Work in progress:
I will do what I want, and not let anything get in my way. Even if it becomes difficult, I will not let that stop me. I will not let anything distract me from my goals. I will figure out a way to make it happen. I don't let circumstances control me. I know that I am in control. Just knowing that makes it all worth it.
Equinimity
The world is a garden.
It is a beautiful place, with many warm, cozy spots to sit and enjoy.
The many pains, frustrations, and hardships
are the nuances that make it endearing. They make life personal and detailed.
All the effort I put into it on account of these weeds make it mine.
I know it intimately, flaws and all, and
I smile knowingly when I come across one of them. Because nothing has gone wrong. All is as it should be.
These are the little challenges, little games, that it plays with me.
Sometimes I just stop and smell the roses,
and take in the grandness of it all.
It is a beautiful place, with many warm, cozy spots to sit and enjoy.
The many pains, frustrations, and hardships
are the nuances that make it endearing. They make life personal and detailed.
All the effort I put into it on account of these weeds make it mine.
I know it intimately, flaws and all, and
I smile knowingly when I come across one of them. Because nothing has gone wrong. All is as it should be.
These are the little challenges, little games, that it plays with me.
Sometimes I just stop and smell the roses,
and take in the grandness of it all.
Above Self
Rosh Hashana is about accepting G-d as King of the world, as we see from the three special blessings in the prayers for that day, known as Malchios, Zichronos and Shofros. Malchios, kingship is self-explanatory. Zichronos is about how He is in charge of everything, and Shofros is trumpeting His arrival as is done for a king. But what does that mean? Either He is or not, why do we have to do something? It means accepting Him as king of OUR world, the worldview we have in our minds. Normally, I am the king of my worldview. I am at the center of my life, because from where I'm standing, everything seems to revolve around me. (Just as in the theory of relativity, where the observer appears stationary, and all motion is relative to him or her.) I decide how I view the world and what place things have in it, whether they hold a position of importance or insignificance. I care more about what I think on a topic than what anyone else thinks. Who cares what other people think, anyway? Just do your own thing.
Such self-centeredness is ultimately self-defeating. If the value I ascribe to actions is based on my own perceptions alone, then they are only valuable inside my own head, not in the real world. Why should the rest of the world care about how important I think I am and how good I decide I've been? If the importance of my deeds is all in my head, then is it really worth anything, even to me? What is the purpose of doing what I want, if I am only doing it because of own arbitrary whim? As someone once said, "If Jimmy cracks corn and no one cares, then why does he keep doing it?"
"Like happiness, self-actualizing is an effect, the effect of meaning fulfillment. ...If he sets out to actualize himself rather than fulfill a meaning (out there in the world), self-actualization immediately loses its justification." (Victor Frankl, The Will to Meaning, p.38)
What does give my actions value then? How do I decide what is really important and good to do? Something is only good in the context of a purpose. The frying pan is good for frying in. It is bad for wearing as a hat. The baseball cap would probably be better for that, but it would not be so good for frying in. Is the frying pan good, or is the baseball cap good? It all depends on what purpose you have in mind.
On Rosh Hashana, we recall that the whole world was made by G-d and is governed by His rules. He had a purpose in mind when He created it. So it's really His view and His wishes that determine what is important, and whether something is fulfilling it's purpose or not. He is the King, not me.
Judaism is about the relationship between me and G-d. I do what He wants because He wants it and I love Him and want to make Him happy. It is an expression of the closenes between us that I do these things the way I know He likes them. It is a way of living in which I invite G-d into my life.
(If I admit that values are external to myself, then I will not use only my own intellect to decide what is good. I will seek the advice of experts, just as I would seek the advice of doctors to heal a disease, and not just insist that it ought to work the way that makes sense to me. This is because I acknowledge that it is an objective reality. These experts are the wise men of Israel in every generation, who are so qualified because they have studied to understand what the unadulterated will of G-d is, and have gained enough wisdom to decide accordingly, not merely according to their personal feelings on the issue.)
The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self.” (Albert Einstein ---From Mein Weltbild (1934). Reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, 12)
Such self-centeredness is ultimately self-defeating. If the value I ascribe to actions is based on my own perceptions alone, then they are only valuable inside my own head, not in the real world. Why should the rest of the world care about how important I think I am and how good I decide I've been? If the importance of my deeds is all in my head, then is it really worth anything, even to me? What is the purpose of doing what I want, if I am only doing it because of own arbitrary whim? As someone once said, "If Jimmy cracks corn and no one cares, then why does he keep doing it?"
"Like happiness, self-actualizing is an effect, the effect of meaning fulfillment. ...If he sets out to actualize himself rather than fulfill a meaning (out there in the world), self-actualization immediately loses its justification." (Victor Frankl, The Will to Meaning, p.38)
What does give my actions value then? How do I decide what is really important and good to do? Something is only good in the context of a purpose. The frying pan is good for frying in. It is bad for wearing as a hat. The baseball cap would probably be better for that, but it would not be so good for frying in. Is the frying pan good, or is the baseball cap good? It all depends on what purpose you have in mind.
On Rosh Hashana, we recall that the whole world was made by G-d and is governed by His rules. He had a purpose in mind when He created it. So it's really His view and His wishes that determine what is important, and whether something is fulfilling it's purpose or not. He is the King, not me.
Judaism is about the relationship between me and G-d. I do what He wants because He wants it and I love Him and want to make Him happy. It is an expression of the closenes between us that I do these things the way I know He likes them. It is a way of living in which I invite G-d into my life.
(If I admit that values are external to myself, then I will not use only my own intellect to decide what is good. I will seek the advice of experts, just as I would seek the advice of doctors to heal a disease, and not just insist that it ought to work the way that makes sense to me. This is because I acknowledge that it is an objective reality. These experts are the wise men of Israel in every generation, who are so qualified because they have studied to understand what the unadulterated will of G-d is, and have gained enough wisdom to decide accordingly, not merely according to their personal feelings on the issue.)
The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self.” (Albert Einstein ---From Mein Weltbild (1934). Reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, 12)
If a tree falls in the forest...
There are certain axioms necessary for the systematic application of reason. This is what Aristotle called metaphysics, the prerequisite to 'physics', which would nowadays be called science. Science is based on a certain metaphysical position called empiricism, which says that I only know about things experienced by the senses. Judaism is a rival system of thought based on a different metaphysical position. Namely, that reality is not limited to the physical, and that things which cannot be directly sensed, called spiritual, also exist. (Math is an example of a spiritual construct. We cannot see it or feel it. We only know of it's existence by observing the effect it has on the world.)
Science does not accept the spiritual, and so in western society, only physical objects can have rational rules of what is correct and what is not. You must wash your hands because it physically removes germs from the surface of your hands, which could make you physically ill. But art, culture, and style of dress have no right and wrong way of doing things, because they don't exist and cannot be reasoned rationally. There is a distinction between rational science and the culture and religion which govern those things which do not use systematic reason.
Judaism applies reason to every aspect of life, even if it is not fundamentally physical. So it will come up with guidelines for good interpersonal relationships, the proper way to dress, and matters of the heart and spirit. Things like ethics, religion and art and style, which in western society are not treated in a systematic way are well-reasoned and developed in Judaism. (Psychology was started relatively recently and by a Jew, who was neurologist, since that was the closest thing the west had until then.)
Science does not accept the spiritual, and so in western society, only physical objects can have rational rules of what is correct and what is not. You must wash your hands because it physically removes germs from the surface of your hands, which could make you physically ill. But art, culture, and style of dress have no right and wrong way of doing things, because they don't exist and cannot be reasoned rationally. There is a distinction between rational science and the culture and religion which govern those things which do not use systematic reason.
Judaism applies reason to every aspect of life, even if it is not fundamentally physical. So it will come up with guidelines for good interpersonal relationships, the proper way to dress, and matters of the heart and spirit. Things like ethics, religion and art and style, which in western society are not treated in a systematic way are well-reasoned and developed in Judaism. (Psychology was started relatively recently and by a Jew, who was neurologist, since that was the closest thing the west had until then.)
Garments of Oppression
People accuse Muslim culture of being oppressive to women. Women are often forbidden from driving cars, going to universities, and even leaving the home without their husband's permission. I agree that this is unjust and oppressive.
However, the criticism of their concealing style of dress seems empty and hypocritical. In Western culture, society pressures women to spend a lot of time and effort to meet expectations. In the land of Cosmopolitan magazine, almost every magazine at the check-0ut aisle has a scantily clad, plastic surgery (and often digitally) enhanced woman on the cover, whether so-called men's or women's magazines. Every day women make up their faces to match the advertised ideal. They get into outfits that are often tight, constricting, embarrassingly revealing, uncomfortable, and even laughably impractical. The typical women's shoe has a high heel, which is painfully uncomfortable, unhealthy for the foot, and makes walking more difficult. The phrase 'wardrobe malfunction' is a nice way of saying that a woman was pressured into wearing clothing that fails to clothe. Many women now use tape to keep the little bits of clothing they wear from falling off. I don't think women in Muslim countries have to resort to taping their clothing on.
In stark contrast, the style of men's dress in both cultures, and virtually every culture in the world, is virtually the same. They wear loose, comfortable clothing that covers most of the body, except for the head and hands. So typical male attire anywhere in the world will be a button down shirt, pants, and shoes. There are places where men wear robes or kilts, but they are also loose and cover the body.
Muslim dress is oppressive because it is too baggy and concealing, and Western dress is oppressive because it is too tight and revealing. Neither allow women the luxury of dressing as comfortably and dignified as men. This is a case where the middle road is best, and either extreme is unhealthy. The West is right in criticising the oppression of women, but they must stop doing so themselves before criticising others.
However, the criticism of their concealing style of dress seems empty and hypocritical. In Western culture, society pressures women to spend a lot of time and effort to meet expectations. In the land of Cosmopolitan magazine, almost every magazine at the check-0ut aisle has a scantily clad, plastic surgery (and often digitally) enhanced woman on the cover, whether so-called men's or women's magazines. Every day women make up their faces to match the advertised ideal. They get into outfits that are often tight, constricting, embarrassingly revealing, uncomfortable, and even laughably impractical. The typical women's shoe has a high heel, which is painfully uncomfortable, unhealthy for the foot, and makes walking more difficult. The phrase 'wardrobe malfunction' is a nice way of saying that a woman was pressured into wearing clothing that fails to clothe. Many women now use tape to keep the little bits of clothing they wear from falling off. I don't think women in Muslim countries have to resort to taping their clothing on.
In stark contrast, the style of men's dress in both cultures, and virtually every culture in the world, is virtually the same. They wear loose, comfortable clothing that covers most of the body, except for the head and hands. So typical male attire anywhere in the world will be a button down shirt, pants, and shoes. There are places where men wear robes or kilts, but they are also loose and cover the body.
Muslim dress is oppressive because it is too baggy and concealing, and Western dress is oppressive because it is too tight and revealing. Neither allow women the luxury of dressing as comfortably and dignified as men. This is a case where the middle road is best, and either extreme is unhealthy. The West is right in criticising the oppression of women, but they must stop doing so themselves before criticising others.
The Rules According to Hoyle
Chess is one of the world's most popular and highly respected games. Benjamin Franklin, in his article "The Morals of Chess" (1750), wrote: "The Game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement; several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired and strengthened by it, so as to become habits ready on all occasions; for life is a kind of Chess, in which we have often points to gain, and competitors or adversaries to contend with, and in which there is a vast variety of good and ill events, that are, in some degree, the effect of prudence, or the want of it." With these or similar hopes, chess is taught to children in schools around the world today and used in armies to train minds of cadets and officers. Countless books are written on the strategy of chess, and advanced computer algorithms are developed to win at chess.
The unique qualities of chess are a result of it's simple rules that nevertheless give rise to very complex interactions amongst the pieces. The development of the rules of chess is a singular accomplishment. I wonder, who wrote the rules of chess?
Legend says that a wise courtier named Sissa created the game and presented it to the Indian King Balhait. The king was so pleased that he promised Sissa any reward he would name. Sissa replied that he wanted one grain of wheat for the first square of the board, two for the second, four for the third, eight for the fourth, and so on to the 64th square. The king was astonished and annoyed by the excessive modesty of his counselor, but it turned out that the number of grains owed was 18,446,744,073,709,551,615, an impossible amount.
When we play chess, the movements of all the pieces are restricted to the rules that have been created for the game. If one were to find a chess board in the middle of a game, with the pieces spread liberally across the board, one might deduce the steps that must have been taken to arrive at such a state by applying the rules in reverse, and thereby recreate each turn of the game from the very first. Of course, this is assuming that the pieces were moved only according to the rules. They may simply have been placed there initially, disregarding the rules entirely.
As Franklin wrote, life can be compared to chess. It operates according to certain rules. Rules of logic, nature, and physics. The endeavor of science is the discovery of these rules that give rise to everything we see around us.
One of the most basic underlying rules of the universe is causality. The rule that nothing is unless something has caused it to be so. (It is this rule that allows science to draw conclusions from observations.) But this could not always have been the case, or the world would never have come to exist. There must have been a time early in the chain of cause and effect when this rule had not yet been enacted, and a cause existed that did not itself require a cause. Something created this rule and began enforcing it. And this makes sense. Why should this rule exist at all unless something is enforcing it? The same goes for all the other rules of nature. There must have been a time when there were no rules, anything at all was possible, and it was decided to make rules.
I wonder, who wrote those rules?
The unique qualities of chess are a result of it's simple rules that nevertheless give rise to very complex interactions amongst the pieces. The development of the rules of chess is a singular accomplishment. I wonder, who wrote the rules of chess?
Legend says that a wise courtier named Sissa created the game and presented it to the Indian King Balhait. The king was so pleased that he promised Sissa any reward he would name. Sissa replied that he wanted one grain of wheat for the first square of the board, two for the second, four for the third, eight for the fourth, and so on to the 64th square. The king was astonished and annoyed by the excessive modesty of his counselor, but it turned out that the number of grains owed was 18,446,744,073,709,551,615, an impossible amount.
When we play chess, the movements of all the pieces are restricted to the rules that have been created for the game. If one were to find a chess board in the middle of a game, with the pieces spread liberally across the board, one might deduce the steps that must have been taken to arrive at such a state by applying the rules in reverse, and thereby recreate each turn of the game from the very first. Of course, this is assuming that the pieces were moved only according to the rules. They may simply have been placed there initially, disregarding the rules entirely.
As Franklin wrote, life can be compared to chess. It operates according to certain rules. Rules of logic, nature, and physics. The endeavor of science is the discovery of these rules that give rise to everything we see around us.
One of the most basic underlying rules of the universe is causality. The rule that nothing is unless something has caused it to be so. (It is this rule that allows science to draw conclusions from observations.) But this could not always have been the case, or the world would never have come to exist. There must have been a time early in the chain of cause and effect when this rule had not yet been enacted, and a cause existed that did not itself require a cause. Something created this rule and began enforcing it. And this makes sense. Why should this rule exist at all unless something is enforcing it? The same goes for all the other rules of nature. There must have been a time when there were no rules, anything at all was possible, and it was decided to make rules.
I wonder, who wrote those rules?
Religion, what is it good for?
Our time is distinguished by wonderful achievements in the fields of scientific understanding and the technical application of those insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that human knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth...What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy in living.
-Albert Einstein
I am shocked by people who oppose religion. Why would any intelligent person be opposed to that field of study which investigates the meaning of life and the consequent moral value of our actions? What could be better for the world than for people to learn how and why to be more moral? Certainly, there is much room for disagreement within this field, but to oppose the field of knowledge itself? This would be akin to opposing science because you disagree with a particular theory.
At first I concluded that they were merely ignorant of the meaning of the word. Perhaps they had been taught that religion means superstition, and merely meant that they were opposed to superstition. This is true of some people, and since it is just a matter of which words are used, it is a simple matter to set them straight.
Others say they oppose religion because it is the cause of all wars. This argument is fallacious in so many ways that I hardly know where to begin. Religion never caused a single war. Let us take a specific example that is often used, the Crusades. The claim is that it was their being Christian that led them to massacre so many people. If only they would have been opposed to religion themselves, no one would have gotten hurt. According to that, if there would have been more Christians there would have been more deaths. So if everyone in the world were Christian, it would have caused the most number of deaths. This is not so. If everyone would have been Christian, there would have been no need for them to fight against the Muslims, for there would have been none. It was not the religion itself that caused the Crusades, but intolerance for other religions. The very sort of intolerance that those opposed to religion espouse, except that they are even more intolerant, because at least the Crusaders were tolerant of Christianity. But in hating the Muslims they were the same. If the Crusaders would have been opposed to religion, it would perhaps have been much bloodier, because they would not have had to contend with the Christian teachings about turning the other cheek and the Golden Rule.
The subject of war is a good example of the important need for religion. The Nazi ideology that led to the holocaust came from the most respected secular thinking of the time: racism and eugenics, both considered up and coming new fields of science based on Darwin's theories. Racism applied the evolution of species to humans, with Africans as the least evolved race, and Europeans the most evolved, with the German "Aryan" race at the pinnacle of evolution. Eugenics applied survival-of-the-fittest to humans by advocating that inferior humans be killed out so that only the most evolved pass on their genes. The conclusion was that all inferior races, including the "Semitic" race, as well as those with any disability, infirmity, or deformity, must be systematically eradicated. Hitler only very thinly masked his hatred for religion, declaring the Ten Commandments to be "the worst thing the Jews have ever done to the world." He had to wait longer before he could gradually bring public opinion against Christianity than against other religions, because most Germans were Christian. Countless people felt compelled by their religious convictions to risk their lives defying the Nazis by sheltering Jews and others targeted for annihilation, because even though the secular thinking of the time advocated their deaths, religion placed the value of human life above all else due to the moral value inherent in every person.
The world is replete with examples of the important role that religion plays in the well-being of society. The vast majority of hospitals and charitable organizations in the world were built by religious institutions. It could not be any other way.
If we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice. Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address without reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's I Have a Dream speech without references to "all of God's children." Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.
... Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
-President Barack Obama
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)