Skip to content

On the treadmill.

28-Jan-11

“MONDAY AUG. 23 – Told my mother today she ought to go live down South with the family instead of spending all her time slaving in shoe factories in order to earn just enough money to spend on the system of expenses that is our society.  In Russia they slave for the state, here they slave for Expenses.  There’s no difference anywhere … people just go rushing off to meaningless jobs day after day, you see them coughing in the subways at dawn, and they never rest, they never relax, they never enjoy life, all they do is ‘Meet Expenses’ – beyond food, they squander their souls on things like ‘rent’, ‘decent clothes’, ‘gas & electricity’, ‘insurance,’ and a million-and-one ‘decent’ appurtenances.  Even the birth of a child involves months and months of ‘pay-money.’  Everything ‘costs money’ now.  My mother and the whole human race are behaving now like peasants who have just come out of the fields and are just so dreadful tickled because they can buy baubles and doodads in stores.  The other night she came home with several dollars worth of junk for Nin’s baby – even the sweet child is measured in ‘hourly wages’ now.  The whole system is incredibly – I don’t know what incredibly.  Insane!  And when I told her these things, you might have thought I was blaspheming God Almighty!

“Well, those are my sentiments… As for me, the basis of my life is going to be a farm somewhere where I’ll grow some of my own food, and if need be, all of it.  Someday I won’t do nothing but sit under a tree while my crops are growing (after the proper labor, of course) – and drink home-made wine, and write novels to edify my soul, and play with my kids, and relax, and enjoy life, and goof off, and thumb my nose at the coughing wretches.  I tell you they deserve nothing but scorn for this.  And the next thing you know, of course, they’ll all be marching off to some annihilating war which their vicious leaders will start to keep up appearances (decent honor) and ‘meet expenses.’  After all, what would happen to the precious system-of-expenses if our exports met with Russian competition.  Shit on the Russians, shit on the Americans, shit on them all.  I’m going to live life my own ‘lazy-no-good’ way, that’s what I’m going to do.” – Jack Kerouac, 1948.  From his Ozone Park/Richmond Hill journals, now published as Windblown World.

Not sure what to say about this feeling.  We all feel it, I suppose, but we know that indulging it leaves us dreadfully exposed.

The Feast of the Conversion of Paul.

25-Jan-11

The wisdom of the old churchmen is shown by this most unusual feast, the Feast of the Conversion of the holy Paul.  It is the only conversion thus enshrined as a feast of the universal church, though many of the saints had conversions of importance.  But Paul’s conversion has a clarity of insight to it which makes it distinctive.  And in one moment – one sentence, really – is summed up all of the real insights of Paul’s apostolate.

There are three accounts in Acts and several references to the experience in the letters, which disagree on minor details and agree in the main.  This is from Acts 9:

Meanwhile Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.  Now as he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” He asked, “Who are you, Lord?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.  But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”  The men who were travelling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one.  Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus.  For three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Now there was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” He answered, “Here I am, Lord.”  The Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul. At this moment he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.”  But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints in Jerusalem; and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who invoke your name.”  But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel; I myself will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”  So Ananias went and entered the house. He laid his hands on Saul and said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’  And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and his sight was restored. Then he got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

The first words of the vision are the crucial and theological part: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”  Saul of course never met Jesus, and never did anything to him, good or bad.  An intelligent, rational, individualistic response to this statement would be something like, “That’s a lie.  I never met you before in my life.”  And given the fact that Jesus is appearing here as a god with supernatural powers, the whole idea of persecuting such a being – the Maker of the Universe – is risible.  All Saul ever did was persecute human beings.  And yet he has a vision of certainty that he is in fact persecuting his God.

Conversion – metanoia, alteration of mind – is precisely about this realization.  It can take decades in an individual life, or longer in an institutional life, to grasp the meaning of this metanoia once it has occurred.  Theologically it has resulted in the idea of the “body of Christ” – symbolically in bread, actually in human flesh – of which all Christians (and perhaps all without restriction) are members.  And as part of Christ they are part of God.  This is the foundation of all Christian morality.  It has traditionally been an esoteric possession and its depths not realized by all – St. Augustine in his De Doctrina Christiana by implication denies that Christians are part of the body of Christ and hence of God, when he says that they exist only to be used so that we can enjoy God later – the uti/frui distinction infamous in Catholic morality (almost all those who know this passage in De Doctrina know that there is something horribly unchristian about it, and scandalous in one of the great Doctors of the Church).

That Augustine is wrong is shown clearly enough by recourse to the Gospels, where Jesus clearly predicates his moral reasoning on this premise.

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’”

As with much incarnation theology, there is something vaguely atheistic about it: if God is man – if what we do for others is what we do for God – why should human beings care about God?  Isn’t man enough?  Maybe our word “God” is a cipher for a deeply felt reverential conception of ourselves?  Perhaps that’s the idea behind “God became man”?  The development of Christian theology – e.g. Augustine – toward an increasingly transcendent God, and away from the early Pauline accent on immanence, further invited this line of thinking, by making theology itself increasingly transcendent (i.e. irrelevant).  And hence it is no surprise that the Christian nations have spawned a tradition of ethical atheism, men like Christopher Hitchens who do not subscribe to Christian theology but support a morality derived from its humanitarian-egalitarian ethos.  Whether Hitchens’ position is coherent and ethics can be unhinged from metaphysics is one of those questions I would like to investigate more.  Right now I suppose it’s enough for me that Hitchens thinks it is coherent.  He seems smart enough to figure that out for himself.

But for now let us focus on the meaning of the Paul’s metanoia: it was the beginning of the breakdown of the idea that men are to be used for our own religious purposes – “uti,” in Augustinian terms.  Saul was perfectly willing to sacrifice others’ lives so that he could go to heaven – they were merely fuel for the fire God lights in hell to warm heaven.  His new vision would be that the distinction between God and man would not work anymore, that the attitude we took towards God we would have to take toward His creation, that all was to be enjoyed – all “frui.”

Some earlier writing on Paul and conversion can be found here.

The Road to Damascus.

25-Jan-11

P.S. 22, Staten Island.

25-Jan-11

An article with a great video segment about P.S. 22 on Staten Island, which is sending its 5th grade choir to the Oscars this year.  Precisely the kind of teacher and class which business-minded school administrators are constantly targeting for elimination, in their quest for reading and math scores.

“Sarcastic and malicious even in his intercourse with children.”

02-Jan-11

Being a man of no diplomatic facility, I have a compensating fascination for slithery “statesmen”: and since I always love extremes, it makes sense that I should be drawn to the most reptilian of them all, Charles Maurice Talleyrand.  Most curious to me is the fact that the one interruption to his long career of public importance in France was a visit – after being proscribed by Robespierre – to America, with lengthy stays in New York City and, of all places, Brooklyn.  “Stone’s History” – presumably some “deathless” work of historiography from the early 19th century – describes a glimpse of him in New York:

I had the pleasure of meeting Thomas Jefferson in an old two-storey house on Cedar Street, and there was Talleyrand, whom I used to meet at the houses of General Hamilton and Noah Webster, with his club-foot and passionless, immovable countenance, sarcastic and malicious even in his intercourse with children.

Why We Simplify.

01-Jan-11

“To watch the corn grow, and the blossoms set; to draw hard breath over ploughshare or spade; to read, to think, to love, to hope, to pray — these are the things that make men happy; they have always had the power of doing these, they never will have the power to do more. The world’s prosperity or adversity depends upon our knowing and teaching these few things: but upon iron, or glass, or electricity, or steam, in no wise.” – John Ruskin, Modern Painters

New Year’s.

31-Dec-10

Summit of Red Hill, late December 2010.

A Summa of Christianity, Just Minus the Religion Part.

27-Dec-10

An extraordinary talk by Brene Brown on vulnerability.

I’ve recently had a spate of conversations with people about why I would describe myself as religious – they themselves find religion unnecessary at best, and know that there many things about religion that I object to.   And here is seemingly a good example of religion being unnecessary: Brene Brown manages to go through one Christian teaching after another, preaching vulnerability, courage, compassion, honesty, and connection, but in a sociological and psychological context devoid of any doctrine or dogma or mythology.

The argument for religion, in brief, is this: what Brown articulates here is coherent as a worldview, but there are other coherent worldviews.  Her vision is utterly contrary, say, to Ayn Rand’s.  Ultimately we are operating with some kind of governing image by which and toward which we shape our lives.  Whether we are enrolled in a religious organization or not, we have some kind of governing image, and the realm of these images – somewhat arbitrary (in the Kierkegaard sense: an established criterion can dictate later means, but you have no criterion for choosing a criterion), and operating on us like all images in a way that is both subrational and transrational – has traditionally been called religion.  And the images have up until very recently in religion been of far greater significance than the books and doctrines, which have been inaccessible to the majority of believers.  Given such a religious ideal, religions are incredible treasuries of technique and reflection and how these ideals can be lived and understood.

Seen from this perspective, what Brene Brown is advocating is a sociological definition, and elaborated version, of what Jung called the central image of the Western psyche, a man suffering for the sake of love on a cross.  She advocates an abdication from power and control – “my kingdom is not of this world,” a division between Caesar and God – into a life of vulnerability, for the sake of love.  This is also recognizably the Christian theology of free will, the teaching that vulnerability is the price that is paid for love.

I often hear that “every religion preaches this.”  I don’t believe that’s true at all.  Islam, for example, does not preach against power or control – indeed these are godlike qualities – and partially for this reason it does not accept that Christ died on a cross.  Islam does not traditionally believe in free will either, all things being predestined.  But most important would be the simple fact that this kind of vulnerability is not by any Islamic image associated with God, i.e. with the highest value.  In Christianity is found the highly unusual religious idea that God is vulnerable and God suffered.  Buddhism of course is by all accounts closer to Christianity, though the predominant image has been detachment – the seated serene one – rather than the tortured love worshipped in the cross.  (And if you’re going to say, “Christianity preaches power too – ‘Christ the King’ – and serenity also,” yes, of course, that’s true.  The question is where the accent is placed.)

I will note of course that the Christian ideal can be criticized.  Nietzsche did this very effectively.  “Vulnerability” can be a codeword for worshipping failure, neglecting oneself, and masochism.  Christian ethics has sired a billion martyr complexes, created victim culture, and been so contrary to basic human instincts that its most obvious worldly result has been hypocrisy.  Similar criticisms can be laid at Brown’s feet here, I think: “You preach vulnerability because you have no idea what it’s like to really be vulnerable.  You’re a rich white fancy-educated attractive blonde who’s never been vulnerable for one minute her whole life.”  I will not call this criticism false.  Some level of security is required first before any of this talk of vulnerability makes any sense at all.

One further thing that can be said is that this image may live on in the future without any help from Christianity.  In fact the institutional religion – which of course is utterly opposed to any kind of vulnerability as an institution and often boasts of itself as “militant,” i.e. vulnerable as an armed soldier – may be hindering the spread of the basic religious image it articulated and purportedly serves.  In this respect people like me who identify with both the image and the institutional vehicle it arrived in may be anachronisms.  But there’s no doubt that this image was born and developed, like a great part of Western culture, in a highly religious matrix, and the attempt to disentangle the two is a new one and its long-term effects unknown.  And if you think, as I do, of the best of these images as divine in origin, and some as more appropriate than others, you understand why I stay religious and stay in one particular religion.

Winter on Staten Island.

22-Dec-10

The Staten Island book is a selection of the many essays I wrote about Staten Island life while living there.  Not all could be fit into the scope of the published book.  The following one, “Winter,” is one of four essays on the seasons; Autumn is found here.

WINTER

Who never ate his bread in sorrow,
Who never spent his darksome hours
Weeping and watching for the morrow,
He knows ye not, ye heavenly powers.

– GOETHE

It would be a beautiful thing if aging eyes, which are so likely to look upon snow merely as a hassle to a morning commute, or as so many pounds for a creaking back to shovel, could be made young again and see a snowfall for the first time, as a child of two or three does.  There is no event in the yearly course of city life which is more dramatic in its effects than a snowfall.  It creates an entire new world out of a tired old one. Trees and fields and ponds and streets and houses are transformed –

Nothing of them that doth remain
But doth suffer a snow-change
Into something rich and strange.

Walking through the city parks after a snowstorm one sees children playing and adults taking pictures. Through art adults seek to recapture youth.  Without the transmuting effects of a medium the mature mind is apt to overlook the daily wonder of the world.

One of the fine things about being a teacher is that one still participates in the excitement of snow days. They are like gifts from heaven, a reenactment of the manna that sustained the wandering nation of God, and I do not mean to slight things academic when I say that they are some of the most valuable days in the whole of an education.  Not only is every child forever grateful for their occurrence, but then they are also disposed to spend the day outside in the snow.  There is something beautifully healthy and uplifting about the winter games that children play.  It is a sad childhood that cannot recall some memorable night of sledding, or some great martial exploit on the snowball-fight field.  I may be more or less successful than my friends, and may suffer or fail in the game of riches, but the deeds of my right arm cannot be taken from me.  Who were Achilles and Diomedes but murderers?  It is more glorious to conquer with a snowball than a stone.

The snowmen that invariably appear at this time are signs of another lofty impulse.  All art arises from such childish inclinations.  It is said that Lorenzo de’ Medici had Michelangelo sculpt him some snowmen in the Boboli gardens, one of those curious facts of history that remind us that all our works perish, and yet they are worth something to the world if there is anything noble in us.  What man would not wish those ice-sculptures preserved in some nobler medium?  Yet Carrara marble cannot last forever either.  In two thousand years perhaps only the name of Michelangelo will survive, to remind man of his possibilities.  Of the great Greek sculptors, not a single full-sized statue of their own workmanship survives.  We begin as Praxiteles must have, with snowmen and sand castles.  What if they should perish?  The work of beauty continues, if the works of beauty fade away.

When the snow has melted, and the snow-men are merely lingering stumps of whiteness, winter wears a spartan cloak of brown leaves and bark.  The vegetable world seems to approximate again the soil from which it was taken.  One sees the rocks in their outcrops, no longer shielded by the creeping vines of summer.  Staten Island has the highest hills in the city, and the most exposed bedrock.  On the rocks are imprinted reminders of the deeper cycles that encourage a man to consider the millennia.  Not long ago Staten Island’s climate was entirely inhospitable to human life.  The South-eastern half of the island owes its topography of rolling hills and small ponds to the glaciation of North America; it is the terminal moraine of the glacier, which acted as a great broom, sweeping the scourings of a continent into a heap at the edge of the sea.  Such a titanic footprint upon the landscape is enough to make one think about the smallness and fragility of our lives before Nature, who is like a sleeping Giant who awakes at long intervals, and strides over our cities as we stride over an anthill.  Fifteen thousand years ago it is said that the ice lay a thousand feet thick over Manhattan island.  All throughout the Northeast of America entire mountain ranges were ground down to stumps.  The bedrock of the island bears deep scratches, all parallel to one another, as if someone had been dragging a thousand-ton boiler over the hills.  The giants of Nature take different forms in different places: in California they sleep under the earth, and shake it when they awake; beneath Vesuvius or Rainier are fire-wielding Vulcans; in the Caribbean there are wind-giants, who ride the Hurricanes; but for us in New York the most powerful giants are the bearded ice-gods of the North, whom we have never seen, but whose tracks we have learned to recognize.  Though they now live above Hudson Bay, they have been known to range down this far.

It is a remarkable fact that the glaciation in the Old World, even in a place like Siberia which has given its name to bitter ice-age weather, was not as extensive as it was in the New.  It is thought that the Atlantic Ocean somehow affects the process of glaciation, for it has historically been near the largest ice sheets.  But it is not known.  Today America still has far more bitter winters than any other temperate part of the world. Albany shares the same latitude as Barcelona and Naples; the latitude of Edinburgh or Helsinki, which are cold but quite inhabitable, is not far from that of the New World’s Baffin Island, whose landscape resembles that of Mars, fifty million miles further away from the sun.

But in New York we have a remarkably pleasant geographical situation, and and it is almost always five degrees warmer here than any of the surrounding areas.  And winter is not as cold as it used to be, when the fastest way from New York to Albany in this season used to be on the frozen Hudson River, which was the main post-route for many years.  But winter is still a long season, and has in it something of the ice-age, and an intimation of even more lifeless epochs.  The brilliancy of the snow-lit morning, which is so exciting to child and teacher, soon fades.  The snowfalls are few and far between, and the snow that remains grows black and disgusting, run over by too many wheels and visited by too many dogs.  What had begun as a grace from heaven, pure and immaculate, becomes a sign of our fallen nature.  The hours of daylight are so few, and the colors of nature so gray and brown, and the winds so cold and biting and penetrating, that, if left alone, we are apt to lapse into melancholy.

So we balance the pains of winter with the pleasures of companionship and culture.  We light our candles and decorate our hearths; we head out to concerts or bring home a movie; and we turn more than ever to our friends and our family.  The long evenings make for long dinners and long parties, or for long letters and long memories.  We consider once more the things we have been taught and too often forget, the precepts of our religion and the brevity of our lives; we give more freely of our earnings and our time.  And we see how little we are accustomed to give, and how many still are in want, for in winter nights we learn again that many of our fellows spend their nights without a roof or a bed to shelter them.  How I have felt for them, as I wrapped my scarf more tightly around my neck, waiting for the train on the windy platform in the dead of night!  How long shall it be, Lord, before I will have provided enough for myself, and may begin to provide for others?  When shall I not need to take from my fellows, but be able to give to them?

And so when all the natural world is dormant around us, we are sensible to something deeper than all the world of plants and animals.  The stars shine more brightly in the crisp night air, so that even we New Yorkers can see them, and we remember that the eternal things have always been there, waiting for the day that we should recognize them, behind the smog and rain and bright lights of daily living.

Establishment Christianity.

21-Dec-10

Astonishing statement by a U.S. servicemember on DADT, reported to me by a friend:

“This is the first time my government and my religion are in conflict.”

What an indictment of establishment Christianity.  On the normal processes of military operation – killing, torture, violence – a soldier can see his Church as favorable or irrelevant.  But allowing gays to serve openly – this is seen as contrary to the essence of the religion.