“Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him.  He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about.  And the other man very seldom replies: “To hell with your standard.”  Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse.  He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off from keeping his promise.  It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play, or decent behavior, or morality, or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed.  And they have.  If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word.  Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong.  And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

“Now this law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature.  Nowadays, when we talk of the “laws of nature,” we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry.  But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong “the law of Nature,” they really meant the Law of Human Nature.  The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law–with this great difference, that a body could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.”

–Lewis, C.S. (1977). The joyful christian: 127 readings. New York: Scribner.

After reading this particular entry one day I couldn’t help wondering whether or not we humans are truly complicated, or is our behavior quite simple to interpret.  It’s my belief that what  is taking place is a battle of the selves (that is, the selfish definition of self, not to be confused with the self as identity) as they seek to fit a moral standard to them, rather than fitting themselves to the moral standard.  What do you think is each individual’s relationship to morality within the context of conflict?  I look forward to hearing your perspectives.

In inspiration for personal quality, we look for those places or experiences that tap our souls and overwhelm  us profoundly with a desire to improve our personhood.  From it we experience an urge to live a balanced, constructive, and moral life.  Such experiences are closely associated with some form of aesthetic order that overwhelmingly surrounds us, pulling us into the experience instead of observing it disconnectedly.  In this we are surrounded by order — order in sound and music, order in color and design, and order within the written word.  For me, choral music performed in the sanctity of a cathedral is highly inspiring.  In nature, the mountains as well the landscapes of England and Scotland provide inspiration.  In the written word, it is the writings of C.S. Lewis, the Bible, and Alister McGrathand that provide the rare but valued inspiration and motivation to assess the quality of myself and my life. 

Such rare moments do not mean that frequent introspection or personal improvement do not take place.  On the contrary.  However, the inspiration for personal quality is not as common for most, especially when inspiration is of such high quality.  Sadly, it is so easy to get caught-up in the daily grind that we can easily forget to search out such inspiration, though we may feel we are lacking.  In fact, it is easy to settle for less than what we really know exists out there.  Inspiration fills that craving for something deeper and more fulfilling that can lead us to a happier existence.  The choral music performed in a cathedral that I mentioned earlier is an example of inspiration as a vignette of mature existence.  By mature existence I mean the good quality of music and good quality/uplifting surroundings are congruent with the result of experiencing a good quality inspiration that will not only motivate one to proactively change for the future, but already improve personal quality at that very moment.  Each person can find inspiration that is meaningful for them — one that does not have standards set by mainstream secularism and society.  Inspiration for a quality of life moves us to find God and experience Him.  Here are two examples that cannot replace the experience, but nonetheless gives an idea of what I’ve been talking about here:

For Christians, the struggle of surrender touches very closely to human nature’s drive to act in one’s own interest.  The value of freedom and in some cultures a strong desire for rights, has created a paradigm of intolerance towards subjection beyond what is absolutely necessary (i.e. the necessity of hierarchy in work).  Additionally, there is the very strong influence of the scientific method which has had a trickle-down effect.  In one way this is good as it provides a uniformity and soundness in approaching science.  In another way it is problematic once it seeks to fit the metaphysical into a formula.  Less noticeable is the scientific method on society’s mass consciousness.  This way of thinking is barely noticeable and yet profoundly influential in human behavior and attitudes.  It directs reasoning and how people will process perception of information through the rigeurs of scientific objectivity.  This of course will create a bias towards one’s understanding of not only God, but on His motive towards relating to His creation, and the response His creation gives Him.

The second point of interest deals with the perception that some non-Christians and atheists have towards God or the concept of God.  Whether non-Christian or theist, there is often an expectation placed on Christians and Christian leaders to live a certain way.  When that expectation is not met, it is easy to attack and/or use such evidences as proof against the reliability of Christianity and evidence against the existence of God.  Nevertheless, Nicholi says: “We must also be careful not to conceptualize or judge God by the faulty actions of his fallible creatures, whether those in the Bible, or televangelists who go to jail, or priests who molest children.  All fall short.  Jesus of Nazareth was gentle and forgiving to the woman at the well who sought forgiveness, but severe with the religious leaders who failed to live what they professed.  Our tendency to distort and create our own God, sometimes a God not of love but of hate, may explain why, over the centuries, people have committed, and continue to commit, ungodly acts–even acts of terrorism–in the name of God.  This tendency to create our own God gives us insight into why the first commandment is: ‘You shall have no other gods before me’” (243-244).   

Again, Christians find themselves living in a world with easy tendencies–tendencies that appeal to ease of living a lifestyle most commonly at odds with the one Christ calls them to make an effort to live.  Whatever worldview one holds, this book seeks to prompt each reader to ask intelligent questions and find the answers, all with an open mind to personal growth and change.   The lives of Lewis and Freud speak for themselves.

What was of particular interest throughout the book was the continual contrast of attitudes towards each worldview that Lewis and Freud expressed.  Freud’s answer was “No!” to a Someone beyond the universe who created it. Yet, Nicholi documents Freud making statements throughout his life that allude that God’s existence was a possibility.  Nicholi quotes Freud who wrote: “I have not escaped from his [Prof. Brentano] influence — I am not capable of refuting a simple theistic argument that constitutes the crown of his deliberations…He demonstrates the existence of God with as little bias and as much precision as another might argue the advantage of the wave over the emission theory” (18).  Nicholi states that throughout Freud’s works and letters, he would would exhibit confusion and ambivalence towards the question of God’s existence despite his “…pronouncements in favor of atheism” (19). 

In contrast to Freud was Lewis’ worldview after his conversion to Christianity.  After his conversion, Lewis would have answered the question with a definite “Yes!”  Before, Lewis shared much of Freud’s negative, critical, and cynical outlook on life.  Later, Lewis writes: “How true it all is: the SEEING ONE walks out into joy and happiness unthinkable, where the dull, senseless eyes of the world see only destruction and death…The great moral which reigns in Milton [in reference to Lewis' Preface to Paradise Lost] is the most universal and most useful that can be imagined, that obedience to the will of God makes men happy and disobedience makes them miserable” (125).

Equally interesting is Nicholi’s assessment of both Lewis’ and Freud’s attitudes on the value of human existence.  Freud’s take was less than magnanimous.  In a letter to his friend Oskar Pfister, he says: “I do not break my head very much about good and evil, but I have found little that is ‘good’ about human beings on the whole.  In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or none at all” (181).  Interesting that such a pessimistic worldview would come from someone whose life revolved around improving the existence of human life.  Similarly, before Lewis’ conversion he had spent a lot of time focusing on himself.  After conversion Lewis believed that every decision he made either brought him and others closer to or further from the Creator.  Lewis says: “All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations” (185).  A former student of Lewis’ said that “‘He was a deeply kind and charitable man” (185).

The world we live in today and tomorrow is without a doubt a complex and confusing world.  What do we do about the quandries we face in ever increasing numbers?  How do we truly live in a world that has both beauty and ugliness in it and not become jaded?  Lewis suggests that we turn to the Old and New Testaments, and to realize that evidence for God’s existence is around us, though not always visible.  Lewis says that it is possible to ignore God, but that he can’t be evaded — that He is everywhere.  ”The real labor is to remember to attend.  In fact to come awake.  Still more to remain awake” (244).  For most, it will take a paradigm shift — one not easily taken in the comfort of familiarity.

Authenticity and transparency have changed significantly in the last several years.  We could attribute it to the internet, social networking sites, the exposed lives of celebrities and politicians, but that would be putting complete blame in the wrong place.  The world wide web has certainly brought an ability to access information more easily.  With greater ease of communication and information has come a greater flood of communication and information.  What the media and the internet present to us in no way obliges us to expect of ourselves or others, to walk in their footsteps.  Yet we do.  We used to learn about others by spending time with them.  We talked more and enjoyed the company of our friends.  Through greater social (face-to-face) interaction we learned early on what to say and what to avoid talking about.  We were taught the art of presenting our true nobler selves (some would call this hypocracy).  In otherwords, we were taught discretion.

Nonetheless, we come in contact with individuals willing to divulge personal and private information — information that is truly not the business of others to know.  They may be strangers or even our friends.  Whether we are in the check-out line, on a bus, or friendly setting, we can easily become their audience.  Most of the time these individuals mean well and would be deeply embarrased if they knew the discomfort, embarrassment, and irritation they cause to those who live a more discrete life.  Still others see their personal transparent self-expression as an example for others to follow.  They see the privacy of others as inauthentic, the inability for some to relax, a sign that the other distrusts society.  I remember overhearing one individual telling a colleague that they don’t mind sharing their personal life with someone if they feel it can help the other person.  Given certain parameters this may be appropriate.  Boundaries and a sense of propriety however, is what many lack. 

Authenticity with discretion is a sign of respect to others and oneself.  Thinking before one speaks, following the rule of thumb “if in doubt, don’t,” and constantly bearing in mind that not every thought is worth mentioning and that the recipients of our discourse may not appreciate or feel comfortable with what we say no matter how strong the urge to share.  Authenticity with discretion will encourage us to live more congruent and honest lives by holding us accountable, instead of letting the randomness of our existence speak for us and/or others.  After talking with several people about how they would want to respond to someone who lets it all hang out, I got these responses: “I want to flee.”  “I want to leave the room.”  “It feels awkward.”  “I get embarrased for them.”  “My face turns red.”  Despite personality, lack of social propriety, or one’s opinions, we owe it to others and ourselves to show respect.

Jokes are often told in a relaxed setting amongst friends.  In such a setting our guard is let down.  We aren’t out to think critically.  We just laugh and move on without giving much thought to what is said.  If a joke is told in a more formal setting, it is often intended to lighten things up, and therefore not meant to be taken seriously.  Herein lies the potential for jokes to reinforce our opinions and worldviews.  When we tell ethnic jokes, blonde jokes, gender-based jokes, religious jokes, sex jokes, or insider jokes, we have to ask ourselves what the motive is.  Simultaneously, we would need to ask ourselves how any given joke could be interpreted.  When a joke is aimed at a specific population or idea embraced by certain people, it might be well for us to consider the effect on those hearing/receiving the joke as well as the effect on the teller.  Jokes have the potential of alienating, insulting, and demeaning.  Even within a non-threatening environment, a joke has the power to reinforce and teach.  When a joke has alienated, insulted, or demeaned an individual or group of people within a certain population, a small movement has occurred in the widening gulf between genders, religions, and so on.  A reinforcement in otherness has taken place. 

Miroslav Volf, professor of Theology at Yale University addresses otherness (at a global level) from a Christian perspective in his book, Exclusion and Embrace.  In his book we understand otherness as identity and exclusion.  In this context, otherness is dangerous.  It alienates and does not legitimize the identity of difference.  Understood this way, what if we applied otherness to the telling of jokes such as those mentioned above?  Would we grasp the significance of something small and seemingly innocuous having an educational impact on current and future attitudes, no matter how unnoticeable?  Do we really want to alienate or through our attitudes determine the illegitimacy of identity?  There exist necessary and healthy differences — differences created by God.  Is it really necessary to add unhealthy differences?  How can we enjoy our jokes without hanging them on stereotypes that reinforce otherness?  These are just some questions to consider.

Though the show is often enjoyed for purely entertainment purposes, there are two elements I’ve come to appreciate: the portrayal of American icons, and values.  Of the 249 episodes (I’ve not seen all), there are two that stand out as potential favorites: Andy Discovers America, and Andy’s English Valet. 

 Over the decades, television shows have gone noticeably down hill.  Loaded with sarcasm, inuendos of every variety, and very little to no substance, viewers have come to expect the low quality and mindless entertainment presented to them.  Those born in recent decades don’t even know that there was a time when shows were of a higher caliber.  Their ideas of high quality entertainment are normed on the shows seen during their lifetime. 

However, The Andy Griffith Show was a breath of fresh air.  First, there was a resolution to each conflict portrayed.  Though some plots were slightly far-fetched such as the The Loaded Goat, an episode in which Andy lead a goat that had recently eaten dynamite, out of town without it exploding.  One got the chance to watch just how Sheriff Taylor handled each problem with a cool head.  Sheriff Taylor and the other stars were interesting to watch as they interacted with each other.  Conflict-resolution was the drive behind each plot.  In this way, viewers not only got a chance to identify with various situations or problems portrayed throughout the episodes, but they also had the chance to observe the possibility of resolution.  Second, the show was appropriately available to all age-groups.  Nothing offensive was portrayed in the episodes so that most parents would not object to impressionable minds being exposed to the concepts in the show.  Third, the shows were loaded with values and morals, something seriously lacking in today’s shows.  In Andy Discovers America and Andy’s English Valet, I recently counted no less than 13 overt and subtle values and moral lessons each.  The word “value” is more commonly tolerated than the word “moral.”  Often associated with religion, intolerance, prejudicial attitudes towards things Victorian, and conservatives, morals have been easily discarded in not just the lifestyle sense of the word, but in everyday use in speech.  In these two episodes, values and moral lessons such as the use of courteous speech, personal responsibility, dinner etiquette, structure in daily life, empathy, taking education seriously, home discipline, humility, appreciation, the importance of history, and much more are portrayed.  Skeptics and cynics may toss the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to redeeming the importance of values and morals in society and personal life.  However, I think most individuals would agree that some “gracious living” would make life more enjoyable, and bring out the better qualities of humanity.  Perhaps that sounds too quaint or unrealistic, but such good living was never attained without effort.    

This Sunday, October 3, 2010 is the 50th anniversary of the first telecast of The Andy Griffith Show starting with episode one, The New Housekeeper.  I hope you get a chance to sit down with your family and watch a few episodes.

Recent history has seen the rise of equality, especially in the sphere of social rights.  Though certain movements within equality have done much good, equality has also been abused and mishandled.  It is my belief that the distinction of intellectualism has been seized upon and reduced to something less than what it really is because of the discomfort of inequality, the association with snobbery (even inauthenticity), anti-intellectualism, and a sense that control and power is inappropriately held in the hands of a few inaccesible individuals.

Having said my piece on the abuse on both ends of the intellectualism issue, I want to emphasize the importance of balance.  First, I recognize that there are those who have made great contributions with some higher education.  Second, I agree with Wiley that the word “intellectual” should extend to the sciences.  This actually brings me to a possible explanation: Since the sciences have a strong mathematical base, and most individuals find math to be highly complicated to wrap their minds around, it seems that these individuals reroute their academic interests to non-mathematical disciplines within the highly populated academic world of the arts.  Perhaps this could be one explanation for why the “ownership” of the word ”Intellectual” resides in the sphere of the arts — they’re just bigger and so they “own” it.  Third, the sciences have made enormous contributions to intellectualism, not just in theoretical mathematics, or theoretical biology, but also in the highly concrete realms.

I encourage you to read the article here.  It’s quite thought-provoking, and with the lapse of time, perhaps one can see a change in the “ownership” of the word “Intellectual” or not.  I would also be interested to hear what your thoughts are on the various attitudes attending intellectualism.  What other attitudes exist towards the word and culture surrounding it that I have not mentioned?

I would like to see a change in the reputation the word has come to be associated with as well as an acceptance towards the rigorous criteria necessitating intellectualism.