MELVILLE in LOVE by Michael Shelton
Shelton in the past was nominated for a Pulitzer for one of his previous biographies. So I thought this was going to be a powerful biography.
But in this recently released biography, Shelton alleges, despite very little factual evidence, that Melville had a many-year'd fervent adulterous relationship with Sarah Morewood. The latter was a flirtatious, lively secular married woman living in the Berkshires where Melville had moved with his wife of 3 years and their 1st child.
Though Melville in Love is listed as biography not fiction, Shelton speculatively guesses as to what exactly Melville and other characters are thinking and intending. Such guesses would seem to make this fiction, not factual biography.
Then Shelton glorifies Melville's alleged affair, as if such an immoral and unjust action were one of the great romantic loves of history and literature.
And Shelton does this, too, by mischaracterizing Melville’s faithful, conscientious wife Lizzie, accusing her of being priggish, shallow, puritanical, etc.
But Melville had only married 3 years to Lizzie before his alleged affair began. Some literary commentators wonder why Melville married such a nonliterary, conservative wife and guess it must have been for her money because her dad was a well-known judge with lots of money, which he showered on his daughter and son-in-law for years. The father often helped Melville get out of debt when his books, beginning with Moby Dick, failed to sell.
However, Melville's, alleged, odd choice, not that different from other famous writers who lived off of their wife’s money so they could write full-time and who picked wives who were conservative, non-literary, etc. Just to start the list--especially true of Ernest Hemingway, John Steinbeck, Bob Dylan, etc.
The old cliché, of opposites attract does seem to be true of Melville (and some other famous writers), though it is tragic, that after the wedding, Opposites often do ATTACK.” :-(
Allegedly, the only possible time that Melville and could have slept together in the small village without townspeople and family knowing was on a small gathering of young adults who hiked up Mt. Greylock one day and stayed there all night. It’s Shelton’s contention that somehow they managed to slip away in a couple of hours midnight hours, while others slept, to “sleep.”
Shelton fails to acknowledge that while it is true Sarah was very flirtatious in her letters to Melville and with him in person (until she died at the early age of 40!), she often was that way to other married men, too, including Oliver Windel Holmes, etc.
During a few of her young adult years, Sarah was living alone in the Berkshires, while her absent distant, business-focused husband lived and worked in New York City. Their relationship seems odd, though he did care for her in his own way, even had a piano shipped out to her at their estate in Pittsfield, etc.
I thought maybe I was being too critical of Shelton’s very doubtful biographical claim, but then I read a few literary reviews on Melville in Love. They were even harsher than my conclusions—skewering the biography and its thesis as almost ridiculous.
Especially, Shelton’s claim that Moby Dick was written because of Sarah’s ‘freeing’ intimate influence so contrary to the alleged very puritanical, restrictive views of Lizzie.
Besides, Moby Dick is extremely male-centered narrative, with hardly any women even mentioned! Some critics have even labeled it homoerotic, for such parts of the story as Ismael and Queequeg’s relationship, including hugging in bed. The long very odd novel shows no trace of any illicit romantic love affair.
From Wikipedia:
“Lizzie described their marriage as "very unexpected, and scarcely thought of until about two months before it actually took place".[83] She wanted to be married in church, but they had a private wedding ceremony at home to avoid possible crowds hoping to see the celebrity.[84] The couple honeymooned in the then-British Province of Canada, and traveled to Montreal. They settled in a house on Fourth Avenue in New York City (now called Park Avenue).
“According to scholars Joyce Deveau Kennedy and Frederick James Kennedy, Lizzie brought to their marriage a sense of religious obligation, an intent to make a home with Melville regardless of place, a willingness to please her husband by performing such "tasks of drudgery" as mending stockings, an ability to hide her agitation, and a desire "to shield Melville from unpleasantness".[85] The Kennedys conclude their assessment with:
“If the ensuing years did bring regrets to Melville's life, it is impossible to believe he would have regretted marrying Elizabeth. In fact, he must have realized that he could not have borne the weight of those years unaided—that without her loyalty, intelligence, and affection, his own wild imagination would have had no "port or haven".
“Biographer Robertson-Lorant cites "Lizzie's adventurous spirit and abundant energy," and she suggests that "her pluck and good humor might have been what attracted Melville to her, and vice versa".
“An example of such good humor appears in a letter about her not yet used to being married: "It seems sometimes exactly as if I were here for a visit. The illusion is quite dispelled however when Herman stalks into my room without even the ceremony of knocking, bringing me perhaps a button to sew on, or some equally romantic occupation".[87] On February 16, 1849, the Melvilles' first child, Malcolm, was born.”
--
Despite my negative review of this shallow Procrustean effort and Shelton claiming that Moby Dick is the result of his affair with Sarah, I did find it worth reading because of a few intriguing facts about Melville, and I was opened to the possibilities of speculative ideas that no other biographer has ever raised!
But Herman Melville lived such a tragic-misguided life; even worse, he treated his wife horribly often drunk in his 50's. Then his life winded down to a tragic end. Also, one wonders why his 3 main books are so very pessimistic, almost nihilistic in tone and detail with their main characters ending tragically.
Lastly, like often in American literature, AUGUSTINIAN-CALVINISM RAISES ITS SATANIC HEAD. It turns out that the central horror of Melville’s family background was the fatalism of Augustinian-Calvinism that he sought to escape from:_("
Notice Ishmael's statement in the 1st couple of pages:
"Call me, Ishmael. Though I cannot tell why it was exactly that those stage managers, the Fates, put me down for this shabby part of a whaling voyage, when others were set down for magnificent parts in high tragedies, and short and easy parts in genteel comedies, and jolly parts in farces--though I cannot tell why this was exactly;
yet, now that I recall all the circumstances, I think I can see a little into the springs and motives which being cunningly presented to me under various disguises, induced me to set about performing the part I did, besides cajoling me into the delusion that it was a choice resulting from my own unbiased freewill and discriminating judgment."
A biography one can learn from, but not really a winner.
In the LIGHT of the GOOD, the TRUE, the JUST, the CARING...
Daniel Wilcox
Musings on Ultimate Reality, ethics, religion, social history, literature, media, and art
Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts
Saturday, May 4, 2024
Review of a controversial Melville biography alleging a married woman was the cause of Melville's writing Moby Dick
Friday, June 3, 2022
The Nature of Human Sexuality, Orientation, and Truth
Currently in the news, the huge focus this month is on:
What is true and good about sexuality, male and female, and marriage?
June has been titled PRIDE MONTH.
On nearly every topic at present, it seems Americans strongly disagree.
Consider other ones beside the sexuality controversy:
What is true of politics, elections, and our democracy?
What is true about pregnancy and abortion?
What is true about refugees and building walls?
What is true about mass murders, guns, and the Bill of Rights?
What is true about slavery and racism of the past and this generation?
ETC.
However, the central focus today is on sexuality because it is being called PRIDE Month. Even Niagara Falls has allegedly been colored to support same sexuality and one sees the gay pride image everywhere.
Not a day goes by but central news stories are reporting for or against same sexuality. Two Christian denominations are even splitting over the issue, (the huge United Methodist Church and the smaller Mennonite Church U.S.A.) Some others have divided in the last 20 years.
What is true and good about sexuality, male and female, and marriage?
What do you think of the following 4 life stances on sexuality held by millions of Americans?
1. Sexual orientation is morally neutral just as some humans are naturally right-handed and some are naturally left-handed. In the
historic past (even still believed by some humans) left-handedness was considered morally wrong.
But now most Americans accept both right-handedness and left-handedness as natural and good. The same ought to true of how we view sexuality as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled legalizing ‘gay marriage’.
What ought to be opposed by everyone instead are clearly destructive immoral actions including promiscuity, adultery, sexual harassment, prostitution, rape, etc.
2. A partially accepting view within some conservative Christians and others is that “same sexuality is problematic, not the ideal, but not inherently morally wrong.”* This view is similar to a local school here on the central coast of California that emphasizes elementary school students ought to write with their right hand (even if they are left-handed).
3. A more negative view of many creedal Christians, orthodox Muslims, orthodox Jews, etc. is that same sexuality is somewhat like the
tendency of some humans toward alcoholism—an orientation that is innate in some humans, but only wrong if one gives into it and drinks alcohol.
4. The most negative and traditional view for thousands of years among monotheists is that same sexuality is an immoral and evil choice that no human ought to make. Sexual orientation doesn’t exist.
-- * These points are presented very well and in depth by the Mennonite theologian Ted Grimsrud in his lecture on same-sexuality.
"The Bible and same-sex marriage"
PEACETHEOLOGY.NET
Ted Grimsrud Lecture presented at Oak Grove Mennonite Church (Smithville, Ohio)
In the Light of the Good, the True, and the Just,
Dan Wilcox
What is true and good about sexuality, male and female, and marriage?
June has been titled PRIDE MONTH.
On nearly every topic at present, it seems Americans strongly disagree.
Consider other ones beside the sexuality controversy:
What is true of politics, elections, and our democracy?
What is true about pregnancy and abortion?
What is true about refugees and building walls?
What is true about mass murders, guns, and the Bill of Rights?
What is true about slavery and racism of the past and this generation?
ETC.
However, the central focus today is on sexuality because it is being called PRIDE Month. Even Niagara Falls has allegedly been colored to support same sexuality and one sees the gay pride image everywhere.
Not a day goes by but central news stories are reporting for or against same sexuality. Two Christian denominations are even splitting over the issue, (the huge United Methodist Church and the smaller Mennonite Church U.S.A.) Some others have divided in the last 20 years.
What is true and good about sexuality, male and female, and marriage?
What do you think of the following 4 life stances on sexuality held by millions of Americans?
1. Sexual orientation is morally neutral just as some humans are naturally right-handed and some are naturally left-handed. In the
historic past (even still believed by some humans) left-handedness was considered morally wrong.
But now most Americans accept both right-handedness and left-handedness as natural and good. The same ought to true of how we view sexuality as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled legalizing ‘gay marriage’.
What ought to be opposed by everyone instead are clearly destructive immoral actions including promiscuity, adultery, sexual harassment, prostitution, rape, etc.
2. A partially accepting view within some conservative Christians and others is that “same sexuality is problematic, not the ideal, but not inherently morally wrong.”* This view is similar to a local school here on the central coast of California that emphasizes elementary school students ought to write with their right hand (even if they are left-handed).
3. A more negative view of many creedal Christians, orthodox Muslims, orthodox Jews, etc. is that same sexuality is somewhat like the
tendency of some humans toward alcoholism—an orientation that is innate in some humans, but only wrong if one gives into it and drinks alcohol.
4. The most negative and traditional view for thousands of years among monotheists is that same sexuality is an immoral and evil choice that no human ought to make. Sexual orientation doesn’t exist.
-- * These points are presented very well and in depth by the Mennonite theologian Ted Grimsrud in his lecture on same-sexuality.
"The Bible and same-sex marriage"
PEACETHEOLOGY.NET
Ted Grimsrud Lecture presented at Oak Grove Mennonite Church (Smithville, Ohio)
In the Light of the Good, the True, and the Just,
Dan Wilcox
Sunday, January 23, 2022
What is the Meaning of Human Sexuality?
The Meaning of Human Sexuality
Surely, I must be joking? Thinking I can take on the herculean (adam-evesques) task of explaining the meaning of human sexuality? That would be like climbing Niagara Falls or trying to explain the theological significance of Viagra;-).
The meaning of human sexuality is so deep and so transcendent and so complicated and so controversial, it would first be better to tangle with the behemoth or leviathan mentioned in the Book of Job. But since none of us can get away from the topic (and I seldom have ever wanted to except when revoltingly sick).
First a good example of “love” from Sherman Alexie:
Roman and Grace are a married Spokane Indian couple. He is standing close to her with his basketball between them, as if the ball represents the expectant infant they will soon create… “Michael Jordan is coming back again,” he said.
“You can’t fool me,” said Grace. “I heard it. That was just a replay.”
“Yeah, but I wish he was coming back again. He should always come back.”
“Don’t let it give you any crazy ideas.”
Roman pulled the basketball away and leaned even closer to Grace. He loved her, of course, but better than that, he chose her, day after day. Choice: that was the thing. Other people claimed that you can't choose who you love—it just happens!—but Grace and Roman knew that was a bunch of happy horseshit. Of course you chose who you loved. If you didn't choose, you ended up with what was left—the drunks and abusers, the debtors and vacuums...
Damn, marriage was hard work, was manual labor, and unpaid manual labor at that. Yet, year after year, Grace and Roman had pressed their shoulders against the stone and rolled it up the hill together.
In their marriage bed, Roman chose Grace once more and brushed his lips against her ear.
-From “Saint Junior” by Sherman Alexie
Since sex only has three letters, how did it become a four-letter word (the selfish, often angry "plow" word versus the kind, romantic "love" word)?
Bad examples:
“Sex is like pissing. People take it much too seriously.
Painter Diego Rivera
“If I ever loved a woman, the more I loved her, the more I wanted to hurt her. Frida was only the most obvious victim of this disgusting trait.”
Painter Diego Rivera
“Chastity: The most unnatural of the sexual perversions."
Aldous Huxley
"I think I could fall madly in bed with you."
Anonymous
“To me heaven would be…two lovely houses in the town; one where I would have my wife and children and be monogamous and love them truly and well and the other where I would have my nine beautiful mistresses on nine different floors.”
Ernest Hemingway
"The [marriage] vows should be written like a dog's license that has to be renewed every year…I think vows should be changed because they've been in existence for 600 years when people used to live until they were only 35. So they only had to be with each other for 12 years, then they would die anyway. But now it's a big commitment because you're going to be with someone for 50 years. It's impossible…It's such a rarity for people to stay together that 68% of marriages fail. I don't want to urinate on the party, but one must consider that before getting married.
Rock Musician Rod Stewart
How does an instinctive procreative act characteristic of all humans (and most forms of life down to fish and below) come to mean everything from the degrading and sadistically obscene to the uplifting and creatively divine?
From the violently aggressive to the joyfully receptive?
From one-sided self-centeredness to intimate communion of two lives?
Regardless of one’s worldview, most humans* think humankind has reached a state in evolution
wherein individuals of our species can creatively use human innate characteristics,
adapting them for many different purposes and in very different ways.
This “plasticity” of human abilities enable billions of individuals to use their physical and brain skills, not only for time-immemorial practical acts such as plowing a field or constructing a building,
but
for transcendent goals.
Humans can use their brain consciousness and muscles to do acts that have no practicality at all such as play suspenseful sports in the Olympics or dance in complex moves across theater stages or construct beautiful poetic songs.
This “plasticity”—for good or ill--is, especially, true for human sexuality as shown by the wide variety of statements about sex by famous individuals in the first installment of this series.
Here is another striking example:
Alan Watts, a former Episcopal minister, became a prolific writer and famous transmitter of Buddhism to the American cultural scene. (When I was a teenager, and still a Baptist, I watched his show every day on PBS at 6 pm, marveling at his spiritual points and esoteric philosophical explanations.)
So far, so good, it seemed.
But then I read his shocking, repulsive autobiography, In My Own Way.
Alongside such spiritual gems as “The cross is at the heart of the universe,” which Watts quotes from a mystic,
he then describes his view of human being and sexuality.
“…Deep down inside, almost everyone has a vague sense of eternity. Few dare admit this because it would amount to believing that you are God..."
"My own sexual mores...I do not believe that I should be passionately in love with my partner...and still less, married."
"For there is a special and humanizing delight in erotic friendships with no strings attached..."
"My life would be much, much poorer were it not for certain
particular women with whom I have most happily and congenially committed adultery...”
Alan Watts
HUH?
Most of us aren’t too surprised by the sludge coming out in the media or by so-called red-necked vulgarity.
The guttural view of sex has probably been around since cavemen first spoke;-), but when a highly educated, philosophical, spiritually oriented individual such as Alan Watts glorifies promiscuous sex,
we surely know that human sexuality
is, indeed, very ambiguous with many strange variations,
and many of them destructive,
and so contrary to the Truth, the Good, and the Beautiful.
When he writes, "I most happily and congenially committed adultery...," it is clear that somewhere he took a disastrous ethical detour.
We’re all sexual, and in different ways, but, hopefully, we don't major in being unfaithful, disloyal, and promiscuous and, even worse, declare our harmful dysfunctional behavior with pride to the world.
Speaking of Buddhism, actually the latter, contrary to Watt's view, for most of its history had a very different view of sexuality.
The Vietnamese Buddhist nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, Thich Nhat Hanh, emphasized that humans seeking to become enlightened live their sexuality in enhancing ethical ways.
Other forms of Buddhism go to the opposite extreme from Watts' adultery and promiscuity. These Buddhist leaders
have a very negative view of all human sexuality and even state that women must become men before they can be enlightened!
“...a large part of Theravada texts is devoted to the depiction of women as disgusting creatures too repulsive to touch.” --Rev. Patti Nakai
Touching--now that reminds me of my own spiritual tradition, the part I hated as a fundamentalist teenager, words from good ol' Paul:
“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
I Corinthians 7:1, New Testament
Maybe that would have been good advice for Hugh Hefner and most of the secular individuals I knew at university who argued for 'free sex.'
But Paul's extremely negative remarks were difficult for me, especially when first going out on dates with friendly Nebraska country girls:-)
Remember the famous Beach Boys song from that era, "California Girls"?
Paul's advice was exasperating.
Don’t get me wrong. I am talking about hand-holding and kissing,
traditional “necking,”
not anything below the neck.
But get it, my even having to explain our particular religion’s very conservative sexual understanding shows how wide human sexual understanding and behavior is.
Why, hey;-), when I was very naive in junior high, our Christian books so warned against kissing
that I really thought girls got pregnant from smooching!!
Shows I lived in a small village and attended a very strict Baptist denomination where movies, dancing, rock music were banned,
that I didn't grow up on my grandfather’s farm where many animals did 'it' all the time.
Contrast this religiously-sheltered ignorant upbringing with the ninth grader I encountered when I moved Lincoln,
the capital city of Nebraska.
The knowing teen smirked and demanded to know if I knew all about “69.”
I knew it was 1962, and did know the “6” and the “9” weren't referring to years, but to something sexual and forbidden.
Just what I didn’t know, and tried to not think about. But sure did:-)
Enough on autobiographies from Watts to Wilcox...
From New Age Buddhism to fundamental Baptist Christianity...
Then there's orthodox Judaism with its Jewish men's prayer thanking God for not making them a woman or a slave:-(.
I’m sure you get the general point, without my bringing in many details from Secularism, Hinduism, Islam and Paganism.
Yes, sexuality is a very powerful force/drive within humanity which has been shaped like soft plastic into countlessly different configurations by humans and their worldviews.
The earlier modern quote about the basketball player and his wife catches the true spirit of human sexuality, as God intends sexuality to be—a joyous monogamous daily choice by two equals.
Sexuality is a whole life response by a couple committed to a life-long relationship, neither temporary glandular instinct nor a restricted negative necessity.
Here’s another fine explanation: “...Your understanding of love will change as you get older...I remember my second date...I totally lost my cool and told her I loved her. On our SECOND date!!"
"You know what? I recently told that very same girl how much I love her, and how glad I am that I married her...But what I meant when I really meant it 23 years ago is a lot different from what I mean when I really mean it today!"
"In 23 years, I’ve learned to put aside my selfishness more often, and I’ve learned more ways to love and cherish her...the heart of genuine love [in human sexuality] is an immovable decision to put your lover’s joy and welfare ahead of your own."
"Usually, you don’t fall into that kind of love; you climb into it. It’s not just something you feel [nor an instinctive urge]. It’s a decision you make.”
Duffy in Breakaway
-- Sexual love is a monogamous life-long commitment, a unique “ultimate” relationship—where two individuals give themselves to each other emotionally, mentally, and physically.
That’s true love.
True love (in the commitment sense) is unlike any other human relationship.
In the Light,
Dan Wilcox
*Except, of course, for the theologically and materialistically fatalistic
Surely, I must be joking? Thinking I can take on the herculean (adam-evesques) task of explaining the meaning of human sexuality? That would be like climbing Niagara Falls or trying to explain the theological significance of Viagra;-).
The meaning of human sexuality is so deep and so transcendent and so complicated and so controversial, it would first be better to tangle with the behemoth or leviathan mentioned in the Book of Job. But since none of us can get away from the topic (and I seldom have ever wanted to except when revoltingly sick).
First a good example of “love” from Sherman Alexie:
Roman and Grace are a married Spokane Indian couple. He is standing close to her with his basketball between them, as if the ball represents the expectant infant they will soon create… “Michael Jordan is coming back again,” he said.
“You can’t fool me,” said Grace. “I heard it. That was just a replay.”
“Yeah, but I wish he was coming back again. He should always come back.”
“Don’t let it give you any crazy ideas.”
Roman pulled the basketball away and leaned even closer to Grace. He loved her, of course, but better than that, he chose her, day after day. Choice: that was the thing. Other people claimed that you can't choose who you love—it just happens!—but Grace and Roman knew that was a bunch of happy horseshit. Of course you chose who you loved. If you didn't choose, you ended up with what was left—the drunks and abusers, the debtors and vacuums...
Damn, marriage was hard work, was manual labor, and unpaid manual labor at that. Yet, year after year, Grace and Roman had pressed their shoulders against the stone and rolled it up the hill together.
In their marriage bed, Roman chose Grace once more and brushed his lips against her ear.
-From “Saint Junior” by Sherman Alexie
Since sex only has three letters, how did it become a four-letter word (the selfish, often angry "plow" word versus the kind, romantic "love" word)?
Bad examples:
“Sex is like pissing. People take it much too seriously.
Painter Diego Rivera
“If I ever loved a woman, the more I loved her, the more I wanted to hurt her. Frida was only the most obvious victim of this disgusting trait.”
Painter Diego Rivera
“Chastity: The most unnatural of the sexual perversions."
Aldous Huxley
"I think I could fall madly in bed with you."
Anonymous
“To me heaven would be…two lovely houses in the town; one where I would have my wife and children and be monogamous and love them truly and well and the other where I would have my nine beautiful mistresses on nine different floors.”
Ernest Hemingway
"The [marriage] vows should be written like a dog's license that has to be renewed every year…I think vows should be changed because they've been in existence for 600 years when people used to live until they were only 35. So they only had to be with each other for 12 years, then they would die anyway. But now it's a big commitment because you're going to be with someone for 50 years. It's impossible…It's such a rarity for people to stay together that 68% of marriages fail. I don't want to urinate on the party, but one must consider that before getting married.
Rock Musician Rod Stewart
How does an instinctive procreative act characteristic of all humans (and most forms of life down to fish and below) come to mean everything from the degrading and sadistically obscene to the uplifting and creatively divine?
From the violently aggressive to the joyfully receptive?
From one-sided self-centeredness to intimate communion of two lives?
Regardless of one’s worldview, most humans* think humankind has reached a state in evolution
wherein individuals of our species can creatively use human innate characteristics,
adapting them for many different purposes and in very different ways.
This “plasticity” of human abilities enable billions of individuals to use their physical and brain skills, not only for time-immemorial practical acts such as plowing a field or constructing a building,
but
for transcendent goals.
Humans can use their brain consciousness and muscles to do acts that have no practicality at all such as play suspenseful sports in the Olympics or dance in complex moves across theater stages or construct beautiful poetic songs.
This “plasticity”—for good or ill--is, especially, true for human sexuality as shown by the wide variety of statements about sex by famous individuals in the first installment of this series.
Here is another striking example:
Alan Watts, a former Episcopal minister, became a prolific writer and famous transmitter of Buddhism to the American cultural scene. (When I was a teenager, and still a Baptist, I watched his show every day on PBS at 6 pm, marveling at his spiritual points and esoteric philosophical explanations.)
So far, so good, it seemed.
But then I read his shocking, repulsive autobiography, In My Own Way.
Alongside such spiritual gems as “The cross is at the heart of the universe,” which Watts quotes from a mystic,
he then describes his view of human being and sexuality.
“…Deep down inside, almost everyone has a vague sense of eternity. Few dare admit this because it would amount to believing that you are God..."
"My own sexual mores...I do not believe that I should be passionately in love with my partner...and still less, married."
"For there is a special and humanizing delight in erotic friendships with no strings attached..."
"My life would be much, much poorer were it not for certain
particular women with whom I have most happily and congenially committed adultery...”
Alan Watts
HUH?
Most of us aren’t too surprised by the sludge coming out in the media or by so-called red-necked vulgarity.
The guttural view of sex has probably been around since cavemen first spoke;-), but when a highly educated, philosophical, spiritually oriented individual such as Alan Watts glorifies promiscuous sex,
we surely know that human sexuality
is, indeed, very ambiguous with many strange variations,
and many of them destructive,
and so contrary to the Truth, the Good, and the Beautiful.
When he writes, "I most happily and congenially committed adultery...," it is clear that somewhere he took a disastrous ethical detour.
We’re all sexual, and in different ways, but, hopefully, we don't major in being unfaithful, disloyal, and promiscuous and, even worse, declare our harmful dysfunctional behavior with pride to the world.
Speaking of Buddhism, actually the latter, contrary to Watt's view, for most of its history had a very different view of sexuality.
The Vietnamese Buddhist nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, Thich Nhat Hanh, emphasized that humans seeking to become enlightened live their sexuality in enhancing ethical ways.
Other forms of Buddhism go to the opposite extreme from Watts' adultery and promiscuity. These Buddhist leaders
have a very negative view of all human sexuality and even state that women must become men before they can be enlightened!
“...a large part of Theravada texts is devoted to the depiction of women as disgusting creatures too repulsive to touch.” --Rev. Patti Nakai
Touching--now that reminds me of my own spiritual tradition, the part I hated as a fundamentalist teenager, words from good ol' Paul:
“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
I Corinthians 7:1, New Testament
Maybe that would have been good advice for Hugh Hefner and most of the secular individuals I knew at university who argued for 'free sex.'
But Paul's extremely negative remarks were difficult for me, especially when first going out on dates with friendly Nebraska country girls:-)
Remember the famous Beach Boys song from that era, "California Girls"?
Paul's advice was exasperating.
Don’t get me wrong. I am talking about hand-holding and kissing,
traditional “necking,”
not anything below the neck.
But get it, my even having to explain our particular religion’s very conservative sexual understanding shows how wide human sexual understanding and behavior is.
Why, hey;-), when I was very naive in junior high, our Christian books so warned against kissing
that I really thought girls got pregnant from smooching!!
Shows I lived in a small village and attended a very strict Baptist denomination where movies, dancing, rock music were banned,
that I didn't grow up on my grandfather’s farm where many animals did 'it' all the time.
Contrast this religiously-sheltered ignorant upbringing with the ninth grader I encountered when I moved Lincoln,
the capital city of Nebraska.
The knowing teen smirked and demanded to know if I knew all about “69.”
I knew it was 1962, and did know the “6” and the “9” weren't referring to years, but to something sexual and forbidden.
Just what I didn’t know, and tried to not think about. But sure did:-)
Enough on autobiographies from Watts to Wilcox...
From New Age Buddhism to fundamental Baptist Christianity...
Then there's orthodox Judaism with its Jewish men's prayer thanking God for not making them a woman or a slave:-(.
I’m sure you get the general point, without my bringing in many details from Secularism, Hinduism, Islam and Paganism.
Yes, sexuality is a very powerful force/drive within humanity which has been shaped like soft plastic into countlessly different configurations by humans and their worldviews.
The earlier modern quote about the basketball player and his wife catches the true spirit of human sexuality, as God intends sexuality to be—a joyous monogamous daily choice by two equals.
Sexuality is a whole life response by a couple committed to a life-long relationship, neither temporary glandular instinct nor a restricted negative necessity.
Here’s another fine explanation: “...Your understanding of love will change as you get older...I remember my second date...I totally lost my cool and told her I loved her. On our SECOND date!!"
"You know what? I recently told that very same girl how much I love her, and how glad I am that I married her...But what I meant when I really meant it 23 years ago is a lot different from what I mean when I really mean it today!"
"In 23 years, I’ve learned to put aside my selfishness more often, and I’ve learned more ways to love and cherish her...the heart of genuine love [in human sexuality] is an immovable decision to put your lover’s joy and welfare ahead of your own."
"Usually, you don’t fall into that kind of love; you climb into it. It’s not just something you feel [nor an instinctive urge]. It’s a decision you make.”
Duffy in Breakaway
-- Sexual love is a monogamous life-long commitment, a unique “ultimate” relationship—where two individuals give themselves to each other emotionally, mentally, and physically.
That’s true love.
True love (in the commitment sense) is unlike any other human relationship.
In the Light,
Dan Wilcox
*Except, of course, for the theologically and materialistically fatalistic
Labels:
adultery,
Alan Watts,
Apostle Paul,
Buddhism,
caring,
cherishing,
commitment,
fidelity,
intimate,
kind,
marriage,
monogamy,
necking,
passion,
plasticity,
romantic,
self-centered,
sexuality,
Thich Nhat Hanh
Friday, September 4, 2020
"Half of U.S. Christians say casual sex between consenting adults is sometimes or always acceptable"--So contrary to what is true; contrary to moral realism
Wow! These PEW statistics show most Americans reject what is a central moral truth--that sexual relations ought to be lived in a life-long committed relationship of a loving couple.
That sexual promiscuity is ALWAYS morally wrong.
So bizarre that even half of U.S. Christians say "casual sex...is sometimes or always acceptable."
What I am convinced of, however, is that moral realism is true--that fidelity and commitment are true for all humans.
But according to PEW not any longer.
FROM PEW: "Half of Christians say casual sex – defined in the survey as sex between consenting adults who are not in a committed romantic relationship – is sometimes or always acceptable. Six-in-ten Catholics (62%) take this view, as do 56% of Protestants in the historically Black tradition, 54% of mainline Protestants and 36% of evangelical Protestants."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/31/half-of-u-s-christians-say-casual-sex-between-consenting-adults-is-sometimes-or-always-acceptable/
So bizarre that even half of U.S. Christians say "casual sex...is sometimes or always acceptable."
What I am convinced of, however, is that moral realism is true--that fidelity and commitment are true for all humans.
But according to PEW not any longer.
FROM PEW: "Half of Christians say casual sex – defined in the survey as sex between consenting adults who are not in a committed romantic relationship – is sometimes or always acceptable. Six-in-ten Catholics (62%) take this view, as do 56% of Protestants in the historically Black tradition, 54% of mainline Protestants and 36% of evangelical Protestants."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/31/half-of-u-s-christians-say-casual-sex-between-consenting-adults-is-sometimes-or-always-acceptable/
Labels:
casual sex,
Christians,
commitment,
fidelity,
moral realism,
morality,
Pew statistics,
Quakers,
sexual promiscuity,
sexuality,
U.S.
Friday, April 12, 2019
Section #1: News Controversy: The Meaning of Sexuality & Marriage
This week controversy erupted, again, between Democrats and Republicans on questions of the meaning of sexuality and marriage. Let's short-step back from the political fracas and reflect on sexuality-marriage itself.
The meaning of human sexuality is deep, transcendent, complicated and controversial. Then there is the related question of marriage or not. It appears that no one can get away from the intense subject.
A few quotes to show the inexplicable contrariness and contradictory outlook of various human beings toward this incessantly fascinating topic of sexuality and marriage:
In some early Buddhism, such as the Theradvada writings, it was not possible for a woman to become a bodhisativa; a human is born a woman because of bad karma!
And most Buddhists chose celibacy.
Then there is the infamous verse by Paul in the New Testament:
“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
1 Corinthians 7:1
And Orthodox Judaism' men's prayer thanking God for not making them a woman or a slave. And how women are unclean and have to take ritual baths.
On the other hand, some religious texts seem to glory in sexuality:
"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine:"
-Song of Songs, Chapter 1:2, Jewish Bible
"And God created the human in his image,
in the image of God...male and female...
And God blessed them, and God said to them,
Be fruitful and multiply
...and, look, it was very good."
Genesis 1:27-31
"The [marriage] vows should be written like a dog's license that has to be renewed every year...I think vows should be changed because they've been in existence for 600 years when people used to live until they were only 35. So they only had to be with each other for 12 years, then they would die anyway. But now it's a big commitment because you're going to be with someone for 50 years. It's impossible...It's such a rarity for people to stay together that 68% of marriages fail. I don't want to urinate on the party, but one must consider that before getting married.
VS.
His rock anthem to romantic commitment:
"You're in my heart, you're in my soul
You'll be my breath should I grow old
You are my lover, you're my best friend
You're in my soul
My love for you is immeasurable
My respect for you immense
You're ageless, timeless, lace and fineness
You're beauty and elegance
You're a rhapsody, a comedy
You're a symphony and a play
You're every love song ever written...
You are my lover, you're my best friend
You're in my soul"
--Rock Musician Rod Stewart
--
“Sex is like pissing. People take it much too seriously."
--Famous Muralist and Painter Diego Rivera
“If I ever loved a woman, the more I loved her, the more I wanted to hurt her. Frida was only the most obvious victim of this disgusting trait.”
--Diego Rivera
“Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?”
Yeshua, Jewish prophet
“Chastity: The most unnatural of the sexual perversions."
-Aldous Huxley
"I think I could fall madly in bed with you."
-Anonymous
“Vanity, revenge, loneliness, boredom, all apply: lust is one of the least of the reasons for promiscuity."
-Mignon McLaughlin
"How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of being and ideal grace.
I love thee to the level of every day’s
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.
I love thee freely, as men strive for right...
I love thee with the passion...I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life..."
-Elizabeth Barrett Browning
“To me heaven would be...two lovely houses in the town; one where I would have my wife and children and be monogamous and love them truly and well and the other where I would have my nine beautiful mistresses on nine different floors.”
-Ernest Hemingway
“The sweetest joy, the wildest woe is love.”
-Philip James Bailey
“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
I Corinthians 7:1, New Testament
"Love is the word used to label the sexual excitement of the young, the habituation of the middle-aged, and the mutual dependence of the old."
-John Ciardi
"My own sexual mores...I do not believe that I should be passionately in love with my partner...and still less, married.
For there is a special and humanizing delight in erotic friendships with no strings attached..."
"My life would be much, much poorer were it not for certain
particular women with whom I have most happily and congenially committed adultery...”
-Philosopher Alan Watts
"I never knew how to worship until I knew how to love."
-Henry Ward Beecher
Roman and Grace are a married Spokane Indian couple. He is standing close to her with his basketball between them, as if the ball represents the expectant infant they will soon create…
“Michael Jordan is coming back again,” he said.
“You can’t fool me,” said Grace. “I heard it. That was just a replay.”
“Yeah, but I wish he was coming back again. He should always come back.”
“Don’t let it give you any crazy ideas.”
Roman pulled the basketball away and leaned even closer to Grace. He loved her, of course, but better than that, he chose her, day after day. Choice: that was the thing. Other people claimed that you can't choose who you love—it just happens!—but Grace and Roman knew that was a bunch of happy horseshit. Of course you chose who you loved...Damn, marriage was hard work, was manual labor, and unpaid manual labor at that. Yet, year after year, Grace and Roman had pressed their shoulders against the stone and rolled it up the hill together.
In their marriage bed, Roman chose Grace once more and brushed his lips against her ear.
Monogamous love and marriage
-From “Saint Junior” by Sherman Alexie
VS.
Alexie's Infidelity
"In all, 10 women spoke to NPR about Alexie, who is a married man...but a clear pattern emerged: The women reported behavior ranging from inappropriate comments...unwanted sexual advances and consensual sexual relations that ended abruptly. The women said Alexie had traded on his literary celebrity to lure them into uncomfortable sexual situations.
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/05/589909379/it-just-felt-very-wrong-sherman-alexies-accusers-go-on-the-record
WHY DO SO MANY HUMANS, ESPECIALLY LEADERS, (EVEN THOSE WHO AFFIRM MARRIAGE AND "LOVE") LEAD IMMORAL, HARMFUL LIVES?
Since sex only has 3 letters, how did it become a 4-letter word (to "plow" or "care" or "love")?
How does an instinctive procreative act characteristic of all humans
(and most forms of life down to fish and below) come to mean everything
from the degrading and sadistically obscene to the uplifting and creatively intimate?
From the violently aggressive to the joyfully receptive?
From one-sided selfishness to intimate communion of two lives?
Regardless of one’s worldview, most humans think humankind has reached a state in evolution
wherein individuals of our species can creatively use human innate characteristics,
adapting them for many different purposes and in very different ways.
This “plasticity” of human abilities enable billions of individuals to use their physical and brain skills, not only for time-immemorial practical acts such as plowing a field or constructing a building,
but
for transcendent goals or self-focused wants.
Humans can use their brains' consciousness and muscles to do acts that have no practicality at all such as play suspenseful sports in the Olympics or dance in complex moves across theater stages or construct beautiful poetic songs.
This “plasticity”—for good or ill--is, especially, true for human sexuality as shown by the wide variety of statements about sex by famous individuals as already shared.
Most of us aren’t too surprised by the sludge coming out in the media or by so-called red-necked vulgarity.
The guttural view of sex has probably been around since cavemen first spoke;-), but when brilliant well-educated humans glorify promiscuous sex, it is troubling and tragic.
So often in the news now, human sexuality
is very ambiguous with many strange variations,
and many of them destructive,
and so contrary to the Truth,
the Good,
and the Beautiful.
We’re all sexual, and in different ways, but, hopefully, we don't major in being unfaithful, disloyal, and promiscuous and, even worse, declare our harmful dysfunctional behavior with pride to the world.
The Vietnamese Buddhist nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, Thich Nhat Hanh, emphasized that humans seeking to become enlightened live their sexuality in enhancing ethical ways.
Yes, sexuality is a very powerful force/drive within humanity which has been shaped like soft plastic into countlessly different configurations by humans and their worldviews.
The earlier modern quote about the basketball player and his wife catches the true spirit of human sexuality, as God intends sexuality to be—a joyous monogamous life-long daily choice by two equals.
Let's say it again, sexuality is a whole life response by a couple committed to a life-long relationship, neither temporary glandular instinct nor a restricted negative necessity.
Here’s another fine explanation: “...Your understanding of love will change as you get older...I remember my second date...I totally lost my cool and told her I loved her. On our SECOND date!!"
"You know what? I recently told that very same girl how much I love her, and how glad I am that I married her...But what I meant when I really meant it 23 years ago is a lot different from what I mean when I really mean it today!"
"In 23 years, I’ve learned to put aside my selfishness more often, and I’ve learned more ways to love and cherish her...the heart of genuine love [in human sexuality] is an immovable decision to put your lover’s joy and welfare ahead of your own."
"Usually, you don’t fall into that kind of love; you climb into it. It’s not just something you feel [nor an instinctive urge]. It’s a decision you make.”
Duffy in Breakaway
--
Sexual love is a monogamous life-long commitment, a unique “ultimate” relationship—where two individuals give themselves to each other emotionally, mentally, and physically.
That’s true love.
True love (in the marriage sense) is unlike any other human relationship, except in some sacred writing where God is often spoken of as every individual human’s lover.
Indeed, romantic sexual imagery is often used in literature to describe the ecstasy of “knowing” God intimately. Makes sense doesn’t it?
YET now--in the midst of all of the sexual harassment, "Me, Too" bad news, there is the controversy of moral leader Peter Buttigieg versus moral leader Mile Pence, both even of the same religion, Christianity, who, while agreeing that sexual relations ought to be part of a monogamous, loving commitment for life,
YET they completely disagree about the nature of marriage!
Is marriage to only happen between a man and a woman (as held by traditional Christianity, Islam, and Judaism claims)
OR
is marriage also right for a same sexual couple?
What do you think?
Please share your perspective.
To Be Continued:
In the Light,
Daniel Wilcox
Labels:
Alan Watts,
Buttigieg,
commitment,
fidelity,
friendship,
gay,
heterosexual,
kind,
kiss,
Love,
marriage,
monogamy,
Pence,
polyamory,
polygamy,
promiscuity,
relationship,
romantic,
sexuality,
Sherman Alexie
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Beauty of Romantic Innocence
a few of my very favorite romantic poems of innocence:
from the poet, Gary Soto--
Oranges
The first time I walked
With a girl, I was twelve,
Cold, and weighted down
With two oranges in my jacket.
December. Frost cracking
Beneath my steps, my breath
Before me, then gone,
As I walked toward
Her house, the one whose
Porch light burned yellow
Night and day, in any weather.
A dog barked at me, until
She came out pulling
At her gloves, face bright
With rouge. I smiled,
Touched her shoulder, and led
Her down the street, across
A used car lot and a line
Of newly planted trees,
Until we were breathing
Before a drugstore. We
Entered, the tiny bell
Bringing a saleslady
Down a narrow aisle of goods.
I turned to the candies
Tiered like bleachers,
And asked what she wanted -
Light in her eyes, a smile
Starting at the corners
Of her mouth. I fingered
A nickle in my pocket,
And when she lifted a chocolate
That cost a dime,
I didn’t say anything.
I took the nickle from
My pocket, then an orange,
And set them quietly on
The counter. When I looked up,
The lady’s eyes met mine,
And held them, knowing
Very well what it was all
About.
Outside,
A few cars hissing past,
Fog hanging like old
Coats between the trees.
I took my girl’s hand
In mine for two blocks,
Then released it to let
Her unwrap the chocolate.
I peeled my orange
That was so bright against
The gray of December
That, from some distance,
Someone might have thought
I was making a fire in my hands.
--Gary Soto,
retired professor at U.C. Berkeley;
Grew up poor in Fresno.
--
from songwriters David Lee Murphy and Jim Collins--
Are You Gonna Kiss Me or Not?
We were sittin' up there on your momma's roof
Talkin' 'bout everything under the moon
With the smell of honeysuckle and your perfume
All I could think about was my next move
Oh, but you were so shy, so was I
Maybe that's why it was so hard to believe
When you smiled and said to me
Are you gonna kiss me or not?
Are we gonna do this or what?
I think you know I like you a lot
But you're 'bout to miss your shot
Are you gonna kiss me or not?
It was the best dang kiss that I ever had
Except for that long one after that
And I knew if I wanted this thing to last
Sooner or later I'd have to ask for your hand
So I took a chance
Bought a wedding band and I got down on one knee
And you smiled and said to me
Are you gonna kiss me or not?
Are we gonna do this or what?
I think you know I love you a lot
I think we've got a real good shot
Are you gonna kiss me or not?
So, we planned it all out for the middle of June
From the wedding cake to the honeymoon
And your momma cried
When you walked down the aisle
When the preacher man said, "Say I do"
I did and you did too, then I lifted that veil
And saw your pretty smile and I said
Are you gonna kiss me or not?
Are we gonna do this or what?
Look at all the love that we got
It ain't never gonna stop
Are you gonna kiss me or not?
Yeah baby, I love you a lot
I really think we've got a shot
Are you gonna kiss me or not?
Songwriters: David Lee Murphy / Jim Collins
Are You Gonna Kiss Me or Not lyrics © Spirit Music Group, Carol Vincent & Assoc LLC
--
And romantic innocence when faced with problems and trials:
from the songwriters Jon Nite and Ross Copperman--
Glass
Trying to live and love,
With a heart that can't be broken,
Is like trying to see the light with eyes that can't be opened.
Yeah, we both carry baggage,
We picked up on our way, so if you love me do it gently,
And I will do the same.
We may shine, we may shatter,
We may be picking up the pieces here on after,
We are fragile, we are human,
We are shaped by the light we let through us,
We break fast, cause we are glass.
'Cause we are glass.
I'll let you look inside me, through the stains and through the cracks,
And in the darkness of this moment,
You see the good and bad.
But try not to judge me, 'cause we've walked down different paths,
But it brought us here together, so I won't take that back.
We may shine, we may shatter,
We may be picking up the pieces here on after,
We are fragile, we are human,
We are shaped by the light we let through us,
We break fast, cause we are glass.
We might be oil and water, this could be a big mistake,
We might burn like gasoline and fire,
It's a chance we'll have to take.
We may shine, we may shatter,
We may be picking up the pieces here on after,
We are fragile, we are human,
And we are shaped by the light we let through us,
We break fast, cause we are glass.
We are glass.
Songwriters: Jon Nite / Ross Copperman
Glass lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC
Jon Nite grew up in Amarilo, Texas, married his sweetheart,
and they had an infant while still in high school; then they
moved to Nashville.
In this time of twisted views, lurid obscenities, and sexual assault,
let us turn away from such ethical darkness!
Turn to the Light of Romantic Innocence and Beauty,
Daniel Wilcox
Labels:
" "Oranges,
" Gary Soto,
"Glass,
beauty,
caressing,
commitment,
dating,
fidelity,
first love,
hugging,
Jon Nite,
kissing,
monogamy,
passion,
Poems,
relationships,
romantic,
Ross Copperman,
sexuality
Saturday, June 17, 2017
What is True, Not "Politically Correct"
Part #2: What is True?
Honesty, Justice, Commitment, Reason, Goodness, Human Rights, Compassion, Duty, Kindness, Equality, Helpfulness, Peacemaking, Fairness, Patience, Fidelity, Generosity, Sharing, and so on...
What is False?
Dishonesty, Lying, Cheating, Injustice, Irrationalism, Fickleness, Cruelty, Torture, Rape, Enslavement, Abuse, Slaughter, infanticide, Violence, Theft, Racism, Promiscuity, Prostitution, Selfishness, and so on...
Many of these ethical truths, (and their contrary immoral actions) have been discovered by humans through experience, reasoning, and intuition and have been held up as ideals for thousands of years. Some of the ideals have taken much longer to become accepted by most humans than others.
But even way back in 250 B.C. one human leader in Western Asia banned slavery. And many of the virtues and ethical rights were emphasized even before then.
The POINT?
We humans, contrary to what many present leaders claim, don't need to reinvent the moral wheel of civilization over in every generation.
Instead, we reflect on the achievements of past moral leaders, sift and look for ways to improve on their lives and ideals. We finite individuals get to add in our insight and thinking, seeking greater and greater understanding of ethical truth. For instance, one topic that has come up in the last 50 years or so is the question of "animal rights." A deep topic to think about for the future.
CONTRARY to the many naysayers and negaters of the present, who claim that all ethics are "relative" and "subjective," and that no human has inherent value, and that there are no human rights,
we humans can live for
what is true,
what is good,
what is of inherent value.
NOW TO the "politically correct:"
So much of modern media has been touting catch phrases and words that many people adopt in mass, rather than test with previous ethical truths.
For instance:
Everyone is equal and that therefore those humans who have an orientation toward same sexuality ought to have the same right to commit to one other person to become his/her lover, spouse, and life-long partner.
Here's the 'socially and politically incorrect" part:
Terms and descriptions such as "GLBTQI" ought to be abandoned.
Why?
Because not only are such terms politically-charged catch phrases, they often aren't accurate.
#1 Same sexual is a more denotative term than the connotative terms such "gay" and lesbian."
#2 "Same sexual" explains how an individual human is orientated, but it doesn't define him/her in all of his/her complexity as do such popular sexual words such as "gay."
Opposite sexual individuals aren't defined by one term! There are many different sorts of opposite sexual individuals with widely different worldviews, life-stances, and perspectives.
That seems to be true for same sexual individuals, too.
#3 B stands for "bisexual," BUT this ambivalence in some humans ought not to be a defining description of them. If an individual feels emotionally and physically drawn to both sexes, that person needs to reflect deeply to which type of human he/she is most drawn. If it is 50-50, then he/she needs to make a definitive choice to go one way or the other.
If the person does choose, and then lives celibate until meeting his/her true love, and makes a commitment for life with that special person, then that is his/her chosen path.
He/she may still feel ambivalent, like a young adult might still feel torn some years later after choosing his/her career but usually continues with his commitment.
And he/she usually doesn't call themselves in an identifying term, such as I am a "bi-career";-) as if they feel so ambivalent about choosing to be a doctor or an engineer that they need to emphasize it to everybody!
#4 Transgendered is a very new field of study in human nature and ethics. Why do a few humans feel that they are caught in the wrong body? Sometimes the case is that when born, an infant is in the "middle" in his/her private parts and the obstetrician made a misdiagnosis.
This is tragic because it makes it so hard for the child as he/she grows up. However, transgendered individuals are of equal worth and inherent value as opposite and same sexual humans.
Again, why identify themselves centrally by their particular orientation?!
There is so much more to being human than sexuality, as important as that is to everyone of us.
#5 Lastly, another reason to stop using these catchy terms and "politically correct" phrases is that human sexuality ought to NEVER have been the political football it has become, where strident voices on all different sides of the issue yell at each other.
We need to focus on HUMANISM--the ideals, truths, and values that we all share.
In the Light,
Daniel Wilcox
Honesty, Justice, Commitment, Reason, Goodness, Human Rights, Compassion, Duty, Kindness, Equality, Helpfulness, Peacemaking, Fairness, Patience, Fidelity, Generosity, Sharing, and so on...
What is False?
Dishonesty, Lying, Cheating, Injustice, Irrationalism, Fickleness, Cruelty, Torture, Rape, Enslavement, Abuse, Slaughter, infanticide, Violence, Theft, Racism, Promiscuity, Prostitution, Selfishness, and so on...
Many of these ethical truths, (and their contrary immoral actions) have been discovered by humans through experience, reasoning, and intuition and have been held up as ideals for thousands of years. Some of the ideals have taken much longer to become accepted by most humans than others.
But even way back in 250 B.C. one human leader in Western Asia banned slavery. And many of the virtues and ethical rights were emphasized even before then.
The POINT?
We humans, contrary to what many present leaders claim, don't need to reinvent the moral wheel of civilization over in every generation.
Instead, we reflect on the achievements of past moral leaders, sift and look for ways to improve on their lives and ideals. We finite individuals get to add in our insight and thinking, seeking greater and greater understanding of ethical truth. For instance, one topic that has come up in the last 50 years or so is the question of "animal rights." A deep topic to think about for the future.
CONTRARY to the many naysayers and negaters of the present, who claim that all ethics are "relative" and "subjective," and that no human has inherent value, and that there are no human rights,
we humans can live for
what is true,
what is good,
what is of inherent value.
NOW TO the "politically correct:"
So much of modern media has been touting catch phrases and words that many people adopt in mass, rather than test with previous ethical truths.
For instance:
Everyone is equal and that therefore those humans who have an orientation toward same sexuality ought to have the same right to commit to one other person to become his/her lover, spouse, and life-long partner.
Here's the 'socially and politically incorrect" part:
Terms and descriptions such as "GLBTQI" ought to be abandoned.
Why?
Because not only are such terms politically-charged catch phrases, they often aren't accurate.
#1 Same sexual is a more denotative term than the connotative terms such "gay" and lesbian."
#2 "Same sexual" explains how an individual human is orientated, but it doesn't define him/her in all of his/her complexity as do such popular sexual words such as "gay."
Opposite sexual individuals aren't defined by one term! There are many different sorts of opposite sexual individuals with widely different worldviews, life-stances, and perspectives.
That seems to be true for same sexual individuals, too.
#3 B stands for "bisexual," BUT this ambivalence in some humans ought not to be a defining description of them. If an individual feels emotionally and physically drawn to both sexes, that person needs to reflect deeply to which type of human he/she is most drawn. If it is 50-50, then he/she needs to make a definitive choice to go one way or the other.
If the person does choose, and then lives celibate until meeting his/her true love, and makes a commitment for life with that special person, then that is his/her chosen path.
He/she may still feel ambivalent, like a young adult might still feel torn some years later after choosing his/her career but usually continues with his commitment.
And he/she usually doesn't call themselves in an identifying term, such as I am a "bi-career";-) as if they feel so ambivalent about choosing to be a doctor or an engineer that they need to emphasize it to everybody!
#4 Transgendered is a very new field of study in human nature and ethics. Why do a few humans feel that they are caught in the wrong body? Sometimes the case is that when born, an infant is in the "middle" in his/her private parts and the obstetrician made a misdiagnosis.
This is tragic because it makes it so hard for the child as he/she grows up. However, transgendered individuals are of equal worth and inherent value as opposite and same sexual humans.
Again, why identify themselves centrally by their particular orientation?!
There is so much more to being human than sexuality, as important as that is to everyone of us.
#5 Lastly, another reason to stop using these catchy terms and "politically correct" phrases is that human sexuality ought to NEVER have been the political football it has become, where strident voices on all different sides of the issue yell at each other.
We need to focus on HUMANISM--the ideals, truths, and values that we all share.
In the Light,
Daniel Wilcox
Labels:
adultery,
cheating,
commitment,
compassion,
dishonesty,
duty,
fidelity,
honesty,
human rights,
just,
kind,
loyalty,
prejudice,
prostitution,
racism,
rape,
sexuality,
true
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Pin the Ban on the Valentine Heart: Romantic Love, UnIslamic
from the BBC News:
"Pakistan capital bans Valentine's Day"
"People shout slogans during a protest against Valentine's Day in Karachi, Pakistan.
A court in Pakistan has banned public celebrations of Valentine's Day in the capital, Islamabad, on the grounds that it is not part of Muslim culture.
The Islamabad High Court's order prohibits all Valentine's Day festivities in government offices and public spaces with immediate effect.
It also directs the media not to promote or cover Valentine's events."
--
It comes a year after Pakistan's President Mamnoon Hussain said Valentine's Day should be avoided...Last year local officials in Kohat, in north-west Pakistan, banned the sale of Valentine cards and goods, and Peshawar local council banned celebrations.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38958999
--
"In Saudi Arabia, Valentine's Day is banned by the kingdom's religious police.
Women and men sit separately in restaurants and public displays of affection are taboo.
However, some shops continue to sell red roses and other traditional Valentine's presents.
One shop owner described how Valentine's Day orders are placed over the telephone to avoid detection and flowers are hidden in the back of the store."
"Last August, the decision to sentence five Saudis to a total of 39 years in prison, as well as 4,500 lashes between them, was upheld.
The men had been found dancing with six women they were unrelated to on Valentine's Day. Alcohol and red roses were also seized."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/31382332/valentines-day-countries-that-dont-love-february-romance
Muslims need to lighten up.
Hopefully, you and your spouse are caring, cherishing,
and affectionate every day of the year.
Live your witness for love against such intolerance and arranged marriages.
In the Light of Romantic Love,
Daniel Wilcox
Labels:
affection,
ban,
Love,
Muslim,
Pakistan,
polygamy,
prohibit,
punishment,
Quran,
religious police. taboo,
romance,
romantic,
Saudi Arabia,
sexuality,
Sharia Law,
un-Islamic,
Valentine's Day
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Part #2: Review of Meetings by Chuck Fager
from Amazon's website:
"Chuck Fager’s transition from a conservative Catholic, pro-military youth to an active peace witness and a lengthy period of “spiritual formation” among progressive Quakers...a special religious coming of age in the mid-1970s...in a continuing time of tumult and change."
"The result is both a compelling story of our time, and the narrative of a unique personal quest for meaning, transcendence, and a useful life."
Yes, no, and maybe not.
I've finished the book. Chuck does deliver some intriguing stories from his life as he promised. Kudos for that.
And at times, stories of his intellectual quest do come through clearly. His account of professor Milton Mayer of the University of Chicago is powerful and moving.
Furthermore, Chuck's recounting of those radical days of the late 60's and early 70's, and his involvement, will bring back many memories of that best of times, worst of times.
But overall this book appears to be at first-read weaker than some of his other books. Unlike those, this one seems fragmentary, more of a starting outline. There are key stories like wall pegs; now hang deep personal reflections on them.
Yes, the book has up appealing and shocking stories, but Chuck doesn't show how they relate to his interior life, doesn't put them in the context of his personal life, and doesn't reflect on them in relationship to his spiritual belief and life.
The reader feels unconnected and is filled with many questions unanswered.
For instance, there is the fascinating story of his discovering a missal like the ones of his childhood.
But after the very detailed nuanced narrative of how he comes across the book at the Saint Vincent de Paul thrift store, he just leaves the aged ritual book stuck on a shelf in a plastic bag.
We don't know how he felt and thought about religious ritual, and Catholic ritual especially, about how filled with superstition it seems, about it relationship to Church history, about cannon law, about hell and purgatory in relationship to himself and all humans.
This is so unlike his recent posts on the same sexuality controversy in North Carolina Yearly Meeting, where even in those brief blog posts, Chuck ferrets out the motives, reasonings, etc. of the not-so Friendly leaders in that tribulation, that ocean of darkness.
Here's another particular example of a disconnected story from Chuck's book:
Suddenly, half way through his autobiography, we learn that his wife, Tish, has a severe drinking problem, and he moves out. Then he speaks of his own "sin."
Wait a minute!
We readers didn't even know he had met a girl, gotten married, had a kid, developed relationship problems, etc.
We have no idea about his views of sexuality.
Or his coming of age as a teen guy in the late 1950's.
Or how his wife developed her alcoholism, and why they couldn't work this out.
Meetings is a short autobiography so Chuck didn't have time or space to go into great detail, but a short 2-page lead-in on his youth and girls, his views on sexuality, and his life relating to women was very necessary.
And we get only a very brief glimpse of his relationship with his mother. And we learn nothing of his relationships with his siblings. We don't know about his views, his ethical and spiritual wrestlings.
All of those aspects are very important in understanding the sudden split, of his moving out to a friend's.
And how did he meet Tish, and their marriage?
Was it a Roman Catholic wedding?
Was she a practicing Catholic?
What were their views on birth control?
And most importantly: What are his reflections of how his spiritual and religious experience relates to his sexuality and marriage?
Then there is a girlfriend, called Sylvia. Again, we have no idea who, why, when or how this relates to his religious life.
Even more importantly, he fails to reflect on all of this and other unexplained vague statements about "sin."
And he mentions having sex after his wife and him split? Does he mean he engaged in fornication?
Does he go to confession? Or not? Why or why not?
At another point in the book, Chuck states that his class ring, "the red and gold band" is much more important than his wedding rings!!
He wrote that the ring took on "much more important" meanings.
Again, as a reader, I am left confused.
We readers don't need lots of private details, but we do need to understand--to feel and experience and think what he did.
I don't expect an autobiographical writer to completely bare his soul or his very private life, but without some details, some description, and extensive inner reflection, the reader is left confused and unmoved.
If Chuck does a revision--
I did about 7 on one of my book after its first edition--
he needs to keep in mind the old very truism of writing:
Show, don't tell.
And in a religious autobiography, REFLECT on your motives, your inner directions, your shadow, and how all parts of your life relate to the spiritual.
And Chuck needs to remember that in many cases, he didn't even tell.
He's right, "any religion that's worth it is built around stories."
And he ought to have added, any religion that's worth it reflects on its stories.
Shows potential.
Evaluation: C-
"Chuck Fager’s transition from a conservative Catholic, pro-military youth to an active peace witness and a lengthy period of “spiritual formation” among progressive Quakers...a special religious coming of age in the mid-1970s...in a continuing time of tumult and change."
"The result is both a compelling story of our time, and the narrative of a unique personal quest for meaning, transcendence, and a useful life."
Yes, no, and maybe not.
I've finished the book. Chuck does deliver some intriguing stories from his life as he promised. Kudos for that.
And at times, stories of his intellectual quest do come through clearly. His account of professor Milton Mayer of the University of Chicago is powerful and moving.
Furthermore, Chuck's recounting of those radical days of the late 60's and early 70's, and his involvement, will bring back many memories of that best of times, worst of times.
But overall this book appears to be at first-read weaker than some of his other books. Unlike those, this one seems fragmentary, more of a starting outline. There are key stories like wall pegs; now hang deep personal reflections on them.
Yes, the book has up appealing and shocking stories, but Chuck doesn't show how they relate to his interior life, doesn't put them in the context of his personal life, and doesn't reflect on them in relationship to his spiritual belief and life.
The reader feels unconnected and is filled with many questions unanswered.
For instance, there is the fascinating story of his discovering a missal like the ones of his childhood.
But after the very detailed nuanced narrative of how he comes across the book at the Saint Vincent de Paul thrift store, he just leaves the aged ritual book stuck on a shelf in a plastic bag.
We don't know how he felt and thought about religious ritual, and Catholic ritual especially, about how filled with superstition it seems, about it relationship to Church history, about cannon law, about hell and purgatory in relationship to himself and all humans.
This is so unlike his recent posts on the same sexuality controversy in North Carolina Yearly Meeting, where even in those brief blog posts, Chuck ferrets out the motives, reasonings, etc. of the not-so Friendly leaders in that tribulation, that ocean of darkness.
Here's another particular example of a disconnected story from Chuck's book:
Suddenly, half way through his autobiography, we learn that his wife, Tish, has a severe drinking problem, and he moves out. Then he speaks of his own "sin."
Wait a minute!
We readers didn't even know he had met a girl, gotten married, had a kid, developed relationship problems, etc.
We have no idea about his views of sexuality.
Or his coming of age as a teen guy in the late 1950's.
Or how his wife developed her alcoholism, and why they couldn't work this out.
Meetings is a short autobiography so Chuck didn't have time or space to go into great detail, but a short 2-page lead-in on his youth and girls, his views on sexuality, and his life relating to women was very necessary.
And we get only a very brief glimpse of his relationship with his mother. And we learn nothing of his relationships with his siblings. We don't know about his views, his ethical and spiritual wrestlings.
All of those aspects are very important in understanding the sudden split, of his moving out to a friend's.
And how did he meet Tish, and their marriage?
Was it a Roman Catholic wedding?
Was she a practicing Catholic?
What were their views on birth control?
And most importantly: What are his reflections of how his spiritual and religious experience relates to his sexuality and marriage?
Then there is a girlfriend, called Sylvia. Again, we have no idea who, why, when or how this relates to his religious life.
Even more importantly, he fails to reflect on all of this and other unexplained vague statements about "sin."
And he mentions having sex after his wife and him split? Does he mean he engaged in fornication?
Does he go to confession? Or not? Why or why not?
At another point in the book, Chuck states that his class ring, "the red and gold band" is much more important than his wedding rings!!
He wrote that the ring took on "much more important" meanings.
Again, as a reader, I am left confused.
We readers don't need lots of private details, but we do need to understand--to feel and experience and think what he did.
I don't expect an autobiographical writer to completely bare his soul or his very private life, but without some details, some description, and extensive inner reflection, the reader is left confused and unmoved.
If Chuck does a revision--
I did about 7 on one of my book after its first edition--
he needs to keep in mind the old very truism of writing:
Show, don't tell.
And in a religious autobiography, REFLECT on your motives, your inner directions, your shadow, and how all parts of your life relate to the spiritual.
And Chuck needs to remember that in many cases, he didn't even tell.
He's right, "any religion that's worth it is built around stories."
And he ought to have added, any religion that's worth it reflects on its stories.
Shows potential.
Evaluation: C-
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Reflections on the Transgender Conflict
The transgender conflict is currently breaking hearts and confusing minds,
another tragic case of how an important concern can be twisted by politicians
and the media until all that is left is smog, and no one is helped.
Suggestions:
#1 Keep politics, the media, non-medical people, and others out of the transgender subject. Leave this concern with the individual!
It would seem that if an individual's gender was wrongly assigned at birth, that this is a private matter, the business of no one but the individual.
If a person's gender doesn't match his/her body, and so she/he has transitioned, who is going to know when she/he visits the restroom stall of her/his gender identity?
No one!
#2 Inform ourselves on the topic by reading scholarly articles, books, and by talking with a transgender individual IF she/he brings up the concern.
I am gradually learning about the concern, despite the media, politicians, social rumor, propaganda, and so much popular drivel.
Get our learning from scholarship, not from popular leaders.
I've read one good scholarly book on sexuality related to gender, same sexuality, etc. That's not nearly enough I realize. So I continue to learn and to seek to understand.
Personally, I don't know anyone who is transgender, at least no one who has identified thus. Hopefully, I will be able to discuss this with such an individual soon.
#3 Live in empathy, compassion, social concern, equality, and justice for all humans.
And keep seeking for what is true, what is just, what is right,
and what is good in the Light,
Daniel Wilcox
another tragic case of how an important concern can be twisted by politicians
and the media until all that is left is smog, and no one is helped.
Suggestions:
#1 Keep politics, the media, non-medical people, and others out of the transgender subject. Leave this concern with the individual!
It would seem that if an individual's gender was wrongly assigned at birth, that this is a private matter, the business of no one but the individual.
If a person's gender doesn't match his/her body, and so she/he has transitioned, who is going to know when she/he visits the restroom stall of her/his gender identity?
No one!
#2 Inform ourselves on the topic by reading scholarly articles, books, and by talking with a transgender individual IF she/he brings up the concern.
I am gradually learning about the concern, despite the media, politicians, social rumor, propaganda, and so much popular drivel.
Get our learning from scholarship, not from popular leaders.
I've read one good scholarly book on sexuality related to gender, same sexuality, etc. That's not nearly enough I realize. So I continue to learn and to seek to understand.
Personally, I don't know anyone who is transgender, at least no one who has identified thus. Hopefully, I will be able to discuss this with such an individual soon.
#3 Live in empathy, compassion, social concern, equality, and justice for all humans.
And keep seeking for what is true, what is just, what is right,
and what is good in the Light,
Daniel Wilcox
Labels:
body,
compassion,
conflict,
empathy,
gender,
heart,
human rights,
justice,
media,
mind,
propaganda,
scholarship,
sexuality,
smog,
transgender,
transition,
Truth
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Part #2: Marriage: What Does the Covenant Mean?
Ready for the really bizarre?
Here’s a strange quote from a Christian leader on marriage:
“Let me get right to the point - the making of marriage has nothing to do with love."
"Love does not make two people married. According to the law of His Word, God,
who marries couples, does not marry them based on love.”
From “Marriage: What’s Love Got To Do With It?”
By Edward Ridenour*
Huh? Wait a minute, please…
Has there been anything more off-the-wall wrong than this? Claiming that “making a marriage has nothing to do with love”?*
Sometimes a reflection, meditation, article deeply moves one, invites one into the presence of God, and leads to a transformative change in my life,
BUT
such is NOT the case with Ridenour’s article.
Now keep in mind that Ridenour may be partially playing “gotcha,” using a hook attention-grabber, because later he does qualify his bizarre, untrue words: “Love that labors and is sacrificial is true marital love in its best form, and is "agape" (Godlike).
When a man and a woman come together and make a marriage, their underlying principle for making that marriage should not be for their own self-satisfaction, but to serve one another and God in that union, exemplify His love, and build His Kingdom. This is true love.”
Definitely yes and no.
It is true that much of what passes for “love” in modern society has little to do with love in the transcendent/compassionate/ultimate ethical sense.
But it is also true that much of what passes for “love” and “marriage” in Scripture, Christian history, and modern religious groups has little to do with love either.
If in doubt spend a couple of days researching “marriage” as practiced in parts of the Bible and in church history.
It’s enough to make any spiritual individual puke and wretch—just as Jesus is said to do with the false religious ways of so many humans (Revelation 3: 1-22)
For years now—at least 21 of them—I’ve been seeking clarification and insight on the meaning of the word and act called “marriage.”
But even after attending and participating in many weddings, after reading a tome of books, endless essays and biblical studies,
and spending a lot of time in prayer and reflection, I still am confused/uncertain/grieved--
seeking further clarification from the Light of God before I speak my mind with strong conviction.
So, if all that is true, why am I sticking out my neck now to have it chopped off repeatedly by all the opposing guillotines of modern dystopia,
by all the theological fire-breathers of various opposing camps from Indiana Yearly Meeting to the U.S. Supreme Court?
Let’s say, Ridenour made me do it;-)
Not that he’s the devil, but the latter is definitely in the details.
Well, maybe not; maybe in the end the truth of all this is only found in the ideal truths and essences, inherent in the ultimate love of God.
Now there’s an idea—that our finite minds aren’t the ultimate judge of truth, but God who is Love is.
As it says in Ephesians 4: “...walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love...
14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ...” ESV
SO...before we can tackle the vital issue of marriage, what it means and what it doesn’t mean—
and set all the modern ethical jousters correct;-)—
we must first look at the definition of this wily character/characteristic/attribute/behavior/emotion/value/ethic/act called "love"
#1 Define the terms (what philosophers always emphasize so as to avoid semantic chaos like what is happening in modern secular society and religion).
Love:
love (n.)
Old English lufu "love, affection, friendliness," from Proto-Germanic *lubo (cf. Old High German liubi "joy," German Liebe "love;" Old Norse, Old Frisian, Dutch lof; German Lob "praise;" Old Saxon liof, Old Frisian liaf, Dutch lief, Old High German liob, German lieb, Gothic liufs "dear, beloved").
The Germanic words are from PIE *leubh- "to care, desire, love" (cf. Latin lubet, later libet "pleases;" Sanskrit lubhyati "desires;" Old Church Slavonic l'ubu "dear, beloved;" Lithuanian liaupse "song of praise").
Meaning "a beloved person" is from early 13c. The sense "no score" (in tennis, etc.) is 1742, from the notion of "playing for love," i.e. "for nothing" (1670s). Phrase for love or money "for anything" is attested from 1580s. Love seat is from 1904. Love-letter is attested from mid-13c.; love-song from early 14c.
To fall in love is attested from early 15c. To be in love with (someone) is from c.1500. To make love is from 1570s in the sense "pay amorous attention to;" as a euphemism for "have sex," it is attested from c.1950.
Love life "one's collective amorous activities" is from 1919, originally a term in psychological jargon. Love affair is from 1590s. The phrase no love lost (between two people) is ambiguous and was used 17c. in reference to two who love each other well (c.1640) as well as two who have no love for each other (1620s).
love (v.)
Old English lufian "to love, cherish, show love to; delight in, approve," from Proto-Germanic *lubojan (cf. Old High German lubon, German lieben), from root of love (n.). Related: Loved; loving. Adjective Love-hate "ambivalent" is from 1937, originally a term in psychological jargon.
Online Etymology Dictionary
To Be Continued--
In the Light,
Daniel Wilcox
*Part 1 was published as “The Twisting…” April 2, 2013
* Well, maybe the twisting of God’s character and essence by modern Christian leaders who claim God is self-centered, that everything he does is for his own glory! How sick and totally wrong, as any reading of the NT will show. Try 1 John first.
* http://blogs.christianpost.com/marriage/marriage-whats-love-got-to-do-with-it-151/
Here’s a strange quote from a Christian leader on marriage:
“Let me get right to the point - the making of marriage has nothing to do with love."
"Love does not make two people married. According to the law of His Word, God,
who marries couples, does not marry them based on love.”
From “Marriage: What’s Love Got To Do With It?”
By Edward Ridenour*
Huh? Wait a minute, please…
Has there been anything more off-the-wall wrong than this? Claiming that “making a marriage has nothing to do with love”?*
Sometimes a reflection, meditation, article deeply moves one, invites one into the presence of God, and leads to a transformative change in my life,
BUT
such is NOT the case with Ridenour’s article.
Now keep in mind that Ridenour may be partially playing “gotcha,” using a hook attention-grabber, because later he does qualify his bizarre, untrue words: “Love that labors and is sacrificial is true marital love in its best form, and is "agape" (Godlike).
When a man and a woman come together and make a marriage, their underlying principle for making that marriage should not be for their own self-satisfaction, but to serve one another and God in that union, exemplify His love, and build His Kingdom. This is true love.”
Definitely yes and no.
It is true that much of what passes for “love” in modern society has little to do with love in the transcendent/compassionate/ultimate ethical sense.
But it is also true that much of what passes for “love” and “marriage” in Scripture, Christian history, and modern religious groups has little to do with love either.
If in doubt spend a couple of days researching “marriage” as practiced in parts of the Bible and in church history.
It’s enough to make any spiritual individual puke and wretch—just as Jesus is said to do with the false religious ways of so many humans (Revelation 3: 1-22)
For years now—at least 21 of them—I’ve been seeking clarification and insight on the meaning of the word and act called “marriage.”
But even after attending and participating in many weddings, after reading a tome of books, endless essays and biblical studies,
and spending a lot of time in prayer and reflection, I still am confused/uncertain/grieved--
seeking further clarification from the Light of God before I speak my mind with strong conviction.
So, if all that is true, why am I sticking out my neck now to have it chopped off repeatedly by all the opposing guillotines of modern dystopia,
by all the theological fire-breathers of various opposing camps from Indiana Yearly Meeting to the U.S. Supreme Court?
Let’s say, Ridenour made me do it;-)
Not that he’s the devil, but the latter is definitely in the details.
Well, maybe not; maybe in the end the truth of all this is only found in the ideal truths and essences, inherent in the ultimate love of God.
Now there’s an idea—that our finite minds aren’t the ultimate judge of truth, but God who is Love is.
As it says in Ephesians 4: “...walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love...
14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ...” ESV
SO...before we can tackle the vital issue of marriage, what it means and what it doesn’t mean—
and set all the modern ethical jousters correct;-)—
we must first look at the definition of this wily character/characteristic/attribute/behavior/emotion/value/ethic/act called "love"
#1 Define the terms (what philosophers always emphasize so as to avoid semantic chaos like what is happening in modern secular society and religion).
Love:
love (n.)
Old English lufu "love, affection, friendliness," from Proto-Germanic *lubo (cf. Old High German liubi "joy," German Liebe "love;" Old Norse, Old Frisian, Dutch lof; German Lob "praise;" Old Saxon liof, Old Frisian liaf, Dutch lief, Old High German liob, German lieb, Gothic liufs "dear, beloved").
The Germanic words are from PIE *leubh- "to care, desire, love" (cf. Latin lubet, later libet "pleases;" Sanskrit lubhyati "desires;" Old Church Slavonic l'ubu "dear, beloved;" Lithuanian liaupse "song of praise").
Meaning "a beloved person" is from early 13c. The sense "no score" (in tennis, etc.) is 1742, from the notion of "playing for love," i.e. "for nothing" (1670s). Phrase for love or money "for anything" is attested from 1580s. Love seat is from 1904. Love-letter is attested from mid-13c.; love-song from early 14c.
To fall in love is attested from early 15c. To be in love with (someone) is from c.1500. To make love is from 1570s in the sense "pay amorous attention to;" as a euphemism for "have sex," it is attested from c.1950.
Love life "one's collective amorous activities" is from 1919, originally a term in psychological jargon. Love affair is from 1590s. The phrase no love lost (between two people) is ambiguous and was used 17c. in reference to two who love each other well (c.1640) as well as two who have no love for each other (1620s).
love (v.)
Old English lufian "to love, cherish, show love to; delight in, approve," from Proto-Germanic *lubojan (cf. Old High German lubon, German lieben), from root of love (n.). Related: Loved; loving. Adjective Love-hate "ambivalent" is from 1937, originally a term in psychological jargon.
Online Etymology Dictionary
To Be Continued--
In the Light,
Daniel Wilcox
*Part 1 was published as “The Twisting…” April 2, 2013
* Well, maybe the twisting of God’s character and essence by modern Christian leaders who claim God is self-centered, that everything he does is for his own glory! How sick and totally wrong, as any reading of the NT will show. Try 1 John first.
* http://blogs.christianpost.com/marriage/marriage-whats-love-got-to-do-with-it-151/
Labels:
couple,
covenant,
desire,
Edward Ridenour,
Friends,
Indiana Yearly Meeting,
Love,
marriage,
Quakers,
Scripture,
sexuality,
Supreme Court,
twisted,
wedding
Monday, July 4, 2011
Part 2: Sexuality
Since the word “sex” only has three letters, how did it become a four-letter word (the “plow” word and the “love” word)?
How does an instinctive procreative act characteristic of all humans (and most forms of life down to fish and below) come to mean everything from the degrading and sadistically obscene to the uplifting and creatively divine?
From the violently aggressive to the joyfully receptive?
From one-sided self-centeredness to intimate communion of two lives?
Regardless of one’s worldview, most humans* think humankind has reached a state in evolution
wherein individuals of our species can creatively use human innate characteristics,
adapting them for many different purposes and in very different ways.
This “plasticity” of human abilities enable billions of individuals to use their physical and brain skills, not only for time-immemorial practical acts such as plowing a field or constructing a building,
but
for transcendent goals.
Humans can use their brain consciousness and muscles to do acts that have no practicality at all such as play suspenseful sports in the Olympics or dance in complex moves across theater stages or construct beautiful poetic songs.
This “plasticity”—for good or ill--is, especially, true for human sexuality as shown by the wide variety of statements about sex by famous individuals in the first installment of this series.
Here is another striking example:
Alan Watts, a former Episcopal minister, became a prolific writer and famous transmitter of Buddhism to the American cultural scene. (When I was a teenager, and still a Baptist, I watched his show every day on PBS at 6 pm, marveling at his spiritual points and esoteric philosophical explanations.)
So far, so good, it seemed.
But then I read his shocking, repulsive autobiography, In My Own Way.
Alongside such spiritual gems as “The cross is at the heart of the universe,” which Watts quotes from a mystic,
he then describes his view of human being and sexuality.
“…Deep down inside, almost everyone has a vague sense of eternity. Few dare admit this because it would amount to believing that you are God..."
"My own sexual mores...I do not believe that I should be passionately in love with my partner...and still less, married."
"For there is a special and humanizing delight in erotic friendships with no strings attached..."
"My life would be much, much poorer were it not for certain
particular women with whom I have most happily and congenially committed adultery...”
Alan Watts
HUH?
Most of us aren’t too surprised by the sludge coming out in the media or by so-called red-necked vulgarity.
The guttural view of sex has probably been around since cavemen first spoke;-), but when a highly educated, philosophical, spiritually oriented individual such as Alan Watts glorifies promiscuous sex,
we surely know that human sexuality
is, indeed, very ambiguous with many strange variations,
and many of them destructive,
and so contrary to the Truth, the Good, and the Beautiful.
When he writes, "I most happily and congenially committed adultery...," it is clear that somewhere he took a disastrous ethical detour.
We’re all sexual, and in different ways, but, hopefully, we don't major in being unfaithful, disloyal, and promiscuous and, even worse, declare our harmful dysfunctional behavior with pride to the world.
Speaking of Buddhism, actually the latter, contrary to Watt's view, for most of its history had a very different view of sexuality.
The Vietnamese Buddhist nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, Thich Nhat Hanh, emphasized that humans seeking to become enlightened live their sexuality in enhancing ethical ways.
Other forms of Buddhism go to the opposite extreme from Watts' adultery and promiscuity. These Buddhist leaders
have a very negative view of all human sexuality and even state that women must become men before they can be enlightened!
“...a large part of Theravada texts is devoted to the depiction of women as disgusting creatures too repulsive to touch.”
--Rev. Patti Nakai
Touching--now that reminds me of my own spiritual tradition, the part I hated as a fundamentalist teenager, words from good ol' Paul:
“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
I Corinthians 7:1, New Testament
Maybe that would have been good advice for Hugh Hefner and most of the secular individuals I knew at university who argued for 'free sex.'
But Paul's extremely negative remarks were difficult for me, especially when first going out on dates with friendly Nebraska country girls:-)
Remember the famous Beach Boys song from that era, "California Girls"?
Paul's advice was exasperating.
Don’t get me wrong. I am talking about hand-holding and kissing,
traditional “necking,”
not anything below the neck.
But get it, my even having to explain our particular religion’s very conservative sexual understanding shows how wide human sexual understanding and behavior is.
Why, hey;-), when I was very naive in junior high, our Christian books so warned against kissing
that I really thought girls got pregnant from smooching!!
Shows I lived in a small village and attended a very strict Baptist denomination where movies, dancing, rock music were banned,
that I didn't grow up on my grandfather’s farm where many animals did 'it' all the time.
Contrast this religiously-sheltered ignorant upbringing with the ninth grader I encountered when I moved Lincoln,
the capital city of Nebraska.
The knowing teen smirked and demanded to know if I knew all about “69.”
I knew it was 1962, and did know the “6” and the “9” weren't referring to years, but to something sexual and forbidden.
Just what I didn’t know, and tried to not think about. But sure did:-)
Enough on autobiographies from Watts to Wilcox...
From New Age Buddhism to fundamental Baptist Christianity...
Then there's orthodox Judaism with its Jewish men's prayer thanking God for not making them a woman or a slave:-(.
I’m sure you get the general point, without my bringing in many details from Secularism, Hinduism, Islam and Paganism.
Yes, sexuality is a very powerful force/drive within humanity which has been shaped like soft plastic into countlessly different configurations by humans and their worldviews.
The earlier modern quote about the basketball player and his wife catches the true spirit of human sexuality, as God intends sexuality to be—a joyous monogamous daily choice by two equals.
Sexuality is a whole life response by a couple committed to a life-long relationship, neither temporary glandular instinct nor a restricted negative necessity.
Here’s another fine explanation: “...Your understanding of love will change as you get older...I remember my second date...I totally lost my cool and told her I loved her. On our SECOND date!!"
"You know what? I recently told that very same girl how much I love her, and how glad I am that I married her...But what I meant when I really meant it 23 years ago is a lot different from what I mean when I really mean it today!"
"In 23 years, I’ve learned to put aside my selfishness more often, and I’ve learned more ways to love and cherish her...the heart of genuine love [in human sexuality] is an immovable decision to put your lover’s joy and welfare ahead of your own."
"Usually, you don’t fall into that kind of love; you climb into it. It’s not just something you feel [nor an instinctive urge]. It’s a decision you make.”
Duffy in Breakaway
--
Sexual love is a monogamous life-long commitment, a unique “ultimate” relationship—where two individuals give themselves to each other emotionally, mentally, and physically.
That’s true love.
True love (in the marriage sense) is unlike any other human relationship, except in sacred writing where God is often spoken of as each individual human’s lover.
Indeed, romantic sexual imagery is often used in literature to describe the ecstasy of “knowing” God intimately. Makes sense doesn’t it?
After all, the Creator came up with the ideal and the actual actions of human sexuality.
In the Light,
Daniel Wilcox
*Except, of course, for the theologically and materialistically fatalistic
How does an instinctive procreative act characteristic of all humans (and most forms of life down to fish and below) come to mean everything from the degrading and sadistically obscene to the uplifting and creatively divine?
From the violently aggressive to the joyfully receptive?
From one-sided self-centeredness to intimate communion of two lives?
Regardless of one’s worldview, most humans* think humankind has reached a state in evolution
wherein individuals of our species can creatively use human innate characteristics,
adapting them for many different purposes and in very different ways.
This “plasticity” of human abilities enable billions of individuals to use their physical and brain skills, not only for time-immemorial practical acts such as plowing a field or constructing a building,
but
for transcendent goals.
Humans can use their brain consciousness and muscles to do acts that have no practicality at all such as play suspenseful sports in the Olympics or dance in complex moves across theater stages or construct beautiful poetic songs.
This “plasticity”—for good or ill--is, especially, true for human sexuality as shown by the wide variety of statements about sex by famous individuals in the first installment of this series.
Here is another striking example:
Alan Watts, a former Episcopal minister, became a prolific writer and famous transmitter of Buddhism to the American cultural scene. (When I was a teenager, and still a Baptist, I watched his show every day on PBS at 6 pm, marveling at his spiritual points and esoteric philosophical explanations.)
So far, so good, it seemed.
But then I read his shocking, repulsive autobiography, In My Own Way.
Alongside such spiritual gems as “The cross is at the heart of the universe,” which Watts quotes from a mystic,
he then describes his view of human being and sexuality.
“…Deep down inside, almost everyone has a vague sense of eternity. Few dare admit this because it would amount to believing that you are God..."
"My own sexual mores...I do not believe that I should be passionately in love with my partner...and still less, married."
"For there is a special and humanizing delight in erotic friendships with no strings attached..."
"My life would be much, much poorer were it not for certain
particular women with whom I have most happily and congenially committed adultery...”
Alan Watts
HUH?
Most of us aren’t too surprised by the sludge coming out in the media or by so-called red-necked vulgarity.
The guttural view of sex has probably been around since cavemen first spoke;-), but when a highly educated, philosophical, spiritually oriented individual such as Alan Watts glorifies promiscuous sex,
we surely know that human sexuality
is, indeed, very ambiguous with many strange variations,
and many of them destructive,
and so contrary to the Truth, the Good, and the Beautiful.
When he writes, "I most happily and congenially committed adultery...," it is clear that somewhere he took a disastrous ethical detour.
We’re all sexual, and in different ways, but, hopefully, we don't major in being unfaithful, disloyal, and promiscuous and, even worse, declare our harmful dysfunctional behavior with pride to the world.
Speaking of Buddhism, actually the latter, contrary to Watt's view, for most of its history had a very different view of sexuality.
The Vietnamese Buddhist nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, Thich Nhat Hanh, emphasized that humans seeking to become enlightened live their sexuality in enhancing ethical ways.
Other forms of Buddhism go to the opposite extreme from Watts' adultery and promiscuity. These Buddhist leaders
have a very negative view of all human sexuality and even state that women must become men before they can be enlightened!
“...a large part of Theravada texts is devoted to the depiction of women as disgusting creatures too repulsive to touch.”
--Rev. Patti Nakai
Touching--now that reminds me of my own spiritual tradition, the part I hated as a fundamentalist teenager, words from good ol' Paul:
“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
I Corinthians 7:1, New Testament
Maybe that would have been good advice for Hugh Hefner and most of the secular individuals I knew at university who argued for 'free sex.'
But Paul's extremely negative remarks were difficult for me, especially when first going out on dates with friendly Nebraska country girls:-)
Remember the famous Beach Boys song from that era, "California Girls"?
Paul's advice was exasperating.
Don’t get me wrong. I am talking about hand-holding and kissing,
traditional “necking,”
not anything below the neck.
But get it, my even having to explain our particular religion’s very conservative sexual understanding shows how wide human sexual understanding and behavior is.
Why, hey;-), when I was very naive in junior high, our Christian books so warned against kissing
that I really thought girls got pregnant from smooching!!
Shows I lived in a small village and attended a very strict Baptist denomination where movies, dancing, rock music were banned,
that I didn't grow up on my grandfather’s farm where many animals did 'it' all the time.
Contrast this religiously-sheltered ignorant upbringing with the ninth grader I encountered when I moved Lincoln,
the capital city of Nebraska.
The knowing teen smirked and demanded to know if I knew all about “69.”
I knew it was 1962, and did know the “6” and the “9” weren't referring to years, but to something sexual and forbidden.
Just what I didn’t know, and tried to not think about. But sure did:-)
Enough on autobiographies from Watts to Wilcox...
From New Age Buddhism to fundamental Baptist Christianity...
Then there's orthodox Judaism with its Jewish men's prayer thanking God for not making them a woman or a slave:-(.
I’m sure you get the general point, without my bringing in many details from Secularism, Hinduism, Islam and Paganism.
Yes, sexuality is a very powerful force/drive within humanity which has been shaped like soft plastic into countlessly different configurations by humans and their worldviews.
The earlier modern quote about the basketball player and his wife catches the true spirit of human sexuality, as God intends sexuality to be—a joyous monogamous daily choice by two equals.
Sexuality is a whole life response by a couple committed to a life-long relationship, neither temporary glandular instinct nor a restricted negative necessity.
Here’s another fine explanation: “...Your understanding of love will change as you get older...I remember my second date...I totally lost my cool and told her I loved her. On our SECOND date!!"
"You know what? I recently told that very same girl how much I love her, and how glad I am that I married her...But what I meant when I really meant it 23 years ago is a lot different from what I mean when I really mean it today!"
"In 23 years, I’ve learned to put aside my selfishness more often, and I’ve learned more ways to love and cherish her...the heart of genuine love [in human sexuality] is an immovable decision to put your lover’s joy and welfare ahead of your own."
"Usually, you don’t fall into that kind of love; you climb into it. It’s not just something you feel [nor an instinctive urge]. It’s a decision you make.”
Duffy in Breakaway
--
Sexual love is a monogamous life-long commitment, a unique “ultimate” relationship—where two individuals give themselves to each other emotionally, mentally, and physically.
That’s true love.
True love (in the marriage sense) is unlike any other human relationship, except in sacred writing where God is often spoken of as each individual human’s lover.
Indeed, romantic sexual imagery is often used in literature to describe the ecstasy of “knowing” God intimately. Makes sense doesn’t it?
After all, the Creator came up with the ideal and the actual actions of human sexuality.
In the Light,
Daniel Wilcox
*Except, of course, for the theologically and materialistically fatalistic
Labels:
adultery,
Alan Watts,
Apostle Paul,
Buddhism,
commitment,
fidelity,
intimate,
marriage,
monogamy,
necking,
negative,
new age,
passion,
plasticity,
self-centered,
sexuality,
strict,
Thich Nhat Hanh
Friday, July 1, 2011
The Meaning of Human Sexuality
Surely, I must be joking? Thinking I can take on the herculean (adam-evesques) task of explaining the meaning of human sexuality? That would be like climbing Niagara Falls or trying to explain the theological significance of Viagra;-).
The meaning of human sexuality is so deep and so transcendent and so complicated and so controversial, it would first be better to tangle with the behemoth or leviathan mentioned in the Book of Job. But since none of us can get away from the topic (and I seldom have ever wanted to except when revoltingly sick).
Here goes—
A little introductory humor:
How can you tell if a man is thinking about sexuality? Is he breathing? LOL
A few quotes to set the tone before the texted tome, and to show the inexplicable contrariness and contradictory outlook of various human beings toward this incessantly fascinating topic:
And God created the human in his image,
in the image of God…male and female…
And God blessed them, and God said to them,
Be fruitful and multiply
…and, look, it was very good.
Genesis 1:27-31
"The [marriage] vows should be written like a dog's license that has to be renewed every year…I think vows should be changed because they've been in existence for 600 years when people used to live until they were only 35. So they only had to be with each other for 12 years, then they would die anyway. But now it's a big commitment because you're going to be with someone for 50 years. It's impossible…It's such a rarity for people to stay together that 68% of marriages fail. I don't want to urinate on the party, but one must consider that before getting married.
Rock Musician Rod Stewart
“Sex is like pissing. People take it much too seriously.
Painter Diego Rivera
“If I ever loved a woman, the more I loved her, the more I wanted to hurt her. Frida was only the most obvious victim of this disgusting trait.”
Painter Diego Rivera
“Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?”
Yeshua, the Messiah (Anointed One)
“Chastity: The most unnatural of the sexual perversions."
Aldous Huxley
"I think I could fall madly in bed with you."
Anonymous
“Vanity, revenge, loneliness, boredom, all apply: lust is one of the least of the reasons for promiscuity."
Mignon McLaughlin
“To me heaven would be…two lovely houses in the town; one where I would have my wife and children and be monogamous and love them truly and well and the other where I would have my nine beautiful mistresses on nine different floors.”
Ernest Hemingway
“The sweetest joy, the wildest woe is love.”
Philip James Bailey
"Love is the word used to label the sexual excitement of the young, the habituation of the middle-aged, and the mutual dependence of the old.
John Ciardi
"I never knew how to worship until I knew how to love."
Henry Ward Beecher
Roman and Grace are a married Spokane Indian couple. He is standing close to her with his basketball between them, as if the ball represents the expectant infant they will soon create…
“Michael Jordan is coming back again,” he said.
“You can’t fool me,” said Grace. “I heard it. That was just a replay.”
“Yeah, but I wish he was coming back again. He should always come back.”
“Don’t let it give you any crazy ideas.”
Roman pulled the basketball away and leaned even closer to Grace. He loved her, of course, but better than that, he chose her, day after day. Choice: that was the thing. Other people claimed that you can't choose who you love—it just happens!—but Grace and Roman knew that was a bunch of happy horseshit. Of course you chose who you loved. If you didn't choose, you ended up with what was left—the drunks and abusers, the debtors and vacuums, the ones who ate their food too fast or had never read a novel. Damn, marriage was hard work, was manual labor, and unpaid manual labor at that. Yet, year after year, Grace and Roman had pressed their shoulders against the stone and rolled it up the hill together.
In their marriage bed, Roman chose Grace once more and brushed his lips against her ear.
From “Saint Junior” by Sherman Alexie
To be continued in Part 2: Since sex only has three letters, how did it become a four-letter word (the "plow" word and the "love" word)?
In the Light,
Daniel Wilcox
The meaning of human sexuality is so deep and so transcendent and so complicated and so controversial, it would first be better to tangle with the behemoth or leviathan mentioned in the Book of Job. But since none of us can get away from the topic (and I seldom have ever wanted to except when revoltingly sick).
Here goes—
A little introductory humor:
How can you tell if a man is thinking about sexuality? Is he breathing? LOL
A few quotes to set the tone before the texted tome, and to show the inexplicable contrariness and contradictory outlook of various human beings toward this incessantly fascinating topic:
And God created the human in his image,
in the image of God…male and female…
And God blessed them, and God said to them,
Be fruitful and multiply
…and, look, it was very good.
Genesis 1:27-31
"The [marriage] vows should be written like a dog's license that has to be renewed every year…I think vows should be changed because they've been in existence for 600 years when people used to live until they were only 35. So they only had to be with each other for 12 years, then they would die anyway. But now it's a big commitment because you're going to be with someone for 50 years. It's impossible…It's such a rarity for people to stay together that 68% of marriages fail. I don't want to urinate on the party, but one must consider that before getting married.
Rock Musician Rod Stewart
“Sex is like pissing. People take it much too seriously.
Painter Diego Rivera
“If I ever loved a woman, the more I loved her, the more I wanted to hurt her. Frida was only the most obvious victim of this disgusting trait.”
Painter Diego Rivera
“Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?”
Yeshua, the Messiah (Anointed One)
“Chastity: The most unnatural of the sexual perversions."
Aldous Huxley
"I think I could fall madly in bed with you."
Anonymous
“Vanity, revenge, loneliness, boredom, all apply: lust is one of the least of the reasons for promiscuity."
Mignon McLaughlin
“To me heaven would be…two lovely houses in the town; one where I would have my wife and children and be monogamous and love them truly and well and the other where I would have my nine beautiful mistresses on nine different floors.”
Ernest Hemingway
“The sweetest joy, the wildest woe is love.”
Philip James Bailey
"Love is the word used to label the sexual excitement of the young, the habituation of the middle-aged, and the mutual dependence of the old.
John Ciardi
"I never knew how to worship until I knew how to love."
Henry Ward Beecher
Roman and Grace are a married Spokane Indian couple. He is standing close to her with his basketball between them, as if the ball represents the expectant infant they will soon create…
“Michael Jordan is coming back again,” he said.
“You can’t fool me,” said Grace. “I heard it. That was just a replay.”
“Yeah, but I wish he was coming back again. He should always come back.”
“Don’t let it give you any crazy ideas.”
Roman pulled the basketball away and leaned even closer to Grace. He loved her, of course, but better than that, he chose her, day after day. Choice: that was the thing. Other people claimed that you can't choose who you love—it just happens!—but Grace and Roman knew that was a bunch of happy horseshit. Of course you chose who you loved. If you didn't choose, you ended up with what was left—the drunks and abusers, the debtors and vacuums, the ones who ate their food too fast or had never read a novel. Damn, marriage was hard work, was manual labor, and unpaid manual labor at that. Yet, year after year, Grace and Roman had pressed their shoulders against the stone and rolled it up the hill together.
In their marriage bed, Roman chose Grace once more and brushed his lips against her ear.
From “Saint Junior” by Sherman Alexie
To be continued in Part 2: Since sex only has three letters, how did it become a four-letter word (the "plow" word and the "love" word)?
In the Light,
Daniel Wilcox
Labels:
Diego Rivera,
Genesis,
Hemingway,
Rod Stewart,
sexuality,
Sherman Alexie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)