attention to Robert Johnson's original 1936 and 1937 recordings, completed shortly before his untimely death. Johnson is arguably the most important of all Delta blues musicians and composers. His music is raw, intricate, haunting, at times disturbing, and ultimately deeply engaging. Note that there were no "studios" at the time these classic compositions were committed to wax. This music works best for me after the sun has set.

My final pick will serve as background music only in certain circumstances. The disc features considerable variation in dynamic range, style, taste and genre. But combined, these selections are magical. Literally intended for Valentine celebrations, this two-disc set is from Deutsche Grammophon: "Be My Valentine: Music for Two."

Let me re-emphasize that the earlier picks are suitable for background listening in many situations. Obviously many more in this genre could have been selected.

The later picks are for various reasons more specialized or idiosyncratic. What all of the above have in common is that they have proven themselves to be enduring favourites in my music library.


And for those who need to know, I do not own an MP3 player. These are CDs!
_

Monday, June 16, 2008

Jian Ghomeshi: A Deep Breath of New LIfe for Canadian Culture

15 June 2008, updated 16 June 2008, 20 September 2009, 21 March 2011 & 31 October 2014

(This article was originally posted on June 15, 2008. Very recently, multiple women have come forward publicly to disclose Mr. Ghomeshi's consistent pattern of physically abusive behaviour towards them. I have decided to leave the article unchanged, but there is an addendum at the close of the article, addressing the issue of Mr. Ghomeshi's allegedly abusive pattern of behaviour. In brief, it has quickly become clear that he has problems with understanding consent and behavioural boundaries in general.)

Jian Ghomeshi has been growing on me.

Here's how far I've come.

I have been a regular CBC Radio listener since moving to Canada in December 1971. I am (or have been) a devotee of Don Harron, Peter Gzowski, Barbara Frum, Alan Maitland, Lister Sinclair, Arthur Black, Michael Enright, Rex Murphy, Rick MacInnes-Rae, Holger Petersen, Eleanor Wachtel, Nora Young, Randy Bachman, Bob McDonald, Stuart McLean, Rick Phillips, James Keelaghan, Andrea Ratuski... and many more.

I am also an opponent of the CBC cutbacks, which have been ongoing since I arrived in Canada.

While I hold to post-liberal, quasi-libertarian views about the need for governments to do less with respect to economic management and business development, I am a huge advocate of high quality infrastructure - in my view, that is what governments do best. Top calibre infrastructure is critical to all aspects of quality of life in free societies.

In my view, CBC Radio represents the cultural infrastructure of Canada. The CBC has always done its job right - exceedingly well, in fact.

Because CBC Radio is important to me (I'm not a television watcher), I hold high expectations for this institution. I have often commented that giving up the CBC is the main thing that stops me from moving back to the United States (though I suppose the CBC is now available as a Sirius satellite radio channel or as a podcast - both forms of media which I am unlikely to use unless my life slows down quite a bit from its present pace).

Therefore, when Jian Ghomeshi launched a new arts-culture-entertainment show aimed at Generation X-Y sensibilities, my immediate response was instinctively negative - and visceral. I felt sickened.

(My longstanding deepest and darkest fear is of ending my days in an anonymous seniors' residence staffed by members of a younger generation who would play heavy metal, rap and hiphop music in the background 24 hours a day!)

Ghomeshi's radio program Q (named, I believe, for the Studio from which it is broadcast) first aired on April 16, 2007. For the first several weeks, if not months, I couldn't stand the show. I used to shut Gomeshi off and listen to Segovia on my car's CD player.

I can tell you exactly what I found annoying about Ghomeshi as well. To my ears (never having seen him) he had all the aggravating traits of a pierced and tattooed, trend-following, know-nothing 20 or 30-something. He was too self-conscious. He laughed at himself excessively.

Ghomeshi was not targeting his show at my generational stratum, and he had some rough spots which seriously annoyed me.

Fast forward to June 2008.

I can now honestly state that my perception of Ghomeshi has evolved to the point that he has become perhaps my favourite current CBC Radio personality.

I haven't enjoyed anyone this much at the CBC since the days of Peter Gzowski, whom I only once met in person (Mr. Gzowski was too preoccupied jonesing for a smoke at a Frontier College literacy fundraiser to be in a position to make casual conversation; Gzowski read several of my letters on air, in particular some thoughts I had about Louis Riel and the Red River Rebellion - and I'm quite satisfied with that).

What triggered my turnaround on Ghomeshi?

In brief, it was Ghomeshi's interviews. Not only did he have a knack for asking the right question and pressing the right point - which of course was always Gzowski's strength; he also had the ability to build upon the rapport he established with his guests to enable them to be direct and candid with us as radio listeners.

I had taken an initial dislike to Ghomeshi's personality - but Ghomeshi's interviews weren't about him. In fact, he has proven to be strikingly unself-centred. Ghomeshi's interviews were thoroughly about his guests, and that was refreshing.

Additionally, his guests are not all 20 and 30-somethings. I discovered - to my surprise - that he can keep pace with senior "heavyweight" interviewees as well.

So how much time do I now waste listening to Ghomeshi interviews?

Zero. The time is simply not wasted.

This guy is asking the questions I would ask if I knew what questions to ask.

And I confess - I don't know how to approach people in the way that Ghomeshi does. In fact, very, very few of us do. And this is why we need the Gzowskis - and the Ghomeshis - of the world.

The unique but limited cadre of insightful interviewers - among whose numbers I count Ghomeshi as an elite member - demonstrate a deep love and respect for the human spirit, and they reveal it in their conversations, bringing us, their listeners, closer to that place of heightened awareness which they inhabit. It is a good place to be.

Ghomeshi has defined arts, culture and entertainment broadly for his new radio program. Broadly enough that quite a few of his guests hold no intrinsic interest for me... until Ghomeshi talks to them, that is.

Whether it is an aspiring hiphop artist (not a genre that interests me), Katee Sackhoff and Grace Park of Battlestar Galactica (I'm a science fiction fan, and this program - after I first learned about it on "Q." - turned out to be top notch science fiction), or Salman Rushdie, for goodness sake - this fellow brings his guests alive!

While I don't remember much about the interview with the aspiring hiphop artist, I'll acknowledge that the Sackhoff-Park interview brought me around - despite the fact that both of these persons are 20 or 30-somethings. Though I am a science fiction afficianado, I had never thought twice about taking time to watch a remake of Battlestar Galactica. I am interested in what I call "authentic" or "classic" science fiction, the primary function of which is to explore the implications of ideas by constructing future scenarios which allow those ideas to play out in possibly complex and interesting ways.

Recycled 1970s science fiction "cheese" didn't capture my imagination. That is, until I was surprised to hear Ghomeshi, Sackoff and Park discussing how such contemporary issues as suicide bombing, civilian versus military government, detention of unlawful combatants, and the capacity of the human heart for far-reaching and complex manifestations of evil and good, are treated in what I later discovered to be a highly relevant, brilliantly scripted and acted program (produced in large part in Canada), which is also cinematic in scope, despite its confinement to the (now-also-wide) television screen.

Hats off to Ghomeshi for alerting me to this hidden artistic gem (and, over time, to many others).

It was the Salman Rushdie interview which finally put me over the top, however. Entirely unself-consciously (and opposite to my original image of him), Ghomeshi drew out and nurtured Rushdie's self-exposition on every topic you can imagine - from being the target of a Fatwa, to playing the role of an "arts superstar," to moving beyond the novel to take on parts in movies, a la Gore Vidal (as Rushdie himself pointed out, I believe).

As I have learned is typically the case during Ghomeshi's interviews, Rushdie came scintillatingly alive. I bristled with anticipation for the next turn of their conversation. This was something I wanted to be a part of. Ghomeshi and Rushdie were electric, and I was tuning in.

So, who is Jian Ghomeshi?

In short, he is a classic embodiment of the multiple paradoxes of Canada in his own background.

To begin, Mr. Ghomeshi is actually 40-something. He was born on June 9,1967. He's been around a bit longer than I had initially suspected.

This enlightened and literate pacifist is in fact an unassuming Iranian Muslim by origin. The Shah of Iran, deposed in 1979, was the ruler of the country at the time Ghomeshi came to Canada - meaning that the Iran he was raised in was very different than the Iran of today. I also note that the Indo-European Shi'a majority populace have always been more liberal than their rulers. And historically, Irananians have had a laudable record of tolerance of diversity, as is certainly exemplified in Mr. Ghomeshi's attitudes. He was raised for several years in Uxbridge, a suburb of London, England, and then moved with his family to Canada at age 8 to reside first in Don Mills, and then in Thornhill - where he was immersed in Canadian Jewish culture - of all things!

As Ghomeshi understates the matter, "I'm just a typical Canadian."

I was surprised to learn that Gomeshi was - from 1992-2000 - a member of Moxy Früvous, where he played drums, percussion (bongos) and tin whistle. Moxy Früvous were a "counter-cultural" musical group well-known to me through my friend Nichole Riese and through past attendance at the Winnipeg Folk Festival.

I for one wasn't expecting the next Gzowski (himself a survivor of print journalism and former youngest-ever managing editor of Maclean's Magazine) to be coming from such an entirely different cultural space.But is this not the way that change almost always occurs - when and how we least expect it?

By the way, Gzowski and Gomeshi have something else in common. Both are/were songwriters. Yes, you knew Gomeshi is a songwriter (presently with MapleMusic), but Gzowski wrote the landmark "One Single River" with Ian Tyson. This anthem to Canadian national unity was recorded both by Ian and Sylvia and by Bob Dylan and The Band.

I could say more, but most of the rest has been said elsewhere. Listen to Jian Ghomeshi at CBC Radio Q - for arts, culture and entertainment in Canada.

Try these links for more information about Jian Gomeshi:
20 September 2009: Mr. Ghomeshi came to heightened prominence following his interview with a petulant Billy Bob Thornton, who had apparently woken up on the wrong side of the bed prior to his early-morning meeting with Jian. The Star story (above) makes brief note of the encounter, in which Mr. Thornton likens Canadians to "mashed potatoes." The encounter, managed in an exemplary manner by Mr. Ghomeshi, has been commented on widely and often across Canada. Click here for the QTV flash video of the encounter. Then, you can decide for yourself.

My personal take? Mr. Thornton embarrassed his band-mates, sabotaging their work in order to give voice to his unwarranted narcissistic injury in a stand-off with a polite and capable host who at no point meant nor offered any offense to him. My previously high opinion of Mr. Thornton has been considerably diminished, primarily due to his disregard of the original purpose of the interview, which was to promote the work of a group of which he is (was?) only a single member. The interview ended up being about Billy Bob and his ill-informed views of Canadians, rather than about him and his band-mates.

That was supremely self-centred, Billy Bob, as well as petty, mean and pointless!

21 March 2011: As the years have passed, Ghomeshi links have proliferated. I can no longer comment on all of them, as I initially attempted in 2008.



However, this one ("Jian Ghomeshi: Minding his Peace and Qs) is exemplary. Where Jian lives. It's personal and interesting. And yes, I want the guy's house!

31 October 2014: Abusive people often don't know when they're behaving abusively, and it's usually easy to understand if you know something of the person's life story. I've been reflecting recently on the iconic 2009 interview of Billy Bob Thornton by Jian Ghomeshi. Mr. Thornton got up early in the morning and in a bad mood, and proceeded to launch into his distaste for Canadians and Canadian culture. It's pretty clear that he wasn't really aware of how inappropriate his behaviour was. Mr. Ghomeshi has been credited for handling the situation well, and he did. And now Mr. Ghomeshi's considerably more serious transgressions have come to light. It has quickly become clear that Mr. Ghomeshi was able to be extremely abusive to women without recognizing how far out of line and hurtful his behaviour was. I'm sure there are understandable reasons for both men's inability to recognize their capacity to behave abusively, not that these reasons excuse their conduct. But understanding is certainly the first step towards healing, if it is to occur. So far, Mr. Ghomeshi has not revealed even a flicker of understanding of what he has done, while Canadians have obviously grasped the problem in a hurry. Let's see if that has any impact. Until there are criminal charges, Mr. Ghomeshi is free to handle this situation as he chooses. I hope he makes good choices. Now that the stories are out, it's pretty obvious that he can be charged for assault, and all of the incidents so far reported are very disturbing. In particular, the stories make clear that Mr. Ghomeshi doesn't actually know what consent is, which is a pretty major gap in awareness. My take is that his opportunity to act is going to be very brief. I hope that he makes good decisions -- much better decisions than he has so far.
_

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Tolstoy on Danger... and Frivolity

15 May 2008

Without further comment:

"With the enemy's approach to Moscow, the Muscovites' view of their situation did not
grow more serious but on the contrary became even more frivolous, as always happens with people who see a great danger approaching.

"At the approach of danger there are always two voices that speak with equal power in the human soul: one very reasonably tells a man to consider the nature of the danger and the means of escaping it; the other, still more reasonably, says that it is too depressing and painful to think of the danger, since it is not in man's power to foresee everything and avert the general course of events, and it is therefore better to disregard what is painful till it comes, and to think about what is pleasant."

---Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"
_

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

What Do You Love?

12 September 2007

What do you love?


I have been thinking about this topic, and have decided to blog about it soon.

I did an inventory of the things I love, and came up with an answer to the question of what I love best.

You might be surprised at how the question was resolved.

More later.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Universalism as a Spiritual Principle

12 April 2007

This entry is not intended as a philosophical treatise.

Historically, the Christian Church has regarded Universalism – the doctrine of universal salvation – as a heresy. It is a tricky issue, because as Christian practitioners, we acknowledge that we simply do not know who is and is not saved. Though we often refer to converts and adherents as “the saved” we are in fact making a presumption when we do so, as it is our Creator’s right alone to make this determination.

I was raised as a Unitarian-Universalist, and there is no mistaking how this movement’s founders were regarded by the Christian church. They were burned at the stake.

The majority of Unitarian-Universalists do not (presently) identify themselves as Christians, and this is not difficult to understand, given the history of the movement. Those who do refer to themselves as Christians continue to be regarded as outside the pale even by the liberal wing of the mainstream Christian denominations.

However, as I meditate upon my walk with Christ over my past 25 years or more as a Christian, I am finding that I must call upon my Unitarian Universalist roots in order to explain how I understand Christ – his person and his teachings – today.

I have not run a Google search on Universalist doctrine, so it is possible that I am repeating statements that have been better made by others. But I feel increasingly called to comment more openly on how I presently view my Christian faith.

I am not a believer in Universal salvation as I believe was the case with the original Universalists. I adhere to the classic Christian doctrine that it is up to our Creator alone to determine who will and will not share eternity with Him (or Her if you prefer), and also to determine how that sharing will take place.

I certainly expect that such personalities as Hitler, Stalin, Mugabe, bin Laden, and the leaders of the Janjaweed (as one example) and other genocidal movements – as they live or have lived in our present worldly sphere – are by no means fit (in my view) to spend an eternity with a loving and accepting – but also discriminating – Creator. But that is just me speculating, and I truly don't know how salvation will or will not work out, even for these most blatantly evil of human beings.

But where I perhaps differ with many mainstream Christians is in my belief in the universal availability of salvation (here I define salvation to mean the state of being in receipt of an invitation to participate in eternity in the shelter and company of our Creator).

It is one thing to espouse the classic Christian doctrine – that no one comes to the father except through Christ.

It is another thing entirely to make presumptions as to how or where any particular individual may come to encounter and form a relationship with Christ – or as to what such a relationship can or cannot look like.

I tend to agree with my wife Susan that the organized church is presumptive in its adherence to the inherently reflexive doctrine that the organized church – whether as an institution or in an alternative collective form – is the only vehicle through which a saving and healing meeting with our Creator can take place.

Because my own perspective is Christian, I do accept that there are certain very fundamental advantages to meeting Christ through the church – and these derive primarily from the availability of teaching and of fellowship.

However, there remains a critical flaw in the doctrinal expectation that Christ, as a universally available spiritual being of infinite power, can introduce himself to those with whom he chooses to commune only through this particular organizational structure.

Let us briefly reconsider the history of Christ’s church.

The church was clearly an important concern to the historical Jesus, and he spoke of it often. But I am unable to find the teaching or the text by which he limited his power to engage us in relationship with him to the mediation of this particular extension of His body.

In my personal experience, I have encountered many individuals over the years who adhere to a variety of both Christian and non-Christian spiritual traditions who quite evidently enjoy a personal relationship with the very same Christ whom I know. Many of these persons understand who He is differently than I, but in my experience, this disjuncture is as true of the diversity within the organized church as it is of the diversity without it.

Here is what I think is going on.

I believe that Christ is universally available to all humans – to every single one of us – and at all times and in all places.

This is what I mean by Universalism – not universal salvation, but universal availability.

We live in a culturally and spiritually diverse world within which many of us call Christ by different names, and also understand or emphasize quite different aspects of his personality.

However, I recognize these persons (outside the organized Christian church) to be engaged in a relationship with exactly the same spiritual person who has engaged me as a Christian.

Without belabouring my point, I believe that this is because the risen Christ – the spiritual expression of our Creator’s ability to relate to us (beyond life and death) as the harvest of His creation – has the ability to relate to any human being who by any means recognizes who He is (a spirit living both within them and among all of us) and is receptive to entering into a give-and-take rhythm of relationship with him. (Christians recognize that He gives more and takes less than we do, but it is still a give-and-take relationship that emerges.)

My own journey of the past 15 years has drawn me into extensive involvement in the personal, community and spiritual lives of the Ojibway people of Northwest Ontario.

Strikingly, hundreds of these individuals who have opened their lives to me through my work with them have been brutalized and abused to an unimaginable degree by representatives of the Christian church.

These encounters have certainly alerted me to the issue of self-regulation (or lack thereof) within the body of the organized Christian church. In order to seek salvation and healing, many of these survivors of institutionalized Christian abuse must step back from the church, and they are pursuing and finding restoration through recapturing their historical (pre-Christian) spirituality and traditions.

Despite having been a vicarious witness probably to thousands of acts of abuse perpetrated in the name of the church of Jesus Christ against aboriginal Canadians, I do not blame Jesus, or even his church, for these acts of callousness and cruelty. I understand fully that each of us individually is capable of spiritual hate crimes which take root easily in the infertile soil of distorted self love. Christians – and their church – are as capable of evil as anyone – and that is central to what Jesus has already taught us about who we are.

The lesson which interests me here is a different one – that those who have been brutalized by and through the church can quite clearly find authentic salvation and healing outside of it. In fact, many of these individuals must journey outside the church in order to obtain the gifts of restoration and renewal.

Is this doctrine of Christ's universal availability contrary to His teaching and instruction? I do not anywhere find Jesus to be limiting of himself in this way, though this is one of many issues which he does not in fact address directly.

This is the same Jesus who never stated that he wanted anyone even to write anything down about him.

On the one occasion where it is recorded that Jesus was questioned about how his words and teachings should be verified, it is indicated that he simply replied that he spoke in public places, so it is obvious that those who were there knew what he had to say (a seeming slight to those of us who were not yet born, and thus could not have known of his teachings by this method).

So, how might Jesus have replied, had we been able to ask him a question so central to church doctrine of the past two millennia: “Can you save and heal – can you enter into a life-changing relationship – with individuals who do not participate in your Christian church – perhaps individuals who have no knowledge of your church – or even individuals who have been harmed and abused by it?”

I cannot imagine that he would have said, “No, I can't do that.”

Jesus is recorded as saying (in the texts that the organized church has chosen to retain) that “No one comes to the Father except by me.”

But where did Jesus say, “No one comes to the Father except through joining and studying in my church”?

Let me say it here, and say it directly. The latter doctrinal statement is simply not Jesus’ teaching.

I have observed this: Christ knows, saves and heals people whom we do not know (through the church), and who do not know us (again through the church). Yet he knows each of these persons (outside the church) every bit as well as he knows his followers within the organized church.

What then is the use of the organized church (about which Jesus certainly spoke many times)?

There is no question that the organized church can be extremely difficult and trying, even for its most devoted participants. And at its worst, it can be bureaucratic, closed, oppressive, murderous and even genocidal.

Yet Christ certainly describes a church which will tell the people of all nations about him (or at least certain texts indicate that this was the case). And, because those who follow Christ are doing so in freedom, the church can certainly separate itself from Christ by turning away from Him.

What is going on here?

My present construction of this dilemma is that the fundamental point at issue is that each of us must determine if we wish to engage in (rather than to abstain from) a relationship with our Creator.

With our having made this decision, then our Creator – through Christ – has chosen to be available to each of us. The evidence of my experience is that our Creator has not limited the variety of paths available to those of us who have answered “yes” to this call to relationship.

Some of these paths will lead some of us to the organized Christian church, but other paths will lead others of us to Christ in much more diverse ways than perhaps the majority of Christians presently conceive – and I do not think that this is a problem for Christ – rather, it is a problem for Christians.

Many of these ways will not be called Christian, and it is obvious based on my experience that exactly the same saving spiritual relationship that Christians enjoy is also available to Buddhists, Hindus and explicit non-believers, to name only a few.

This diverse and pluralistic conception of spiritual reality undergirds universalist spiritual practice as I presently understand it, and I believe that I am giving full credit to Christ – as well as to practitioners of other spiritual and even anti-spiritual traditions – in making this statement.

How then are we as humans called to seek spiritual truth?

Let me be very direct.

If we consciously adopt an attitude of open-mindedness (a key principle in my own Unitarian Universalist upbringing), we will (1) know Christ (as the spiritual and accessible embodiment of the source of our being) when we meet him; (2) recognize others who know Christ – in whatever form and by whatever name they happen to call him; and (3) be recognized by those who share our own relationship with Him (the human and spiritual manifestation of our Creator within and among ourselves as human beings thrown into a world of mystery and wonder).

How then should we come together to share our relationship with our Creator with others whose understanding may in some cases be similar to and in other cases quite different than our own?

My own (universalist) answer is as follows: The decision to share our spiritual journey and practices with others may occur in response either to an acknowledged drive arising from within ourselves, or to a call experienced as arising from beyond ourselves – it is really the same thing in either case. Wait, listen, watch, be attentive, and respond to that which stirs most deeply within you, or in your relationships with others.

Let me acknowledge here that this prescription will certainly be discomfiting for some readers, whether Christian or non-Christian. Let me go so far as to speculate as to why this might be the case.

I suspect that many Christians will fear that the spiritual stirrings leading us into relationship will arise from sources other than Christ. In this case, let me counter that perhaps the faith of these persons is not strong enough – as I believe that Christ – and not His opponents – is in charge of this domain.

As for those who may be on guard due to perceptions of Christian coercion in my writings, let me acknowledge that I am using Christian language because I am a Christian, but the criterion I advocate is authenticity, not doctrinal rigour. The challenge is to pursue relationship (with our very Creator), not to master buzz words and socially sanctioned religious behaviours.

(P.S. Our language makes it very difficult to speak about God in gendered terms. Here we might take a lesson from the Ojibway, whose pronouns recognize no gender. S/he is one word in Ojibway. Perhaps one day we as English speakers will advance to this level of understanding of the human condition in our use of language.)

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Why?

25 February 2007

Why does the world become a messy, confusing and dangerous place?

Why can’t we all just get along?

What makes people capable of acting with patent disregard for the dignity, autonomy and sanctity of life of their neighbours?

Conversely, what makes it possible for humans to act in a generous, empathetic and self-sacrificing manner?

As I am sure you are well aware, there are no simple answers to these fundamental questions.

However, let me put forward a few simple ideas to spark your own activity with respect to addressing and resolving questions of this kind.

The fundamental constraint of life is that we are limited and mortal. If we exert effort to accomplish some things, we must forgo effort to accomplish other things. Though our efforts may then prove more or less productive, we are unlikely to accomplish aims towards which we do not direct our actions.

The ultimate result of all of our effort, at the personal level, is that we will die and others will carry on after we are gone. What will remain will be our impact on others.

Due to our biological – and some would say spiritual – nature, humans are capable of bonding. That is, we act in ways which affect our fellow humans, and they respond to those actions. The progress of these interactions over time creates strong or weak psychological connections with others.

We act socially, and we are interested in the social consequences of our actions, which are highly salient to us. We are constructed this way.

Governing all of our behaviours are the emotional systems of our human brains. Emotions range from intense to minimal, and from pleasant/desirable/euphoric to aversive/unmanageable/overwhelming.

Our personal/private and social/interpersonal effectiveness broadly governs our lives, and shapes the quality of our emotional experiences.

Both positive and negative emotions can lead to prosocial or antisocial behaviours.

Our social experiences will powerfully influence our emotional state, and the social consequences of our actions will shape the direction of evolution of our personal emotional experience. But ultimately, we will engage in more or less of a particular type of behaviour based on its personal emotional consequences for us.

Now this matter is somewhat complicated as well, because we do not seek emotional states which are pleasurable so much as emotional states which are meaningful.

For example, if I have been raised by a violent father, and if I have daily witnessed him exercising violence to bring other family members into submission, and if I observe him responding with pleasure to his capacity to exercise power and control over the members of my family, then my own increasing exercise of such powerful behaviours will also begin to generate emotions which are meaningful to me, some of them pleasant and some of them not, but all of them desirable.

(By the way, the above is an example. I was raised by a man who was incredibly tolerant, peaceful and nonviolent.)

Similarly, if I have been raised by a mother who is highly attentive to my own emotional states, who treats me and my emotions as important, and who demonstrates caring and empathetic behaviour towards others, then I am more likely to find meaning in relatedness and mutual aid.

(In this latter case, I am describing my own experience. My mother was a person with a seemingly infinite reserve of empathy and emotional availability.)

Therefore, when we observe behaviours in ourselves or in others, the question we must ask is, “What are the emotions associated with that behavioural pattern, what is their meaning, how was the meaning acquired, and how can the meaning be changed?”

In short, engagement in the process of asking and answering this simple series of questions is how we can get along.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Welcome

27 July 2005

Welcome to my blogsite.

We live in a complex, interactive, increasingly borderless world in which all of us are required to become knowledgeable about matters which impinge on our lives in which we have no particular expertise, but to which we must respond.

Though I have no particular formal preparation to do so, I have found it necessary to address a diverse range of concerns, some of which are particular to my circumstances, and some of which are essentially universal.

While I am certain that my interests and concerns will evolve and shift, my beginning posts will address the issues which, from my present perspective, appear to be of greatest significance.
Therefore, the primary purpose of this site will be to share some of my highly personal views about the larger events that are shaping our outer and inner worlds as humans.

My intention is to economize on concepts and ideas, putting forward only those that I consider to be of the highest quality.

I may share ideas from others as well, when appropriate.

Some of the diverse topics that will be considered here include:

1. Personal financial management (as I am now planning to reduce my hours of work and enter "semi-retirement"). This leads to #2:

2. Semi-retirement: Figuring out what this means, what I want it to be, and how to do it. These first two items then lead to #3:

3. Understanding the interconnected and globalized world economy, including the complex factors which are driving blindingly rapid processes of change in every corner of our world.

4. The development of "inner skills" in order to create a happy and pleasing accommodation to the most inescapable of all realities - the inner psychological world that each of us inhabits 24 hours per day.

5. Issues of international and intertribal cooperation and conflict, specifically including but not limited to the emerging "hot button" issues of national, ethnic and tribal sovereignty and globalized terrorism, as these are ageless human concerns which impinge on both our inner and outer worlds.

6. Recognition of the people who are of particular significance to me through their generosity and/or capacity to function as role models in my life. This begins with, but will not stop with, the recognition of my parents.

7. A range of additional topics which may capture my passing or enduring interest! I was asked recently to say something about social justice, so I have added that topic to the site. I cannot presently predict with certainty what other topics may eventually be addressed here.

Disclaimer: I wish to re-emphasize that this is a personal site devoted to my personal thoughts, concerns and viewpoints. No other purpose is stated or implied.