Love is Messy

I have previously written about unconditional love and how difficult it is to both  accept such love and to practice it.  At the possible risk of repeating some of what I previously wrote I will share some thoughts about how messy love is. 

If we accept the thinking of Thomas Merton expressed in the following quote, loving is very simple.

“The beginning of love is the will to let those we love be perfectly themselves, the resolution not to twist them to fit our own image. If in loving them we do not love what they are, but only their potential likeness to ourselves, then we do not love them: we only love the reflection of ourselves we find in them”

― Thomas Merton, No Man Is an Island  on goodreads.com

In the past few days I have talked to several people who have been acutely angry and/or disappointed in the behavior of others. In fact a couple of people have expressed strong disappointment in some of my recent behavior.  Not surprisingly, there seems to be a common set of assumptions regarding our relationship with others and ourselves.  Some of these are:

·      If I am kind and generous to another person they will respond with kindness and generosity.

·      It they do not respond with kindness and generosity then that means that they are selfish, self centered, bad people.

·      All of we humans have free will. Despite the increased acceptance of mental illness, addiction and just the fact that many factors affect how we see, hear or experience something or someone, we “know” that people are behaving the way they are because they are responding to my behavior and still deciding to be unkind.
   
·      Perhaps if I treat them badly now they will realize the errors of their ways or will at least know how badly I am hurt.

·      We would never behave as badly or as unkindly or be as unappreciative as they are.  I have no idea of what those other so called spiritual kooks are talking about when they say that we most hate those who mirror our own behavior. I never behave that way.

·      Thomas Merton and others of his ilk are wrong. I do not love others only if they reflect the qualities I like about myself.

Let us now examine these one by one. 

1.   If I am kind enough to another person they will respond with kindness and generosity.   This assumes that they experienced my behavior as kind and generous.  There are many reasons why that might not be the case. Perhaps the person is so fearful of being mistreated that they think I am only appearing to be kind and generous because I want others to think I care when I really do not. Perhaps the other person is physically, emotionally or spiritually in that lower level space, which, as Maslow suggests, only allows for focusing on one’s own needs and cannot consider or think about the other person.  Perhaps the other person has been so traumatized that they mistrust all kindness and find it “safer” to just assume that the other is secretly a mean person pretending to be kind.

2.   It they do not respond with kindness and generosity then that means that they are selfish, self centered, bad people.  It is true that they may be self-centered right now as we all are at times.  Yesterday I was so exhausted after having only a brief amount of sleep the night before that I had to try to force myself to even be present.  I am sure that if I went several days without sleep I would find it really hard to be the person I want to be.  Perhaps the other person is dealing with a diagnosed or undiagnosed medical or emotional condition which does not allow them to think if terms of being kind or unkind. 

3.   All of we humans have free will. Despite the increased acceptance of mental illness, addiction and the fact that many factors affect how we see, hear or experience something or someone, we “know” that people are behaving the way they are because they are responding to my behavior and still deciding to be unkind.  I and many others have written extensively on the subject of the illusion of free will. Many, many factors affect the ability of any of us to have a particular thought which we might think is logical.  Just the number of factors which affect the production or availability of a particular chemical involved in what we like to refer to the thought process are too numerous to mention. We have to also remember that the human mind is part of an interactional system within the body and within the larger context of a family, community, etc. It is true that it sometimes feels as if I am an able to make a decision and follow through with a certain behavior. I did make a conscious decision to sit down and write this blog.  Yet, any number of factors may have made it difficult and even impossible for me to do that.

4.   Perhaps if I treat them badly now they will realize the errors of their ways or will at least know how badly I am hurt.  It may occasionally be true that if I ignore, hit, or in some other way “punish” the other person they will have an ah ha moment, feel remorse, apologize and we can resume or past loving relationships. More thank likely, however, they will now feel justified in their former opinion that one is the reason for their behavior. Besides at this point being mean seldom, in my experience, communicates love, Fifty Shades of Grey notwithstanding.

5.   We would never behave as badly or as unkindly or be as unappreciative as they are.  I have no idea of what those other so called spiritual kooks are talking about when they say that we most hate those who mirror our own behavior. I never behave that way.  On yes!  My “sin’ of self righteousness or my fear of seeing my own humanness.   We, of course, know or think we know our intentions.  We “assume” others realize and appreciate out intentions also.  Our intentions are always kind. Well, perhaps not always kind or…   Both in my personal relationships and my professional relationships others have heard or experienced something I did as very unkind either because some part of me was really angry or because of something going on with them.  A number of times, in my role as a parent, my son experienced some behavior of mine as controlling which was not even close to the motive I was assigning my behavior!  More than once I have said something to a client, which they heard as mean, or unkind which I really did not mean to be heard that way! If truth were told there was a time or two when I was feeling unkind toward that bank blank client!!! I am not proud of that but honesty requires that I admit this!!  I sometimes have very mean thoughts!!

6.   Thomas Merton and others of his ilk are wrong. I do not love others just if they reflect the qualities I like about myself.  Well, the truth is that I am most familiar and comfortable with my own values and behavior. Sure I can appreciate someone with different talents, but I most appreciate and love those who think and behave as I think I do.  My reality may be much different than I perceive it to  be or than other people experience it.

My advice to all of us is to expect love to me messy. We are all going to find it difficult to love regardless of how the other person(s) behave. We are all going to have to lovingly adjust our expectations of self and others. We are either going to adjust the pre-written script in our head of how the relationship is “supposed” to go or be very miserable because others are not following the script I have written

I have just returned from a trip via airplane to visit my mother and other members of my family in Oklahoma. Since I did not have a direct flight either on the trip out or the return trip, I had a lot of time to engage in one of my favorite past times which is observing the behavior of we humans. 

In the Dallas airport, for instance, there was a young boy playing with his toy airplane.   It seemed as if he could not go 2 minutes without breaking some rule.  The rules were very practical and included:

·      Do not crawl on the dirty airport carpet which cold host a variety of germs.

·      Do not allow the wings of the plane to get too close to other people so that you do not scratch them.

·      Hold mommy or daddy hand when going some place.

·      Stay close to mommy and daddy.

·      You may not have another piece of candy.

Although these rules may have seemed arbitrary to the young child, they were not.  They were pretty universally accepted rules for those families who spend time in public places such as airports and who still want to monitor the nutritional intake and general behavior of their children.   If a child is lucky he or she has parents who are able to be emotionally and physically present enough to provide a lot of guidance for the developmental years of their life.  Although the nature of the guidance will change as the children become teenagers and approach the age of legal adulthood, the hands on guidance will still be very important.

I started thinking about the fact that in addition to these very practical rules every family and cultural groups has a lot of expectations, which, in some families, will become rules.  Some of these rules may be grounded in the religious or cultural heritage of the family.  There are often rules covering a wide range of behaviors. These may include:

·      Eat everything on your plate.

·      Do not complain about what food you have. There are starving children in China. (I would have been happy to share some of my food with the children in China).

·      Address all adults my Mrs. or Sir.

·      Children do not speak when adults are present unless spoken to.

·      Do not use words such as dam or “take the lord’s name in vain” – applied to children but not adults.

·      Do not embarrass your parents by misbehaving or by crying in front of anyone outside of the family even if you have been beaten.

·      Take care of your elders even if you do not like them.

·      If one family member is angry with another family member do not speak or do anything for that family member who is the subject of anger.

·      Speak badly to your children but do not allow others to speak badly of them.

·      Hold grudges forever.

·      Do not admit that you are wrong unless, of course, you are a child and an adult is demanding your confession.

·      Do not lie, but also do not believe the person if they say that they only want you to tell the truth. You will get into trouble for telling the truth.

·      Do not criticize your country – love it or leave it.

·      Treat those who are different with respect but make sure they stay on their side of the track.

·      Assume that bad people go to jail and good people stay out of jail.

·      Do not hit unless your are an adult or protecting someone in the family.

·      Do not disagree or talk back to your parents or other adults even if you are repeating something they said or did.

·      Do not let anyone outside the immediate family know what goes on in the family.

·      Dress properly – what was proper did change over the years although there is still “rules” for one should dress no matter how old one is.

·      Do not talk about sex.

·      Color in the lines.

·      There is almost always a right way to do some behavior.

·      Do not demonstrate about political issues, which may have had something to do with not drawing attention to one or the family.

This list could be much longer. It seems as if there are rules for just about every aspect of behavior.  If one violates one of the rules, there is seemingly a rule about how one “scolds” the person who broke the rule.  The scolding can be delivered with a sigh and a sense of grave disappointment.  Scolding could be pretty intense

For example, not to be outdone by any Jewish stereotype, my mother did not hesitate to tell one “You are not a child of mine. No child of mine could behave that way.  You will never darken my doorstep again or contact me in any way.”

Of course, one is also made aware of rules by teachers, school administrators, ministers, other relatives and sometimes neighbors/friends of the family.  These cover everything from behavior in church to private behavior such as masturbation/playing with oneself. Some of these rules are labeled as sins which, of course, means that if you broke the rules you were not only a grave disappointment to your family and/or the minister but also to God.

There are also the habits an individual or a family often developed for very practical reasons. These might include the time of meals, who might host Sunday dinner, what meals were called, what was served for a meal, whether or not particular family members consumed alcohol or coffee, and the standard of home and personal cleanliness.  Some of these habits were also rules and/or sins.

Then, of course, there are the laws, some of which vary within a country or from country to country.  It seems as if there were fewer laws when I was younger. For example many parental behaviors, which were quite acceptable when I was young, would now be considered child abuse or neglect.  We have also added laws to cover new technology such as smart cars, the internet, video games, school standards and a wide variety of other behavior in addition to the standard ones such as those about robbery of a merchant which is different than corporate robbery or rape of the land, murder (more complicated), use of alcohol and other drugs, the role of doctors and other health care professionals, use of airspace, and, of course, the host of laws which determine whether a behavior is considered wrong or immoral.  Additional laws may cover such issues as rendition or torture, and the killing of those a nation decides is its enemy or someone heading a country that is not friendly towards one. 

It is interesting that one of the messages we also give to our children is ‘think for yourself”.  Yet, it seemed and often still seems as if many times when a child thinks for himself or herself we tell them that they are bad or wrong.   The children then learn to hide what they are doing or to refrain from thinking outside the box with has been built from the rules, habits and laws they have been taught to obey.

Yet, most of us recognize that most, of not all, helpful inventions, creative art, scientific discoveries, or interesting new recipes have come about because someone or some group of people thought outside the box – broke a rule, changed a habit, or broke a law.  People who broke both rules and laws or culturally accepted behavior have made all of the advances we have made in deceasing discrimination.  I was talking to a older woman I know who was relating the fact that she and her college roommates got into trouble for going off campus without hats and gloves.  No longer does it seem strange for women to wear pants instead of dresses.  We no longer overtly endorse the glass ceilings.  Stay at home dads are become more common and, thus, more accepted.  Young people living together “in sin” prior to getting married is now the norm in this country although in other countries and some cultures in this country that is not the case.   Gays and Lesbians can now get married in a number of states in the United States and in a number of other countries. 

We have satellites, cell phones, many television channels, smart cars, drones, commercial airplanes, more kitchen appliances than most kitchens can accommodate, store bought clothes, laser eye surgery, outpatient removal of cataracts, organ transplants and open heart surgery. We also have cyber crime, more worldwide population than we can take care of, water shortages, global warm and earthquakes, which might be related to fracking.

It seems that we humans are going to continue to try to restrict how and when we think outside the box.  We also go to continue to attribute certain behavioral patterns to what we imagine or think or hope that God wants because it frightens us to think otherwise.  We are going to continue to punish those who make us uncomfortable by chastising them for breaking the family, community or cultural rules.  At the same time we will come to accept and even celebrate some changes often forgetting that they were first thought to be bad or wrong.  We will probably continue to try to shame people into following our rules.   Sometimes we will use the power of laws in an attempt to make people do what one group or individuals thinks is the right thing. 

My point is that rules, laws and habits can be very useful. It is only wen we make them sacred (not always in a religious sense) that they keep us from hearing and challenging each other to think outside the box; to experiment with whether a rule, law or habit has outlived its usefulness.

Hopefully, particularly as parents, we will support and challenge each other to both protect our children and give them room to color outside the box.

At this time of the year when folks are graduating from having completed a portion of their formal education, perhaps they would be well advised to consider the purpose of a rule, habit or law.  If it is to keep the family or community comfortable or to control a person or group of people by instilling fear then, perhaps, it is time to consider letting go of that rule, habit or law.

I was reading a poem by Wendell Berry today entitled, “How to be a Poet” and the lines,

         Of the words that come

         out of the silence, like prayers

         prayed back to the one who prays,

         make a poem that does not disturb

         the silence from which it came.

I often think of the luxury of a friendship which allows for reading separate books together.  The silence between the communication – a look, a word, a thought which creates a felt presence – is often, for me, more powerful than any words one might say to the other.  Spiritual teachers, including people such as Eckhart Tolle, talk about the space between words.  Artists talk about negative space – the space not filled in with an object.  Wikipedia defines negative space as: “Negative space, in art, is the space around and between the subject(s) of an image. Negative space may be most evident when the space around a subject, not the subject itself, forms an interesting or artistically relevant shape, and such space occasionally is used to artistic effect as the "real" subject of an image.”

My experience is often that I am so busy filling in the spaces with thoughts or spoken words that I miss what is really being said or communicated. That is often true when someone else is speaking, I am looking at something and not seeing, smelling something and not noticing the scent or feeling something and not connecting.

My goal, of course, is to be more present. This requires allowing my mind to quit filling in the spaces of sight, sound, smells or sensation.

This does not come easy or naturally to me.   It seems much safer to hold on to my illusion that I have experienced the other person, object or sensation and have a nice label for that experience.   Yet, I “know” that when I hang on to that illusion I miss the possibility of what might be or what might have been.  Pretty soon, if I am not careful, I will be getting anxious if anything disturbs my illusion of control or of “knowing”. 

Hanging on to his illusion is not the way to grab hold of the poem; of the possibility of what might be; of what could be.  Yet, as long as nothing disturbs my illusion I will slowly dissolve into the nothingness of my safe existence. I will, at some level, not allow myself to know that I am dying inside bit by bit. There is a certain lack of anxiety in this process - an absence of feeling.

If not careful I will not connect the dots. I will not allow myself to know the high price I am paying for ignoring that which is not yet - that which has not been filled in.  I will become one of those who is quietly dead but seeming to have the good life – a house with a neatly manicured lawn, a car which is washed every weekend, a partner who looks good but is slipping away from me or a poem which is never heard.  I will feel a sense of missing something, but will remind myself to be grateful for this nice, safe, predictable life, which will be the envy of all who look at me. I will hardly notice that I have become this robotic like person who can easily be replaced at work, at home and in the community.  

How shall I draw this person who is without negative space; this person who has become a non-person but who still appears to be? I must be careful to fill in all the negative space. I do not want any new “truth” to sneak in. When the storm arrives I will be quickly carried away from the walls, which are not!

Obviously, this does not have to describe my life journey. I have the theoretical choice of not allowing this to happen. Who is that I will allow to penetrate this wall that I have built?  Perhaps I will push away all who suggest that I have changed or that I have disappeared and am now merely this shell who might seem to look like the same person albeit a bit older. 

I said to my nephew today that all of my close friends tickle my brain and my heart. They love me unconditionally and they challenged me to think outside my safe little box. Often they make me so uncomfortable that I become irritable for a moment.  I want their challenge without being made to feel uncomfortable!

Yet, I know that to keep growing I need to be uncomfortable. I need to embrace the anxiety which comes with stretching the protective shell.   Only in this negative, uncomfortable, unpredictable space will I grow and thrive. Only there will I access my passion and find the courage to take the next step in moving toward that passion.

Again I am reminded as I experience the discomfort to breathe and just notice my breath.  When I hear myself saying that I cannot do this or this is too stressful or someone will not approve or “what if” I will come back to the breath.  If I need a point of focus I will count 10 while breathing in, hold for a count of ten and breathe out for a count of ten.

 

 

Conversation with a six year old

On May 15, a federal jury sentenced Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to deatlh.  After reading this and looking at the photos of this young man I felt an overwhelming sense of sadness: both for the victims of the bombing and Mr. Tsarnaev and his family.  Reactions of the victims varied although most seem to concur that justice has been done in finding him guilty and ordering the death penalty.  Some suggested that although there is nothing happy about taking someone’s life, justice would have been done. Others suggested that “an eye for an eye” was just.

It is interesting that on the same day the newspaper carried the story of the decision by the European Court of Human Rights to impose a fine of nearly $250,000 on Poland for the torture of individuals by the Central intelligence Agency of the United States on its soil.  The money will go to the victims of CIA torture, which took place at
an agency black site in Poland. The NPR news report said that,
“The people of Poland are expressing outrage on Friday as news spread that their own government is on the verge of paying more than $250,000 to victims of CIA torture which took place at an agency black site in the country even as the U.S. government refuses to acknowledge the crime or take responsibility for the grave human rights abuses that took place under the Bush administration.” 

My understanding and memory tells me that both the Bush and Obama administrations have admitted to the use of torture and enhanced interrogation techniques following 9/11, although I could find no specific admission of doing so on Polish soil.

On the Guardian.com site on August 1, 2014, one finds the following:

In some of the most expansive and blunt remarks on the CIA’s program of rendition and detention he has made since coming to office, Obama said the country “crossed a line” as it struggled to react to the threat of further attacks by al-Qaida. However, he also said it was important “not to feel too sanctimonious”, adding that he believed intelligence officials responsible for torturing detainees were working during a period of extraordinary stress and fear.

As I often do, I thought about attempting to explain the difference between the three acts to a six year old.  The three acts to which I am referring are:

·      The bombing of participants, onlookers and those staffing the Boston Marathon by a person who obviously believed he was helping to make a moral and political statement, the goal of which was to achieve justice.

·      The decision to kill one of the young people just convicted of that bombing in an attempt to achieve or promote justice.

·      The torture of individuals by the representatives of the United States Government in order to gain information which might lead to killing others with the goal of creating a more just world.

In attempting to explain to a six year old that we are the good persons and thus justified in killing and torturing and that others are the bad people and, thus, not justified in killing and torturing, the conversation might go something like:

         Child: What does justify mean?  Are we always the good?

         People?

         Me:  Justify means that we had a good reason for what

         We do.

         Child: Does this mean that if I have a good reason I can?

         Hit Sue? She is often mean.

         Me:  No, it is not right to hit Sue. You will get into

         Trouble.

         Child:  Oh, I can do it when she is walking home.  No

         One walks with her. I would not get into trouble then.

         That would be like going to Poland to torture people?

         Me: That is not what I meant.  You are not to hit Sue at

         Time. No, hitting her when no one can watch is not exactly

         the same as going to Poland to torture people.

         Child: Why not?  You said that if I had a good reason for

         Doing something and did not get into trouble it was okay.

         Me: No, it is never okay for a child to hit another child.

         Child:  I have to wait until I am an adult to hit her.

Obviously, this conversation could go on for a long time with little resolution.   For me it is always instructive to try to think of having a conversation with a six year old.  Six year olds that I know are not fearful of asking question after question and saying when something is confusing or does not make sense to them.

In this example, I cannot make the child understand because I do not understand or accept the commonly accepted logic for killing or hurting another.  I know that all of us justify our behavior and all of us begin a violent action out of a sense of frustration or a sense that it is our duty to stop the bad person(s) from being bad again!  In truth, of course, I may be just reacting without thinking or my motive might quickly morph into one of wanting to punish the other for what I think is their bad behavior.

Although some think that I am just trying to make a point and really do understand the difference between the actions of the good people (us) and the bad people (them), the truth is I do not understand the difference. I do know that I can have very strong feelings that what I think is the right way to think.  I also know that, as a person with a degree in philosophy, I can present my point of view in 60 pages or so!  I also know how to include or leave out the essential core of an argument.  Often that essential core is the strong belief that my point of view is based on just, moral beliefs and the point of view of others is based on a warped, destructive, “sick” point of view.  After all, it is not logical to think that a God wants us to become a martyr to create a world in which people are following God’s laws. But then the six year old again chimes in and says, “But you pray that our side will win when they go to war which means others will die.  You also know our soldiers are going to die for their country. I heard in school that we should be grateful that our service people are willing to die to create a better world for us and our children.”   Then, of course, I would respond with, “Being willing to die or even expecting to die is not the same as someone becoming a suicide bomber.” The six year old would then, of course, want to know how it is different.

Well, perhaps we can leave that discussion and focus on an easier question.  Obviously, even a six year old will understand that killing “innocent men, women and children at a marathon, running event is different than killing people in a war.  So I say this to a six year old and the very precocious six year old brings up the subject of our drones killing lots of civilian men, women and children.  We respond with those are accidents whereas the Boston bombing was intentional killing of innocents.  So then the six year old brings up the subject of a kid at school bringing his dad’s gun to school because he wanted to stop the class bully but he hit and hurt someone else.

At this point one might want to point out that we cannot expect a six year old to understand the subtilizes of justice or war.  Well, I am well past six and I do not yet understand the difference.  I, obviously, know what many say are the differences. I also know how to present a very cogent argument which makes is sound seem different, but the truth is I really do not understand. 

I think that I need to continue to talk to six year olds who may just be better at keeping me honest and forcing me to look at the justifications for my actions than many of my adult friends.

Again, I am wondering the extent to which I must take to heart the quote attributed to that Jesus fellow, “Unless you become as a small little child you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Christian religion New Testament: Matthew 18:3).

I am going to depart from my usual format this morning..

I want to briefly  honor someone whom I greatly admire.  That person is my brother-in-law, Carl.  Yesterday I joined he and my sister Bonnie along with a few others to celebrate Carl’s 80th birthday.  He and my sister have been together nearly 60 years and, thus, he has been a part of my life for a very long time.  I am sure that various family members, including my sister, will have many adjectives to use when describing their experience with and impression of this man.   All of our adjectives will, of course,  describe our own personal relationship.  I have not lived geographically close to them during this 60 years. Thus, my impressions can be formed only during brief, usually yearly, visits and from their children and  grandchildren.  

When I think of Carl, I think of words such as gentle, solid, kind, strong, loyal,  and playful.  He seems to me to be very consistent in his love and his commitment to his family and his and my sister’s extended family.  He frequently has a twinkle in his eye, but that twinkle can quickly take a back seat to a stern, clear voice when a child needs reminded of some boundaries or limits.  Since I only have cameo appearances in his life, I know little about what he thinks and feels aside from what I observe.  I do know that I admire and am appreciative of the fact that he has been there to  share life’s joys and hardships with my sister.  I love all my siblings, but my sister, Bonnie, was my first sibling. She is two years older and was there to help welcome me when I arrived in this life journey.  

Since I have lived far away  since I have been 18  and each of us were involved in the details of our individual lives, I cannot say that we know each other well.  Neither Carl nor my sister are letter writers although instant messaging and email have made it easier to stay in touch.  I have always, however, been aware of the fact that Bonnie and Carl, along with our sister Pat, have assumed all the responsibility for helping to care for our father prior to his death, caring our paternal grandparents, and still caring for our mother.    Despite the fact that caretaking can be exhausting and, at times, frustrating, they never once have  criticized me for not being there to help.   My sisters might take the lead, but Carl was always there to help when needed and to be quietly supportive the rest of the time. 

 Now, I  do not want to give Carl the burden of sainthood.  Mercy! That seems much too much to lay on anyone. Besides that would be presumptuous of me and imply a closer relationship than we have.

As I move closer myself to that eighty year mark, I am more and more appreciative of those very basic, simple qualities which sustain us throughout our lives.   I have had relationships which are emotionally closer, certainly ones which were more passionate, and ones which were more challenging emotionally, intellectually, or spiritually than the one I have with Carl.  Fortunately, I have also had a few which I would describe as solid.   I was thinking this morning of the quality of solid in a relationship.   I had a text from a friend who is making a special effort to visit a mutual sick friend while I am out of town.  She is visiting more since I am unable to visit. I would also describe her as solid.   

I know that no matter what, if I really needed something or if my sister, mother, or other family member needed something and Carl was able, he would be there.  That says a lot about this solid man. 

Happy birthday Carl and thanks for being my teacher.

The headline in the May 15th USA front page article was entitled, “Psychiatrist:  Army must ‘man up’ over killings.   In this article Army Psychiatrist Patrick Lillard was referring to decisions which led up to  “that night four years ago when a drunken soldier shot to death a sheriff’s deputy along a shoulder of an expressway outside this base (Fort Gordon, Georgia) and then turned the rifle on himself.”

This article written by Greg Zoroya of USA TODAY, should be the basis of discussions about:

·      How serious we take the disease of addition and its consequent affect on one’s brain.

·      How treatment decisions are made in the military.

·      How National Guard Troops serving their country on active duty are treated when they get injured or have a medical condition such as addiction.

·      The role of we health care professionals in modeling the treatment of addiction as a disease and not as someone misbehaving.

Perhaps we could begin by asking some of the following questions:

Who should be making decisions about care for an illness?  Should a non-medical officers in the Army or any other non-medical person be able to overrule the recommendations of a medical doctor?  Dr. Lillard had twice recommended that the soldier, Specialist Christopher Hodges, receive at least a month of intensive treatment.

What do we need to do to convince  counselors, commanding officers and the general public to take the disease of addiction seriously and then take steps necessary to insure that treatment is mandated when someone’s thinking is impaired?  Our current laws and rules in and out of the military make it nearly impossible to mandate treatment.

What do we need to do to ensure that inpatient and residential treatment facilities staffed by trained, competent professionals are available 24 hours a day seven days a week? Currently even if someone is ready to get help one seldom has access to inpatient medical care where that person can be safely detoxed and then get the follow up treatment necessary for healing/recovery.  Inpatient care does more than address the possibility of an immediate medical crisis. It addresses the need to be in a safe, closed facility where the drug of choice is not available. 

How do we treat those who are members of a National Guard when they are injured or have a serious medical condition? The young man was on active duty from the Tennessee National Guard.   His company commander said his decision to not follow the advice of Dr. Lillard “stemmed from the fact that Hodges was a member of the Tennessee National Guard and only temporarily on active duty while attending air-traffic control training at Fort Gordon.  Mullins said that he thought Hodges would return to the National Guard before hospitalization could begin.    Sadly even though I am a veteran and work with veterans until a few years ago I was under the impression that anyone who was on active duty regardless of whether their point of origin for via the regular military service or the National Guard were treated the same when it came to medical needs.  I naively did not think one’s point of origin mattered if one needed medical attention or ongoing treatment at the Veterans Administration facilities.   Apparently the relationship between the National Guard and the regular service is much more complicated than I used to think.  If one is permanently injured by serving on active duty, but is a member of the National Guard one is not immediately eligible for the same benefits as one who originated as a member of the regular service.   If one is serving one’s country in the armed services and needs help it should not matter.  Specialist Hodges needed treatment, deserved treatment, and those who were affected by his addiction deserved protection.  It should have happened the day Dr. Lillard recommended it. Treatment should have continued as long as it was needed.    We need to address whatever budget issues and other political issues which affect how individuals on active duty are treated.

It is helpful to use  terms such as “man up? Although commonly used, it is an outdated, sexist term which does not take into account the fact that (1) the Army and the general public has both men and women in it (2) someone who is ill cannot just “man up” or “woman u” or “person up”.  Yes, there are times when all of us need to call upon all the strength and courage we can muster.  I have suggested to others and myself that it is time to pull up one’s big girl or big boy pants and do what we need to do. Sometimes I have used this phase with someone about needing to get treatment for his or her addiction.  I know that we all know what the term means and it has some validity, but it has also been used to send someone back into battle after several tours of combat duty or to just quit drinking or to ignore one’s mental illness.  Dr. Lillard is suggesting that the Army personnel have the courage to admit that how they handled this and similar cases is irresponsible at best.

If one does not believe that alcoholism is a serious disease ask any adult who grew up with an alcoholic parent.   Ask any parent who has a child of whatever age whose diseased brain is terrorizing the family.  Ask any relative of someone who has been killed by someone under the influence of alcohol. Ask any doctor who treats individuals with advanced, often life threating diseases which are directly caused by alcoholism.  Ask anyone who has tried to force an out of control addict into treatment about the laws in their state and/or the attitude of health care professionals.   

We health care and addiction professionals also need to start being more consistent.  Half the time we say it is a disease and work hard to get insurance to pay for treatment for this medical condition.   Yet, when the person cannot stay sober or clean we often get angry, accuse them of not really trying and  we may even throw them out of treatment.  We cannot have it both ways.  It sometimes seems as if we want to treat addicts whose minds are already healed.  That obviously makes no sense at all. Either the whole treatment option is a scam and we need to just “man up” and get a real job or we need to be consistent about treating addicts with the compassion we treat a person with any other disease.

Heaven – Got You!

Since the beginning of recorded history and we might surmise prior to that, we humans have wanted to make sense out of this  life journey. Often this engendered some theory about how this planet or this universe came into being.  Thus, we find various creation stories and theories ranging from the big bang theory to the creation stories which are posited by mythologies and religions.  Most religions and philosophies have envisioned a supreme being or beings – ancestors, spirits, multiples Gods, or a parent like figure who not only authored the universe as we have been able to envision or identify it, but concerned themselves with our earthly behavior. This often led then to a concept of hell or afterlife in which one was rewarded or punished for the choices one made during their current life journey.  For some the concept of dharma helped to explain how happened to an individual or a family. Consider, for example, Rpman mythology:

In Roman mythology, Tartarus is the place where sinners are sent. Virgil describes it in the Aeneid as a gigantic place, surrounded by the flaming river Phlegethon and triple walls to prevent sinners from escaping from it. It is guarded by a hydra with fifty black gaping jaws, which sits at a screeching gate protected by columns of solid adamantine, a substance akin to diamond – so hard that nothing will cut through it. Inside, there is a castle with wide walls, and a tall iron turret. Tisiphone, one of the Erinyes who represents revenge, stands guard sleepless at the top of this turret lashing a whip. There is a pit inside which is said to extend down into the earth twice as far as the distance from the lands of the living to Olympus. At the bottom of this pit lie the Titans, the twin sons of Aloeus, and many other sinners. Still more sinners are contained inside Tartarus, with punishments similar to those of Greek myth.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We could also consider Hindu cosmology:

Attaining heaven is not the final pursuit in Hinduism as heaven itself is ephemeral and related to physical body. Only being tied by the bhoot-tatvas, heaven cannot be perfect either and is just another name for pleasurable and mundane material life. According to Hindu cosmology, above the earthly plane, are other planes: (1) Bhuva Loka, (2) Swarga Loka, meaning Good Kingdom, is the general name for heaven in Hinduism, a heavenly paradise of pleasure, where most of the Hindu Devatas (Deva) reside along with the king of Devas, Indra, and beatified mortals. Some other planes are Mahar Loka, Jana Loka, Tapa Loka and Satya Loka. Since heavenly abodes are also tied to the cycle of birth and death, any dweller of heaven or hell will again be recycled to a different plane and in a different form as per the karma and "maya" i.e. the illusion of Samsara. This cycle is broken only by self-realization by the Jivatma. This self-realization is Moksha (Turiya, Kaivalya).

The concept of moksha is unique to Hinduism and is unparalleled. Moksha stands for liberation from the cycle of birth and death and final communion with Brahman. With moksha, a liberated soul attains the stature and oneness with Brahman or Pramatma. Different schools such as Vedanta, Mimansa, Sankhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, and Yoga offer subtle differences in the concept of Brahman, obvious Universe, its genesis and regular destruction, Jivatma, Nature (Prakriti) and also the right way in attaining perfect bliss or moksha.

In the Vaishnava traditions the highest heaven is Vaikuntha, which exists above the six heavenly lokas and outside of the mahat-tattva or mundane world. It's where eternally liberated souls who have attained moksha reside in eternal sublime beauty with Lakshmi and Narayana (a manifestation of Vishnu).

In the Nasadiya Sukta, the heavens/sky Vyoman is mentioned as a place from which an overseeing entity surveys what has been created. However, the Nasadiya Sukta questions the omniscience of this overseer.

(Wikipedia)

Some, such as the Buddhists think in terms of multiple life journeys which give us many opportunities to learn the  spiritual lessons we need to learn.

Aristotle posited a prime mover.

In Christian theology,  heaven is posited as a place one goes after death if and only if one was a faithful follower of Christ during this life journey.   For many who ascribe to the Christian faith, it is very important that one specifically “accept Jesus as one’s personal savior” if one is to gain access to heaven.  Others who call themselves Christian would allow for a little more flexibility. 

Currently, undoubtedly the most famous Christian is  the current pope, Francis.

Pope Francis has gained a lot of attention since his election to this esteemed role as leader of the Roman Catholic church by stressing the inclusivity of the love of God and, thus, the mandate that we take care of and love humans are in that group commonly referred to as “the least of these”.  He has very pointedly seemed to refrain from suggesting that God is incapable of embracing even those who the Catholic Church has excluded.   Thus, it came as somewhat a surprise and a disappointment to me when I read the following:

Pope:  God will judge you on whether you cared for the earth. . .

“Pope Francis warned the rich and the powerful on Tuesday that God will judge them on whether they fed the poor and cared for the earth, his latest exhortation on the environment ahead o his eagerly awaited encyclical on climate change and its effects on the world’s most vulnerable.  (St. Petersburgh Tribune, May 13, 2015, page 4.  Article by Nicole Winfield)

I do not believe that Grace excludes those who may be attached or addiction to money and, thus, unable to allow themselves to share it

In this statement Pope Francis has reintroduced the concept of judgment and, punishment.  Certainly there is a long tradition in the Jewish religion of an Old Testament God who gets very angry when we humans  do not behave  consistently like the God’s we are to emulate. In point of fact there is some possible scriptural basis for this view in the new testament.  Jesus is, for example, reputed to have said that it will be more difficult for the rich man to enter into the kingdom of God than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.”  The are several possible interpretations of this passage:

1.    Jesus was  referring to the riches per se or our tendency as humans to look to money or possessions as our God; to use money as a way to avoid being with ourselves or to prove our self worth thus insuring that we are separated from ourselves, each other and our higher power/God/Universe?

2.   Jesus was referring to the concept of a future heaven when He mentions the kingdom of God?

3.   In the recording of this oral history the author interjected his own understanding of what Jesus might have said.

As I have often suggested, we humans seem nearly incapable of accepting that we are already enough; that we are worth loving as humans with all of possibilities of doing good or harming ourselves  or others.  It is true that we use things, belief systems, sex, alcohol, drugs or power to prove our worth thereby keeping distant from ourselves and thus others    When we are attached to any of these we cannot enjoy the connection which fills the avoids and which assures us that we are enough; we are deserving of love and acceptance. 

If we truly wanted the rich person to share their wealth we would embrace them.  We would lovingly and kindly tell them that are enough.

Many of us have no problem accepting that we could be the person in jail, the person who has a drug addiction or a person for whatever reason ends up in the line at the soup kitchen. Some few would maintain that the only reason that one ends up homeless, other than a natural disaster, is lack  of will  or lack of responsibility. Most,  however, seem to at least give lip service to the belief that any of us could end up being homeless or otherwise destitute.   It would seem, however, that those of us who routinely attempt  align ourselves with “the least of these” are quite unwilling to include the rich person.

Yet, my very simplistic understanding of the concept of Grace is that it includes all of us.  I do think it  is true that when we do not accept  that we are enough/worthwhile we are separated from ourselves, others and our high power. That is not God’s punishment. That is me being unable to  take what Soren Kierkegaard calls the leap of faith.

I was delighted to see an editorial article by Troy Dungy in the May 13, 2015 edition of the St. Petersburg Tribune entitled “Time for men to stand up against domestic violence” Mr. Dungy is the national spokesperson for ProDad.com as well as an author and public speaker. He is also a former coach of a winning super bowl team. 

Among his recommendations is, “At a young age, children must be taught the importance of treating everyone with kindness and respect . . . They must be taught that violence is never the answer to any situation, particularly inside the home.”

Mr. Dungy is among the men who have assumed leadership for addressing the issues of domestic violence and for teaching our children, especially our male children, that violence is never the answer.   He says, “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., my father and my faith have taught me violence is never the answer.” 

I, along with a group of male friends, were first challenged in the 1970ies to quit depending on women to end domestic violence. We were challenged by strong women with whom my friends and I were involved. These were very loving women who felt no hesitation in pointing out that a significant percentage of physical domestic violence and, thus the most immediately dangerous violence,  is perpetrated by we males.  They said that the action of we men did not match our rhetoric. We were not publicly speaking out, teaching, writing, or in other ways challenging those of our gender to learn to treat the women in our lives with respect.  Respect, they would point out, never includes violence.  Several of we men then living in Evansville, Indiana formed a consciousness raising group to explore the relationships we wanted with our own maleness, with each other and with the women in our lives. Most of us had not grown up learning that these types of conversations should be a normal part of our relationships with other men.

About the same time, men and a few women in other parts of the country, were coming together to form the group that would later become known as “National Organization of Men Against Sexism”.  This group of scholars, health care professional, factory workers and others would gather once a year to discuss their academic research, their personal growth, and their community efforts to create a safer, more loving community.  For many years I was involved with this group.  When I moved to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania I became part of another local men’s support or consciousness raising group. There is still a group of us who regularly stay in touch. Among these courageous and strong men were folks such as Terry Bicehouse, David Russess, Denis Darsie, Frank Garrity, Jim Hanneken, Kurt Colborn.  Terry and another of his colleagues, Dr. Lynn Hawker, co-authored a book entitled “Stop the Pain”.  For many years they were leaders  in the Pittsburgh community and the state of Pennsylvania in addressing domestic violence issues. They also joined national and international groups of individuals who today remain committed to creating a more just and less violent world.

Others, such as my friend Dr. Doug Gartner,  made contributions by not only teaches colleges courses on gender studies but also hosting a radio program entitled “Grateful Dads”.  

Obviously, unless one lives in a bubble, one is keenly aware that violence is still a daily part of our national and international diet.  Whether it is violence in the home, on the street, in our so called judicial system or incorporated into the charter of our institutions, we humans continue to find ways to hurt each other verbally, physically, emotionally and spiritually.   As Mr. Dungy points out violence seems to dominate the nightly new, movies and video games.

The violence is not limited to we men against women.  It is still true, however, that domestic physical violence is disproportionally affecting women.  If, however, we look at other types of violence we will quickly see that everyone in our culture  is affected by violence.

Times have changed in some ways since I was in my first men’s consciousness-raising group. The disparity between the wages of males and females for the same job has decreased.   There are more women who have broken the glass ceiling.  There are more shelters  and related services for victims of domestic violence. Among many of our young people – men and women – the concept of manhood and womanhood is changing.

Still, if we look at the national and international statistics, we continue to co-create a culture in which financial, emotional, and physical safety is lacking for a majority of people. 

Violent video games, violent movies, as well as overt and covert intelligence and war “games/actions” continue to be directly and indirectly sanctioned by our culture. 

The use of torture was overtly and covertly - passively and actively – condoned by the citizens of this nations even as we continued to criticize others for doing the same.

Our primary response to violence is violence. Despite the fact that we know that violence is (1) a learned behavior (2) a response to the perceived threat of another (3) an attempt to prove one’s worth by dominating others (4) an attempt to keep others away from one’s own pain, and a way to gain those possessions which will earn one a position of respect and privilege – despite all this -  we continue to respond to violence either by condoning it or by punishing it which is just another form of violence.

I have said it before, but I will repeat it again and undoubtedly again.   Punishing and accountability are not the same thing.  Yes, we humans must learn that it is safe to admit to our violence and that we are expected to “shop” for alternative ways of dealing with our emotional, physical, spiritual and financial needs.   It is not enough to tell our sons and daughters to limit their violence to video games.  We must create fun video games which challenge our children to problem solve in a more creative and loving manner.  Better yet, perhaps we need to find a way to reduce our work hours, buy fewer things and spend more time modeling creative ways to problem solve and just to enjoy each other.

We also need to stop blaming, invoking, or justifying our violence with religion.   Religion can become another way to find a soften, easier way to feel powerful and to justify our behavior.

In the name of Allah, Elohim, Jesus, God or some other deity we abuse and kill others.

I recall an incidence in my office some time ago when I was seeing a couple who were in a violent marriage.   Actually, I had not yet agreed to see the couple,  but the husband decided to join us one evening.  Sadly they brought the two young children. The oldest child was in the psychiatric hospital so terrified of his stepfather that he did not see any point in living.  At any rate, this man came in and saw a copy of a Harry Potter book on my coffee table.  He immediately launch into a lecture about the sacrilege of the Harry Potter books.  When he was finished he sat next to his wife and began to berate her with names such as “f…ing bitch.”   Obviously this poor man had a very different concept of spirituality than I did.  I knew that I had to let him know that this behavior was not acceptable. I also knew that this man was frightened and had a ton of pain under the anger.  It was my job to both set boundaries and to speak to his wounded heart.  Sadly I did not see this family again although, in many other cases, I would later have a call from such a man asking to come in for counseling/teaching; begging me to help him understand and change his violent behavior.

Respect demands that we continue to challenge each other to be our best – to be the loving, secure people we are capable of being.  This can only happen if we males begin to join people such as Tony Dungy, Doug Gertner, Terry Bicehouse, the late David Russell and the Martin Luther Kings of the world in saying, “No more” while offering a hand up in exploring healthier ways to be with ourselves, each other and the women in our lives.  We can do this. I see this very time I go to a restaurant where there are likely to be children. I see  gentle, strong fathers who are also partners. I see it in the men I know who are choosing to  be the stay at home dad and home manager.  Assuming these roles do not destroy our manhood. Loving, responsible behavior enhances our personhood whether we are male or female.

A friend was recounting the story of what she terms a betrayal by a person whose friendship she had valued and treated with the extreme tenderness and care.  My first thought was that I can recall feeling the same sense of what I called betrayal. My second thought was, “Jim, what is it you do not understand about  how we humans deal with fear.  Surely, you know that the behavior of the other person was not about you alone, but it was about the fact that it did not feel safe to the other to tell you the truth.”

Dictionary.com defines betrayal as “to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty…2. To be unfaithful in guarding,maintaining or fulfilling: to betray a trust”

Of course I have always known that we humans get frightened and we lie to those who love us and who we love. We lie by omission or commission.   If my understanding is that another person will not lie to me or betray my trust in any way, I get very frightened if that trust is broken. I suddenly feel as if my little island of safely in an otherwise uncertain and untrustworthy world has been shattered.    When I discovered by accident that my partner who had been constantly reassuring me that our relationship was as close as ever, had been having a very intense affair with another person for some months, I felt betrayed.  When another person took something we jointly shared and which was acknowledged as our most emotionally valuable asset I felt betrayed and  frightened.  If I could not trust this person who could I trust. “Perhaps,” I thought, “No one is trustworthy.”

At this stage of my life, on an intellectual or cognitive level I am able to both forgive and share some of the responsibility for the action of the person by whom I felt betrayed..  I can now realize or accept that there are a number of times in my life when it was very reasonable for the other person to think that it was unsafe to tell the truth.  In some cases or perhaps in most I would have been very angry, righteous, and mean to the other person for there unforgivable “sin”.

As  always I begin to wonder what others say about this topic.  Back I went to google to look up quotes about betrayal.  Goodness,  there are a lot of them. Here are a few of my favorites:

William Blake is reported to have said, “It is easier to forgive an enemy than to forgive a friend.”

David Levithan in The Lover’s Dictionary says “It was a mistake,” you said. But the cruel thing was, it felt like the mistake was mine, for trusting you.”

Albert Camus in The Fall says, “I used to advertise my loyalty and I don’t believe that there is a single person I loved that I didn’t eventually betray.”

Malcolm X said, “To me, the thing that is worse than death is betrayal. You see, I could conceive death, but I could not conceive betrayal

And finally one more from a character in Emily Bronte’s Withering Heights, “…drive me mad! only do not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you!  Oh God! It is unutterable!  I cannot live without my life. I cannot live without my soul!”

I suppose that Emily Bronte comes closest for me in describing what I feel when I use the word betrayal. The person who I thought was my friend or lover or partner or child is not that person at all. That delusion I accepted in my mind is standing in front of me looking like the person I thought he/she was. Yet, that person does not exist.  That delusional person I could trust. That person would hold my secrets safe. That person would never deliberately abuse another person, especially a child. 

Unless we somehow manage to live in a artificial bubble, we do not have to be far into this life journey to realize that one cannot depend on much being solid. That friend who promised to always be there suddenly dies in a car wreck or from an insidious decease such as cancer who cares nothing about youth. That parent  or other trusted adult who we need to be one of our rocks or anchors kills themselves or is stolen by addiction or some other acute “dis ease”. 

Still, however, some of us manage to hold on to some innocence about the state of our humanness.  Others are not so fortunate.  Early on that trusted parent, that person who all in the community think of as the paragon of virtue sneaks into the young child room when that child is very young.  That child has lost its innocence. They are not likely to have any illusions left unless they quickly tell  another trusted adult who believes and protects them from further harm.  Sadly that seems all to seldom to be the case.

What do we do with betrayal by others or ourselves?  Yes, if I am going to talk about betrayal, I have to also talk about the times that I have betrayed myself; the times that I have violated some sacred trust within myself; the times when I have found myself breaking to the promise to never …..    It does not matter what the “never” is.  The truth is that I could name hundreds of times when I have said or done something I promised myself or someone else I would never do.  The promise might have been as simple as “I will never smoke a cigarettes in front of my child.” Or “I will never fight over a child as if that child is an object belonging to one of us.”  or “I will  never lie to someone I love and make them feel crazy.” 

Perhaps, I have been lucky enough to never have a desire to have sex with an 17 year old person or at least to never act on such a desire. Perhaps I have never had a desire to have sex with a very young child – a desire so strong it threatened to overtake me.  Can I take credit for not having such a desire? Perhaps I have never felt so desperate that I wanted to shoot another or rob someone or commit any other act which could have landed me in jail.  I have, for sure, nearly hit a pedestrian because I was distracted while driving, been so blindly angry that I wanted to hit someone, been so lustful that  I did not want to trust myself to be alone with someone.

In the face of knowing that all of we humans are capable of what we  call betrayal it is difficult to know who to trust.  It is tempting to never trust anyone. Yet, that is a very lonely way to live.  The fact is that most of us are trustworthy most of the time. Most of us are going to do our best to be the friend, partner, lover, child, parent that we promised to me.   Some of us will be unable to  keep that promise.

We have to somehow continue to work to create a world in which it is safer to be honest  with each other and, when needed, to ask for help.  In order to create such a world we have to be able to trust that love can withstand we secrets we carry;  that we are strong enough to be honest with ourselves and to do what we need to do to avoid betraying the trust.  I have enormous respect for the parent who turns over a child to someone else to raise because they know that they cannot, at that time, be a safe parent. I have enormous respect for the person who says that they can no longer honor the promise they made.  That may hurt a lot, but perhaps it will not feel like betrayal.

My mother used to say to my siblings and I, “Just tell me the truth. Your punishment will be worse for lying.”  Wrong!  The truth as we experienced it was that when we told the truth the punishment was just as harsh if not harsher.  It was much better to try to get away with a lie.  It was never safe to tell the truth.  On the other hand when spending time with my favorite aunt and uncle it was always safe to tell the truth. We were never punished.   If one did something which was hurtful or damaging to something or someone, the goal in that house was to figure out how to prevent it in the future.  The goal was never punishment.

I do not think that we are at the point in our society In which the goal is always going to be prevent another occurrence. I think that, for now and in the foreseeable future, we humans are going to be focused on punishing each other.  This will result in more betrayal. I am not suggesting that this is right or wrong, I am suggesting that this is the current reality as I understand it.