I have been pondering the flak over this past Presidential election and what the angry division stems from. I realize that labels like Democrat or Republican or liberal or conservative places people in easily recognizable boxes but they don't really explain anything. They also tend to end the discussions at name calling and accusations. As I picture the US map with the red and blue labels depicting which states and counties lean which way and ponder the arguments over the electoral college, I realize something. The areas colored blue are mostly urban and red mostly more rural. There is lots of mudslinging that relates to "ignorant country folk" and "stuck-up city slickers" that has gone on for centuries. I must point out, not everybody in the cities is educated and not everybody in the country is ignorant! If we can't get past these labels, we will never understand each other or live in harmony. People who choose to live in more sparsely populated areas have their reasons for doing so, as do those who live in more crowded cities. Although those in cities may claim to have a more "advanced" civilization due to the ready access of educational institutions, art offerings, and diversity, those who live in the country have access to the wonder of nature, the education of how things work, and the peace of having neighbors who generally share the results of weather and agriculture prices. People who live in rural areas are accustomed to mostly taking care of themselves and their families with a willingness to help neighbors when needed. People who live in cities are more prone to think of the infrastructure of their environment as provided by government. They may be willing to occasionally help a neighbor but often need to be more cautious because of the likelihood of scams or criminals.
I could go on and on about the differences but I want to avoid any potential misunderstandings if someone thinks I am judging one or the other. What I want to emphasize is that there are two different ways to look at government in general. I think the founders who struggled for days on end to come to harmony enough to form a country realized these differences but managed to figure out a way to compromise enough to make it work- for over 200 years so far. There are more people in number who live in cities but more of the country is devoted to people who choose to live more spread out. Those who live in cities are more comfortable with having the government dictate rules because they see it's for the common good. Those who live in the country mainly focus on getting the job done and only looking for assistance or guidance when needed.
The whole time I lived in New York State, there were rumblings about NYC separating themselves from the rest of the state. Those in the city considered the rest of the state uncooperative and ignorant. Those in the rest of the state thought of the city as a very heavy burden with too many people looking for support from the rest of the state. The issue today in the country is an enlarged version of the same controversy. People in the country are opposed to the government controlling their lives. People in the cities feel there need to be more regulations to prevent actions that are inconsiderate or even destructive. People in the country don't want to pay more to the government to run inefficient programs. People in the city want more money from tax payers to cover the cost of programs for the "common good".
When there is a war, we tend to circle the wagons so to speak. We come together in the face of a common threat. Right now the war is within the circle. We have become enemies within the country. There are far too many people who are connected only through electronic devices when they rarely speak to their physical neighbors. Too many people spend so much time in their cars they don't have time to get to know people right around them. We have so many activities available to us that we are too busy to be involved in the "common good"- whatever government entity we should be a part of. We don't give opinions and guidance from the beginning but we're quick to squeal when the outcome of the decisions of others is not what we would have chosen.
So, what do we do? I am not nearly as God-like as I hope to be in the eternities so I don't really have answers. Maybe we should, first, recognize where the controversy comes from. We need to consider differences with respect rather than name-calling. Second, also involving respect, we need to recognize that even if someone has a different idea of how to go about building our country than we do, they are not out to destroy the country. Their idea of how to fix it is just different from our own. We can all say, "But if we do...... this will happen", when we can't ever be really sure. It's like decisions in our own families when there are some who think the outcome will be disastrous and some who think it will work fine. Third, once a decision has been made (the results of an election clear), we need to resist grumbling and looking for fault focusing instead on figuring out what we can do as an individual part of the governed body. We need to do our part to build rather than tear down. We're not dead yet and neither is the country so lets get on with it!
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Friday, November 11, 2016
Why do you exist?
I am totally amazed that very shortly after composing my last blog, I came to this in the book that I am reading:
In 1908, a Harvard philosopher names Josiah Royce wrote a book with the title The Philosophy of Loyalty. Royce was.....concerned with a puzzle that is fundamental to anyone contemplating his or her mortality. Royce wanted to understand why simply existing- why being merely housed and fed and safe and alive- seems empty and meaningless to us. What more is it that we need in order to feel that life is worthwhile?
The answer, he believed, is that we all seek a cause beyond ourselves. This was, to him, an intrinsic human need. The cause could be large (family, country, principle) or small (a building project, the care of a pet). The important thing was that, in ascribing value to the cause and seeing it as worth making sacrifices for, we give our lives meaning.
Royce called this dedication to a cause beyond oneself loyalty. He regarded it as the opposite of individualism. The individualist puts self-interest first, seeing his own pain, pleasure, and existence as his greatest concern. For an individualist, loyalty to causes that have nothing to do with self-interest is strange. When such loyalty encourages self-sacrifice, it can even be alarming- a mistaken and irrational tendency that leaves people open to the exploitation of tyrants. Nothing could matter more than self-interest, and because when you die you are gone, self-sacrifice makes no sense.
Royce had no sympathy for the individualist view. "The selfish we had always with us," he wrote. "But the divine right to selfishness was never more ingeniously defended." In fact, he argues, human beings need loyalty. It does not necessarily produce happiness, and can even be painful, but we all require devotion to something more than ourselves for our lives to be endurable. Without it, we have only our desires to guide us. and they are fleeting, capricious, and insatiable. They provide, ultimately, only torment.....
The only way death is not meaningless is to see yourself as part of something greater: a family, a community, a society. If you don't, mortality is only a horror.
This book is Being Mortal written by a doctor, Atul Gawande. The subtitle is "Illness, Medicine, and What Matters in the End". A friend recommended it to me and I would wholeheartedly recommend it to others. It's mostly about considering the end of your life, whenever and however that may occur. But in the process, it also opens up the question of how to spend whatever part of life you are in right now. We have all heard quotes about living life to the fullest living as if you only had 5 minutes/ 5 months/ or whatever short time remaining. The bottom line is, why are you living at all? What is your purpose? Will it matter when you die? To whom will and matter and why?
There are people who light up a room when they enter and there are people who light up a room by leaving. I hope I cause even just a little joy by my presence and I certainly hope I am never a cause for celebration when I leave.
In 1908, a Harvard philosopher names Josiah Royce wrote a book with the title The Philosophy of Loyalty. Royce was.....concerned with a puzzle that is fundamental to anyone contemplating his or her mortality. Royce wanted to understand why simply existing- why being merely housed and fed and safe and alive- seems empty and meaningless to us. What more is it that we need in order to feel that life is worthwhile?
The answer, he believed, is that we all seek a cause beyond ourselves. This was, to him, an intrinsic human need. The cause could be large (family, country, principle) or small (a building project, the care of a pet). The important thing was that, in ascribing value to the cause and seeing it as worth making sacrifices for, we give our lives meaning.
Royce called this dedication to a cause beyond oneself loyalty. He regarded it as the opposite of individualism. The individualist puts self-interest first, seeing his own pain, pleasure, and existence as his greatest concern. For an individualist, loyalty to causes that have nothing to do with self-interest is strange. When such loyalty encourages self-sacrifice, it can even be alarming- a mistaken and irrational tendency that leaves people open to the exploitation of tyrants. Nothing could matter more than self-interest, and because when you die you are gone, self-sacrifice makes no sense.
Royce had no sympathy for the individualist view. "The selfish we had always with us," he wrote. "But the divine right to selfishness was never more ingeniously defended." In fact, he argues, human beings need loyalty. It does not necessarily produce happiness, and can even be painful, but we all require devotion to something more than ourselves for our lives to be endurable. Without it, we have only our desires to guide us. and they are fleeting, capricious, and insatiable. They provide, ultimately, only torment.....
The only way death is not meaningless is to see yourself as part of something greater: a family, a community, a society. If you don't, mortality is only a horror.
This book is Being Mortal written by a doctor, Atul Gawande. The subtitle is "Illness, Medicine, and What Matters in the End". A friend recommended it to me and I would wholeheartedly recommend it to others. It's mostly about considering the end of your life, whenever and however that may occur. But in the process, it also opens up the question of how to spend whatever part of life you are in right now. We have all heard quotes about living life to the fullest living as if you only had 5 minutes/ 5 months/ or whatever short time remaining. The bottom line is, why are you living at all? What is your purpose? Will it matter when you die? To whom will and matter and why?
There are people who light up a room when they enter and there are people who light up a room by leaving. I hope I cause even just a little joy by my presence and I certainly hope I am never a cause for celebration when I leave.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Mentality
I understand that all human beings are different. We come to decisions and develop habits dependent on our individual personality, what we are directly taught at home or in school or church, and what we observe in our surroundings. As the saying goes, "No man is an island" and any decision or habit will have an impact on someone else or even many others. As humans we are inherently members of a community whether we like it or not. The community can be segregated as to household (those with whom we intimately live every day), neighborhood, larger community, nation, and world. We can imagine ourselves in a bubble where we have only ourselves to account to when acting but it's never so. There is a remote possibility that if we were an only child of parents who both died and we have chosen to live as hermit-like a life as we can manage, we may have minimal impact on anyone else. If you are reading this, you obviously don't fit in that category! Like it or not, the fact that we exist comes with a responsibility to consider other humans. I have always found the "golden rule" to be very logical- treat other people the way you would want to be treated. I choose to try to live that way and can only hope others will choose the same.
But sometimes they don't. I don't want to belabor the point of cruelty, prejudice, abuse, etc. Those choices are obviously anti-social and destructive. I want to bring up a mentality that I have complained about several times in my life. It could be called a welfare mentality or a renters mentality both are basically the same. It involves a decision that, because you find some form of contribution to your community distasteful, you refuse to perform. Renters often care little about the condition of their living space and surrounds because it doesn't "belong" to them. If something needs repair or maintenance, they automatically expect the property owner to take care of it. Indeed, often the property owner would prefer knowing about it and seeing that it's done the way they want it done. However, sometimes the property owner is not local or not physically or financially capable of mowing the lawn, washing windows, shoveling sidewalks, etc. Since we are all different, I suppose there are people who really don't care if the lawn is shoulder high and filled with blown-in trash, or the windows are grimy enough you can barely see through them. But no man is an island. Should it matter if neighbors or people who share the dwelling don't like the appearance of unkempt property?
Taking it a step further, when there are obvious labors that need to be performed and any one person refuses to participate, the total load becomes larger for everyone who contributes because of the lack of one who doesn't. There are obvious exceptions to the contribution distribution. Very young humans are either incapable or very limited in what they can do to contribute. People with severe limitations, mental and/or physical, are also very limited in contributing, and that might include the elderly (a different age dependent on the person's genetics). Sometimes people would like to work but cannot find a job as they continue to search and apply. People who have a "welfare mentality" are those who are capable of contributing (to at least some degree) but manage to justify to themselves that their share of the work should be shouldered by others. They may claim they don't care- "What do I care if the lawn is mowed?" or "I actually prefer a messy house." They may claim inability- "I can't work because I'm weak or have asthma or don't do it as well as others....." If they're truly honest, they would simply admit they prefer being indolent. They prefer using their time for more selfish pursuits. Yet they enjoy the results of the labor of others in their community- they walk across the mowed lawn, they buy food with money they did not earn, they more easily find anything they're looking for because someone else put it where it belongs.
I just don't understand it really. I can analyze it but could never bring myself to act in that way. I try to imagine if I had been raised by other parents or in another culture, could I really just sit by resting or entertaining myself, spending money I didn't earn, letting someone else work without my assistance?? It is simply a foreign concept to me. I don't think I could have been a slave owner. I really don't think I could ever consider my own comfort and wants to be superior enough to those of someone I might allow to work harder than I do on my behalf. We don't all do the same work and actually can't do the same work due to differences in strength and knowledge. But EVERYONE can contribute to the best of their ability and be willing to accept their share of the work load. Everyone is much happier when they feel valued enough by those around them that everyone else is taking at least a similar part of the load.
But sometimes they don't. I don't want to belabor the point of cruelty, prejudice, abuse, etc. Those choices are obviously anti-social and destructive. I want to bring up a mentality that I have complained about several times in my life. It could be called a welfare mentality or a renters mentality both are basically the same. It involves a decision that, because you find some form of contribution to your community distasteful, you refuse to perform. Renters often care little about the condition of their living space and surrounds because it doesn't "belong" to them. If something needs repair or maintenance, they automatically expect the property owner to take care of it. Indeed, often the property owner would prefer knowing about it and seeing that it's done the way they want it done. However, sometimes the property owner is not local or not physically or financially capable of mowing the lawn, washing windows, shoveling sidewalks, etc. Since we are all different, I suppose there are people who really don't care if the lawn is shoulder high and filled with blown-in trash, or the windows are grimy enough you can barely see through them. But no man is an island. Should it matter if neighbors or people who share the dwelling don't like the appearance of unkempt property?
Taking it a step further, when there are obvious labors that need to be performed and any one person refuses to participate, the total load becomes larger for everyone who contributes because of the lack of one who doesn't. There are obvious exceptions to the contribution distribution. Very young humans are either incapable or very limited in what they can do to contribute. People with severe limitations, mental and/or physical, are also very limited in contributing, and that might include the elderly (a different age dependent on the person's genetics). Sometimes people would like to work but cannot find a job as they continue to search and apply. People who have a "welfare mentality" are those who are capable of contributing (to at least some degree) but manage to justify to themselves that their share of the work should be shouldered by others. They may claim they don't care- "What do I care if the lawn is mowed?" or "I actually prefer a messy house." They may claim inability- "I can't work because I'm weak or have asthma or don't do it as well as others....." If they're truly honest, they would simply admit they prefer being indolent. They prefer using their time for more selfish pursuits. Yet they enjoy the results of the labor of others in their community- they walk across the mowed lawn, they buy food with money they did not earn, they more easily find anything they're looking for because someone else put it where it belongs.
I just don't understand it really. I can analyze it but could never bring myself to act in that way. I try to imagine if I had been raised by other parents or in another culture, could I really just sit by resting or entertaining myself, spending money I didn't earn, letting someone else work without my assistance?? It is simply a foreign concept to me. I don't think I could have been a slave owner. I really don't think I could ever consider my own comfort and wants to be superior enough to those of someone I might allow to work harder than I do on my behalf. We don't all do the same work and actually can't do the same work due to differences in strength and knowledge. But EVERYONE can contribute to the best of their ability and be willing to accept their share of the work load. Everyone is much happier when they feel valued enough by those around them that everyone else is taking at least a similar part of the load.
Thursday, November 03, 2016
Don't you want to be better?
This is a quote I found as I sorted out papers. Unfortunately I don't have much information about it other than it's from Wendell Berry Recollected Essays:
To the virtuous man,... practical and spiritual values are identical; it is only corruption that can see a difference. Morality is a long-term practicality. We have obscured and weakened morality first, by advocating it for its own sake-- that is, by deifying it... and then, as our capacity for reverence has diminished, by allowing it to become merely decorative, a matter of etiquette. What we have forgotten is the origin of morality in fact and circumstance; we have forgotten that the nature of morality is essentially practical. Moderation and restraint, for example, are necessary, not because of any religious commandment or creed or code, but because they are among the assurances of good health and a sufficiency of goods. Likewise, discipline is necessary if the necessary work is to be done... Loyalty, devotion, faith, self-denial, are not ethereal virtues, but the concrete terms upon which the possibility of love is kept alive in this world. Morality is neither ethereal nor arbitrary, it is the definition of what is humanly possible. .. A live and adequate morality is an accurate perception of the order of things, and of humanity's place in it. By clarifying the human limits, morality tells us what we risk when we forsake the human to behave like false gods or like animals.
This points out, for those who may scoff at religion and its confining rules, that having such limits is for a greater reason than simply obeying a higher authority to avoid punishment. I can add to this logic and truth, that there is a higher power and He can not only give us guidance for a superior way of living, He can also allow us to be forgiven so that all of our mistakes as we bumble along in mortality can be erased- "All thy sins, though they be scarlet, will be white as snow." There truly is a better way than war, abuse, unlimited sexual perversion, greed, pride, covetousness, laziness and all of those things that God calls the natural man who is His enemy.
To the virtuous man,... practical and spiritual values are identical; it is only corruption that can see a difference. Morality is a long-term practicality. We have obscured and weakened morality first, by advocating it for its own sake-- that is, by deifying it... and then, as our capacity for reverence has diminished, by allowing it to become merely decorative, a matter of etiquette. What we have forgotten is the origin of morality in fact and circumstance; we have forgotten that the nature of morality is essentially practical. Moderation and restraint, for example, are necessary, not because of any religious commandment or creed or code, but because they are among the assurances of good health and a sufficiency of goods. Likewise, discipline is necessary if the necessary work is to be done... Loyalty, devotion, faith, self-denial, are not ethereal virtues, but the concrete terms upon which the possibility of love is kept alive in this world. Morality is neither ethereal nor arbitrary, it is the definition of what is humanly possible. .. A live and adequate morality is an accurate perception of the order of things, and of humanity's place in it. By clarifying the human limits, morality tells us what we risk when we forsake the human to behave like false gods or like animals.
This points out, for those who may scoff at religion and its confining rules, that having such limits is for a greater reason than simply obeying a higher authority to avoid punishment. I can add to this logic and truth, that there is a higher power and He can not only give us guidance for a superior way of living, He can also allow us to be forgiven so that all of our mistakes as we bumble along in mortality can be erased- "All thy sins, though they be scarlet, will be white as snow." There truly is a better way than war, abuse, unlimited sexual perversion, greed, pride, covetousness, laziness and all of those things that God calls the natural man who is His enemy.
Monday, October 31, 2016
In case you might want to know.....
I spent my whole day today sorting papers. It's a tedious task even though I sincerely try to be careful not to save too much. I found a printed off email from 2003, just after Thanksgiving, and wanted to share a portion of its contents, especially considering the upcoming election.
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton forced U. S. troops stationed at Bagram air base in Afghanistan to wait for their Thanksgiving dinner last Thursday, while she and her entourage arrived late, then cut in line and were served first. A soldier who witnessed the scene tells NewsMax: "Thanksgiving dinner started at 3 p.m. that day, so the line was forming around 2:30 p.m. She didn't show up until around 3:30 p.m. Once she got there," our source maintains, "Clinton and her entourage bumped everyone in line, forcing them to wait almost an extra hour." The brass at Bagram apparently had a hard time rounding up New Yorkers who wanted to have dinner with Mrs. Clinton. Only six G.I.'s responded to an email sent out last week that stated, "Looking for military members from New York and Rhode Island interested in meeting their Senator/Congressman." People Magazine was on hand to cover the event and wanted to interview the troops for the reaction to Mrs. Clinton's visit. "But they were getting declined left and right," our source said. "People were actually telling the reporters 'You don't want to print what I think about her and her visit.'" After Clinton and her entourage departed, the only topics G.I.'s wanted to talk about were "how great the food was and how fantastic they thought George Bush's visit to Iraq was." Comment: This is the difference between a leader and an ambitious, self-serving political hack. The hack demands the first place in line, while the leader serves the line and eats later.
Don't get me wrong. I have no intention of supporting Donald Trump either. I really can't believe people are arguing over which is the "lesser of the two evils"! Neither major candidate is a person of moral integrity and I cannot in good conscience select either one. I realize that my vote is only one and I realize that there is a danger of having the "worse" one elected- whichever someone may identify as such. I cannot respect either one. There are spotty "platform issues" I can agree for each major party but I cannot support either candidate enough to cast a vote for him or her. I am grateful for the right to vote and will do so but will not support the purchased corruption of either major party candidate.
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton forced U. S. troops stationed at Bagram air base in Afghanistan to wait for their Thanksgiving dinner last Thursday, while she and her entourage arrived late, then cut in line and were served first. A soldier who witnessed the scene tells NewsMax: "Thanksgiving dinner started at 3 p.m. that day, so the line was forming around 2:30 p.m. She didn't show up until around 3:30 p.m. Once she got there," our source maintains, "Clinton and her entourage bumped everyone in line, forcing them to wait almost an extra hour." The brass at Bagram apparently had a hard time rounding up New Yorkers who wanted to have dinner with Mrs. Clinton. Only six G.I.'s responded to an email sent out last week that stated, "Looking for military members from New York and Rhode Island interested in meeting their Senator/Congressman." People Magazine was on hand to cover the event and wanted to interview the troops for the reaction to Mrs. Clinton's visit. "But they were getting declined left and right," our source said. "People were actually telling the reporters 'You don't want to print what I think about her and her visit.'" After Clinton and her entourage departed, the only topics G.I.'s wanted to talk about were "how great the food was and how fantastic they thought George Bush's visit to Iraq was." Comment: This is the difference between a leader and an ambitious, self-serving political hack. The hack demands the first place in line, while the leader serves the line and eats later.
Don't get me wrong. I have no intention of supporting Donald Trump either. I really can't believe people are arguing over which is the "lesser of the two evils"! Neither major candidate is a person of moral integrity and I cannot in good conscience select either one. I realize that my vote is only one and I realize that there is a danger of having the "worse" one elected- whichever someone may identify as such. I cannot respect either one. There are spotty "platform issues" I can agree for each major party but I cannot support either candidate enough to cast a vote for him or her. I am grateful for the right to vote and will do so but will not support the purchased corruption of either major party candidate.
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Ownership
Psalms 24:1 and 1 Corinthians 10:26 "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof". God created the earth and everything on it, through His Son. So nothing on this planet truly "belongs" to anyone here. But each of us, His children, has been given our own right to make choices, also called agency. As a result of that we often end up claiming ownership of things that aren't really ours at all: land, plants, animals, even other people. These days, slavery is not as widely practiced as it has been. We tend to be pretty critical of any effort humans make to "own" other humans. Human trafficking is a crime in all civilized societies. However, there are still incidents of spouses acting like they "own" their mates- everything from outright domineering and physical abuse to "trophy wives" or the self-serving attitude of demanding a wealthy, good-looking partner to show off to the world. Child labor, and I'm not referring to having the kids do chores to help around the house, is abolished as well in civilized societies. But once again, there are parents whose primary attitude toward their children is more like an owner. They get angry when their young athlete doesn't play as well as they want to be able to brag about. They're upset when their child chooses something different than they had planned for them. I'm not referring to being a drug-user as opposed to a healthy lifestyle or choosing living on welfare as opposed to a legitimate job to support themselves.
Having standards for children is not the same as trying to select their life path for them. When my first children were small, I was sincerely concerned about what I was going to teach them. It was essential to me that I never mislead them. In order to teach them truth, I needed to learn it for myself. I read books and sought advice from medical and health professionals about living healthy so I could give them good counsel about eating, exercising, and sleeping. I tried to learn facts from old wives' tales about the world in general so I could tell them scientific truths to the best of my knowledge. I did my best to learn a little about our country and government so I could try to prepare them to be good citizens. I have sought the best moral standards to promote happiness and a healthy society so I could teach my posterity. I have also tried to learn about God, whether He exists and His nature. I know that's a confusing topic in the world so I needed to find what I could for myself, not relying on any single individual or book. I continue to share with my posterity what I have learned but I recognize and respect their right to choose for themselves whether or not I agree. They are "my" children and grandchildren but I do not own them.
Before leaving the topic, I have some confusion about ownership of animals. I believe God expected His children to care for animals. Animals were created before man and are capable of survival without man's intervention. However, they are no longer capable of survival due to some of the interference of man: poaching for tusks, fur, and other body parts; pollution and destruction of habitats, etc. I think it's good to have zoos for educational purposes and they have done well promoting protection of endangered species. Having pets is a bit of a gray area. I don't think having pets should be outlawed but I'm glad there are laws that create consequences for people who abuse animals. I know pets can be satisfying companions for humans. However, I cringe when I see people try to change the nature of animals by dressing them in human-style clothes to show them off- not the booties to protect their feet or the sweaters to keep them warm. I cringe when I see people stuff their pets with unhealthy treats to encourage the pet to adore them or show off some cute trick. I cringe when I see horses painfully hobbled simply for the purpose of getting them to prance in an unnatural way. Circuses are dying out. I guess a lot of animal trainers treat animals well enough. I just don't know if the animals are intelligent enough to resent humans taking advantage of them- caging them, getting them to do things simply to impress other humans. Is it appropriate to "own" animals? How do you distinguish taking care of them, training them to not be destructive according to human standards, and misusing them? I guess I still have a lot of wisdom to gain because I don't know.
Having standards for children is not the same as trying to select their life path for them. When my first children were small, I was sincerely concerned about what I was going to teach them. It was essential to me that I never mislead them. In order to teach them truth, I needed to learn it for myself. I read books and sought advice from medical and health professionals about living healthy so I could give them good counsel about eating, exercising, and sleeping. I tried to learn facts from old wives' tales about the world in general so I could tell them scientific truths to the best of my knowledge. I did my best to learn a little about our country and government so I could try to prepare them to be good citizens. I have sought the best moral standards to promote happiness and a healthy society so I could teach my posterity. I have also tried to learn about God, whether He exists and His nature. I know that's a confusing topic in the world so I needed to find what I could for myself, not relying on any single individual or book. I continue to share with my posterity what I have learned but I recognize and respect their right to choose for themselves whether or not I agree. They are "my" children and grandchildren but I do not own them.
Before leaving the topic, I have some confusion about ownership of animals. I believe God expected His children to care for animals. Animals were created before man and are capable of survival without man's intervention. However, they are no longer capable of survival due to some of the interference of man: poaching for tusks, fur, and other body parts; pollution and destruction of habitats, etc. I think it's good to have zoos for educational purposes and they have done well promoting protection of endangered species. Having pets is a bit of a gray area. I don't think having pets should be outlawed but I'm glad there are laws that create consequences for people who abuse animals. I know pets can be satisfying companions for humans. However, I cringe when I see people try to change the nature of animals by dressing them in human-style clothes to show them off- not the booties to protect their feet or the sweaters to keep them warm. I cringe when I see people stuff their pets with unhealthy treats to encourage the pet to adore them or show off some cute trick. I cringe when I see horses painfully hobbled simply for the purpose of getting them to prance in an unnatural way. Circuses are dying out. I guess a lot of animal trainers treat animals well enough. I just don't know if the animals are intelligent enough to resent humans taking advantage of them- caging them, getting them to do things simply to impress other humans. Is it appropriate to "own" animals? How do you distinguish taking care of them, training them to not be destructive according to human standards, and misusing them? I guess I still have a lot of wisdom to gain because I don't know.
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Loving someone is not the same as valuing them.
Most people feel loved- by someone. Married people usually admit their spouse loves them. Parents generally feel that their children love them. Children are loved by parents. Friends love friends, etc. As wonderful as love is, sometimes it isn't really "validating". For instance, a mother can know their child loves them but not feel valued by them. Mothers generally hear more complaints than anything else from children: why didn't you get the laundry done? Do we have to have this for dinner? You only want me to clean the bathroom so you don't have to do it! Likewise, spouses can often feel more tolerated than valued: my husband is such a slob but I love him anyway. My wife nags me all the time; it's a good thing I love her so much. Anyway- you get the idea. We are all different so what one person thinks is important or good, another may not value at all.
I am really grateful for the opportunity I had to serve for 18 months in the temple with so many really good people. I not only felt loved, I felt truly valued. Good people make a genuine effort to let other people know what they appreciate about them without any expectation of something in return. They don't compliment others hoping to get complimented back. They don't do something nice for someone else to earn favors. I was so uplifted by so many people telling me what good qualities they observed in me with no hidden agendas or expectations. It felt so good to have others recognize my efforts to be kind, loving, helpful, and willing to listen. It felt really validating to have others recognize and value my efforts to be orderly and do a job well. I have had such experiences with some in my family on occasion which I am grateful for as well. I have had a sister express her admiration at my "strength" in the face of adversity. I have had a daughter demand my supervision loading and unloading household belongings knowing that I would organize it well. I have had a daughter express to others that she felt she was raised about as well as anyone could be raised by a wonderful mother. I have had a son compliment, with even a touch of awe in his voice, my creative efforts in speaking and writing songs.
I think when we take the time and make the effort to recognize the accomplishments and good qualities of someone we love, then be sure to express that awareness, it goes a long way in making them feel good about themselves. It's essential to express that we love others but it sure is nice to not just tolerate their "idiosynchroses" but notice and express what we admire about them.
I am really grateful for the opportunity I had to serve for 18 months in the temple with so many really good people. I not only felt loved, I felt truly valued. Good people make a genuine effort to let other people know what they appreciate about them without any expectation of something in return. They don't compliment others hoping to get complimented back. They don't do something nice for someone else to earn favors. I was so uplifted by so many people telling me what good qualities they observed in me with no hidden agendas or expectations. It felt so good to have others recognize my efforts to be kind, loving, helpful, and willing to listen. It felt really validating to have others recognize and value my efforts to be orderly and do a job well. I have had such experiences with some in my family on occasion which I am grateful for as well. I have had a sister express her admiration at my "strength" in the face of adversity. I have had a daughter demand my supervision loading and unloading household belongings knowing that I would organize it well. I have had a daughter express to others that she felt she was raised about as well as anyone could be raised by a wonderful mother. I have had a son compliment, with even a touch of awe in his voice, my creative efforts in speaking and writing songs.
I think when we take the time and make the effort to recognize the accomplishments and good qualities of someone we love, then be sure to express that awareness, it goes a long way in making them feel good about themselves. It's essential to express that we love others but it sure is nice to not just tolerate their "idiosynchroses" but notice and express what we admire about them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)