The California fires, and the seemingly insurmountable challenges looming in their aftermath, are but one of the most recent reasons I hesitate to open my news sources in the morning. At least they are not examples of humankind killing each other off over some political, territorial, religious or philosophical spat. Still they serve as a devastating reminder of nature's ability to overwhelm our arrogant and ignorant attempts to ignore, or control, the forces of the natural world. In my old home state of North Carolina, folks would repeatedly insist on building lovely seaside homes despite centuries-long histories of storms that allowed the waves to gleefully tear them down. California's recent display of the awesome, unleashed forces of nature does nothing to lessen the frustrating impotent compassion we feel for those still in harms way.
In addition to shying away from tales of natures fury, I am dissuaded from clicking on my many news feeds because I have never felt a need to winter or summer in Greenland. My parents lived in Nova Scotia for a few years. It seemed part of a pleasant country, but surely Alaska would resent no longer being the largest state. And Panama? Cool hats, but really, what is that Trump guy smoking?
I spent my younger days in the sixties listening to hazy riffs that began with, "Listen man, seriously, wouldn't it be cool if we could, like, fly, or walk through walls, and maybe, like, live forever. No wait, wait! Like, change into an animal of your choice? Not forever man, but, like, for a while? Like, maybe for a hunt?"
Grow up. Musk has wandered across the line that separates genius from insanity, and Zuckerberg seems to be willing to let these ravings pass unfettered into the misty world of "could be, might be, may be true. But who knows what is true these days, so why try to figure it out?"
But as bizarre as these "news stories" are, I am even more alienated by the unceasing reporting on the drum beat of the wars that simmer unrelentingly across the globe. People killing each other - men, women, children - largely because other men, yes, sadly, largely, if not uniquely, men - have declared that some other man has insulted their omnipotence and so they, and all their kith and kin, must die. And we recently took a pass on electing a woman who might have introduced a different perspective.
How did hate and evil rise to such prominence? Is this really how our nation might encourage the world to become "great again"? There is a better way, enshrined in most, if not all, the predominant religions, faiths, and philosophies that surround us.
Lovingkindness.
It is not terribly complicated. "Treat those around you as you would like to be treated." Ring a bell? Sure. So why has it seeming lost out to "Smite those around you, less they smite you first!" I think it is because lovingkindness is harder. Hitting is easier. But I would assert that loving is happier.
Lovingkindness is a naturally occurring existential sphere that, while potentially all encompassing, is, in may ways, fragile. Let me ramble on a bit.
We seem to love in spheres. Ideally, the sphere encloses one's family - biological or emotional. We don't have much trouble defining this sphere - "these are our loved ones." But there are dynamics within that sphere. For each of us it seems that there is an anchor, a central locus - a person who is the nucleus of the sphere if you will.
It is the power of the anchor that begins to reveal the potential fragility of the lovingkindness sphere. Imagine that the all the members within the sphere are connected by lines that define valences - varying degrees of attachment if you will. Life tests those valences. The divorce rate in the US [between 10 and 20% according to the National Center for Family and Marriage Research, at Bowling Green State University] is one clear indication of the possibility of the sphere's fragility.
A pair that may have provided an anchor for a sphere dissolves their particular valence - which sends shockwaves through the entire sphere as children, friends - anyone who was part of the previous sphere - reevaluates their ties to the now individual parts of a previous alliances. It is often a mess. I believe that is the correct psychological term.
Each member of the previous anchor pair tends to create a narrative that explains the reasons for the split. The narratives are usually widely divergent or the split would have been resolved, and sadly the members of the previous sphere, despite intentions to remain neutral, tend to accept one version of the competing narratives and reject the other. Yeah, a mess.
OK, now take that explanation of fragility in the sphere of one "family," and expand it to the relationships among larger spheres - schools, states, political parties, and nations - and we can see how "smiting" gains the upper hand over "doing gently" unto other. Lovingkindness is just harder.
My son-in-law, Rabbi Samuel Rose of Temple of Israel, in Greenville, SC recently delivered the closing benediction at the South Carolina Commemoration of the 80th Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz in which he introduced me to a phrase I love, "the dignity of diversity." A concept apparently alien to the bouncing bevy of billionaire bullies currently attempting to rewrite both our form of government and our perception of reality.
But the dignity of diversity in an important piece in the puzzle of lovingkindness. For how do we "treat those around you as you would like to be treated," if we randomly delete some of those around us simply because they are somehow different from us?
And yes, I am aware of the seeming contradiction in my advocacy of lovingkindness and the unkindness of my remarks regarding our current administration. Those remarks spring from despair as opposed to an exclusion from the possibility of a dialogue based on lovingkindness.
Let us jump back to the idea of anchored spheres. Consider a sphere anchored by a set of parents which includes their children. Further consider the possibility of friction between the parents and a child that goes beyond the usual differences of opinion and lifestyle, into the darker realms of criminality or addiction. Lovingkindness declares the necessity of dialogue, not exclusion. So that friction must be addressed through dialogue, including a willingness to include professionals from outside the sphere to assist in the dialogue. All channels must be left open.
I have no realistic expectation of dialogue with either the President or his proxies, so my criticisms of those in power are one side of an attempted dialogue that I anticipate will reach neither the ears or seats of those elites who currently hold sway in Washington.
But I am ready to listen, which is, after all, mandatory in any dialogue that seeks the difficult path of lovingkindness.
Here here!
ReplyDelete