Depends On If You’re Our Good Guys Or Their Bad Guys

Posted on March 1, 2006 by Nancy Pace

It’s called “terrorism” when they bomb people for political reasons, and “democracy” when we do.

They’re madmen when they blow themselves up with cheap explosives to achieve strategic goals, and we're patriots when we do the same thing with expensive long-range missiles.

They’re crazy because they kill women and children. We could never do that, ever. Unless it was really necessary, for a just cause, and our patriotic duty. And then, we’d feel really bad about it. They wouldn’t.

They’re dangerous monsters who must be disarmed and sanctioned when they protect their way of life from foreign invaders. We’re freedom fighters when we’re invading and occupying foreign lands, imposing our ways upon people accustomed to completely different traditions, and “controlling distribution” of their valuable resources.

They have crazy religious ideas about jihad and martyrdom, imagining God might approve their sacrifices. We, on the other hand, are pure-and-simple onward-Christian-soldier-crusaders, marching with God on our side and the cross of freedom going on before, whatever that means.

They are violent maniacs who reject foreigners threatening their families and the lands of their ancestors. We would never act so uncivilized if foreigners invaded our country. Would we.

We respect all ethnicities, traditions, and religions. Except the really weird ones with all the strange gods, traditions, practices, foods, languages, doctrines, clothing, rituals, laws, customs, and beliefs. Like theirs.

Their whacked-out culture, with husbands veiling wives and home-schooling daughters, is definitely messed-up. There’s nothing wrong, however, with our own culture’s rates of divorce, sexual and spousal abuse, abortion, teen pregnancy, prostitution, rape, pornography, incarceration, school violence, unwed-motherhood, alcoholism, and drug and nicotine addiction.

They’re nuts, killing their own people. We could never do that. Except for when we kill Rebels…. And Yankees…. And attack civil rights marchers…. And lynch suspicious Negroes…. And murder homosexuals…. And shoot at race and draft rioters and college protesters…. And knife rival gang members…. And terrorize labor union strikers…. And blow away schoolmates…. And abuse prisoners…. And wives…. And children…. And gun down and burn anti-government survivalists and fundamentalists…. And take the lives of convicted murderers…. And then there’s the Unabomber’s victims…. And Timothy McVeigh’s…. And Lizzie Borden’s…. And all the murderers and serial killers….

Nevertheless, our stirring history, beliefs, institutions, rights, freedoms, way of life, political traditions, economic system, and patriotic and religious customs are still well-worth killing and dying for. Theirs aren’t.

They ought to keep their people unarmed and passive, and never acquire nuclear weapons. We, on the other hand, have to have nuclear weapons, so we can be the world’s unelected policeman. As the world’s only superpower, we're obviously the most vulnerable country, so we have to arm ourselves like terminators, unilaterally start up pre-emptive wars, invade, occupy, shoot up foreign countrysides and cities and villages, interfere with sovereign nations’ internal and political affairs, drop nuclear bombs on civilian populations, disrupt livelihoods and lives, kill innocents, and stockpile enough armaments to kill all life on earth many times over.

Although their teensy little country may feel justifiably threatened by our historical aggressions, they certainly don’t need to have “the bomb.” That would be overkill, and dangerous for us, as well. We, on the other hand, need thousands of nuclear weapons, since we are an envied and feared international target. Only an immense arsenal of nuclear weapons can properly back up our huge armies, navies, and air forces, not to mention our defense budget, larger than those of all the nations of the world combined.

The lives of children are infinitely precious and of unlimited sacred value to us. Unless of course they’re someone else’s children. Or they happen to live in a poor country, or in a country at war with our country. We also believe fervently in family values, and supporting families. With, of course, the above exceptions.

Our enviable five-hundred-year-old culture certainly has nothing to learn from their primitive five-thousand-year-old one.

Our ways and traditions and institutions are unquestionably superior to any other country’s. Anyone could tell that, just by looking at our nation’s fabulous prosperity. It’s true we built our success upon genocide of the native Americans who were here first, and then upon the bloody backs of millions of imported African slaves. Not to mention exploitation of the richest swath of virgin land and untapped resources the world has ever known. But none of that really had anything to do with why we’re such a great country—it’s our perfect political and economic systems that are infallible. Everyone should be like us.

So please, try harder to see everything our way. Because, frankly, we’re bigger.

And don’t worry. Trust us. ‘Cause we’re the good guys.

Even though, just for the moment, I can’t quite remember why.

Please send comments to epharmon@adelphia.net

A Generic, All-Purpose Letter, Ready To Send Out To Your Political Representatives

Posted on February 27, 2006 by Nancy Pace

Dear Sir (or Madam):

The America I see around me is no longer recognizable. Our political and governmental systems are unresponsive to the needs of U.S. citizens, and unrepresentative of their views. Government at all levels seems powerless to resolve present or future challenges. America is increasingly feared, despised, and distrusted around the world.

In hopes of clarifying and simplifying your job, I’m asking you to work and vote in the following ways, whenever possible:

Against secrecy;

Against greed;

Against polarization, whether between individuals, organizations, governments, or nations;

Against fear as expressed in anger, pain, hatred, war, violence, vengeance, despair, and cynicism;

Against blaming anyone, including yourself;

For acceptance, support, and respect for the quality of human life everywhere;

For social and economic justice for individuals and families;

For environmental stewardship;

For the strong promotion of positive values and healthy lifestyles and attitudes, especially via school programs and the public airwaves;

For easing the day-to-day burdens of working people;

For embracing the changes and technologies necessary to make our government once again responsive, representative, wise, and capable;

For generously alleviating suffering, in the present and future;

For treating every person in every nation as we would wish to be treated;

Please give special consideration, in each decision, whenever possible, to its impact upon all children and all small localities, everywhere.

Thank you very much for your well-intentioned and devoted service.

Yours sincerely,

A Concerned Citizen

Please send comments to epharmon@adelphia.net

Media (of the People, by the People) for the People

Posted on February 26, 2006 by Nancy Pace

I just watched an old movie popular in the thirties—the William Powell/Myrna Loy version of Dashiel Hammett’s The Thin Man, which later became a television series starring Peter Lawford. My mom and dad often mentioned how entranced they once were by this movie and its follow-ons, how they idealized these suave young couples. They also often talked about Kate Hepburn and Bing Crosby in their respective versions of The Philadelphia Story and High Society.

Watching these old movies today, I am once again astonished at the power of the media to impact culture. Rightly or wrongly, these movies glamourized and legitimized—no, actually promoted—social choices considered quite extreme at the time (divorce, choosing a spouse without regard for family opinion, frequent at-home and social drinking of alcohol, associations with people from different classes and values systems, smoking….)

They influenced many young moderns (my parents among them) to eagerly embrace their advocated lifestyles, for better or for worse. I know that my parents found the courage to take such counter-cultural steps from the illusory weight and seeming solidity of the airy fantasies presented in these and similar movies, although I also know that both of them had been well-inculcated from very early on with every reasonable argument against such decisions. Their children (me included) were further influenced by their defensive insistence on the reasonableness and superiority of their choices.

How much more are today’s young people influenced by their day-long forced feeding of heavily-marketed television (both programming and commercials,) music, books, games, magazines, movies, consumer goods, etc? The only thing that surprises me at all anymore is that we still recognize our children as “ours,” considering they live in a completely “other” world than ours, a brave new world of tomorrow which, as Kahlil Gibran said, “we cannot visit, not even in our dreams.”

All Americans profit when our children grow up in strong families to be good, responsible adults. And we all suffer—and pay—when our youth make poor choices. Nevertheless, we let our public airwaves run amok in their promotion of unhealthy attitudes and lifestyles, while we barely scratch the surface of their potential to promote wise choices.

On one sad level, Americans today are relegated to living in the land of the free-to-make-a-buck and the home of the brave-but-stupid, which is too bad, because I don’t remember voting for any such peculiarly modern-American mantra.

When we-the-people finally get around to taking our politics and government(s) back out of the hands of big money, I’m confident we’ll find excellent ways to tap into using all the public airwaves for the common good.

The Iranian movie industry, currently severely constrained by their reigning theocracy to produce only non-violent, non-sexual movies, has responded with a lovely array of internationally recognized award-winning values- and family-based films which are poignant, gripping, and thought-provoking. Someday, a responsive and representative government of, by, and for the American people will surely find ways to preserve our most-cherished freedoms, while supporting visionary media output that promotes the great diversity of healthful and positive values, lifestyles, and choices.

Please send comments to epharmon@adelphia.net

Left, Right, Left, Right…Wrong?

Posted on January 18, 2006 by Nancy Pace

I received a letter from a reader of the conservative political persuasion who has kindly and thoughtfully taken the time to outline our political differences. In hopes of continuing our dialogue, I herein reprint his letter, followed by my response.

To E. P. Harmon:

I am amazed at your naiveté and willingness to lay down your arms in face of certain death.

You misinterpret religion in saying it does not advocate defending oneself against one’s enemies. I can’t quote scripture but it seems to me that there was a lot of smiting with swords and ass jaws when it was all said and done. Remember the bit where one guy lays his sword down to get a drink of water and gets whacked? Good lesson.

Based on your logic, if I broke into your house and started raping you, your husband’s proper reaction would be to sit on the couch and pray that I go away. I don’t think he would do that.

We are presently engaged in World War IV—WWIII being the Cold War, which we won, by the way, when Reagan called the communists’ bluff and built up our arsenal, and they couldn’t match the pot.

Whether you want to recognize it or not, we have a world-wide entrenched enemy who wants to turn the entire world back to the 8^th century. They are using some 20^th century tools to do it and I can appreciate the irony of that. Instead of embracing the freedom that you espouse, they would be happy to have every country on earth have women clad in burkas, not attend school, and be told when and whom to marry.

I think that if we tried to engage them in the 60’s hippie love-fest you seem so eager to try, they would exploit that weakness and set off the very bomb you are afraid of.

Despite your misgivings, security agencies are busy dismantling terrorist groups inside the U.S. every day.

In my opinion, Iraq and the entire world are in better places today with Saddam behind bars and on trial by his countrymen, than they were previously. There are no more rape rooms, no torture chambers, no knocks on the door in the middle of the night. The country is bouncing down the bumpy road to democracy. They have achieved within a year something that took our founding fathers sixteen years to accomplish—a constitution. Their country is not going to look like America, nor do we wish it to; it will be what they want, and what their citizens, for the first time in fifty years, actually get to vote on. Last time I looked, Saddam got 100% of the vote; now a popular candidate gets maybe 40%. That is progress. For the first time ever in that country, women voted. The U.S. armed forces, whom you despise, have restored power, brought power where none existed, brought water, hospitals, rebuilt schools. Their citizens are joining their army and police forces in droves to protect their fellow citizens, even knowing they may get blown up by some thug with a bomb while they’re standing in line at a recruiting station.

There are now newspapers that print what they want with no fear of reprisal, not just papers run by the state. The most popular things to own are a cell phone, a PC, a satellite TV dish, and a car, all of which were illegal before.

Too bad we can’t get North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam on the same footing as the Iraqis.

The world is safer. It’s kind of scary knowing we are in a shooting war, but we have their attention focused, and whenever they stick up their heads we take them off. We are dismantling their networks and making life more difficult. The jihadists are having trouble recruiting people. The Iraqis certainly aren’t. Why should they, with all the improvements in their lives? Why should they want to go back to the 8^th century? The terrorists are coming in from outside countries—Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc., but not Iraq. If we were so bad for them, wouldn’t they be getting more Iraqis?

I didn’t see this in your articles, but I do have to admit I got a laugh out of the poor schmuck peace activists who got kidnapped by the terrorists. Talk about a group of people that can’t get no respect–it’s gotta be them. The first group goes to Iraq before the war, says we’re here to protest, gets told, “OK, that’s great, form a circle around the Ministry of Defense Building, we think that it might get bombed.” Then the war is over, we are in the square helping the Iraqis pull down Saddam’s statue, when some of the recently freed locals see some of the protesters coming out to chant at us, and tell us to go home, and the locals want to go kill them. Now our guys are having to protect them from the people that Saddam wanted to keep enslaved. Then to top it all off, they get captured by terrorists whom they wanted to support all along. You just have to wonder what was going through their heads. I wonder if it was, “Hey, Ahmed, I love you, I want your side to win, you’ve got the wrong guys.” LOL.

Seems to me you also have some issues to resolve with your father. You might want to seek some professional help. If I read that, and you were my kid, I’d be writing you out of the will. You equate people in the U.S. Armed Forces with your basic terrorist? Maybe your Dad didn’t take you to the base often enough, or teach you the code of the armed forces, or let you read the UCMJ or something. You apparently believe Kerry’s lies (which he has since denied, once he got caught) that there was widespread baby killing going on in Vietnam, or that all soldiers are like the losers in Abu Graib. You think someone who regrets the taking of innocent civilian lives, and who can get punished if he does, is morally equivalent to someone who straps on a bomb wrapped in nails and steps onto a school bus full of children. You simply amaze me.

But isn’t it nice, to be able to post this blog in a wonderful country like America, where you don’t have to walk two steps behind your husband wrapped head to toe and be kept illiterate, where if your blog were discovered you would be whisked off to the rape room where you would be gang-banged in front of your husband and children?

Your basic premise, that all we have to do is be nice enough and kind enough and that the rest of the world will turn away from evil simply because we wish it so is not real.

Sleep tight. Your American soldiers are protecting you, whether you want them to, whether you appreciate it, or understand it, or not.

From E. P. Harmon:

A lot of left/right political disagreements arise because people come to trust very different sources of information; the basic “facts” and assumptions we each accept as “true” are often quite different ones. Yet we all have to trust someone, sometime, and no one can arrive at a belief system entirely from firsthand experience. For instance, probably neither of us has ever been to Iraq; yet even people who have visited there, or who have lived there, or even grew up there, don’t agree about what’s going on there. It’s always hard to know whom to believe.

We can choose to listen to and trust generalists and popular authorities—public school texts, teachers, ministers, politicians, talk-show hosts…or we may choose to read and listen to experienced specialists with sterling credentials in various fields of expertise. But regardless of whom we read and hear and consider, all authorities are biased, because they, too, have arrived at their conclusions secondhand, and using incomplete information. No one ever knows everything.

Yet you and I and everyone else must nevertheless struggle to make a living, understand life, contribute, care for ourselves and our loved ones, and perhaps, realize some of our dreams—and most of the steps we take along the way are difficult ones—from childhood until the day we die. I think we would both agree that we live in a world full of people who are often angry, confused, and dangerous, and that to be human is often to be mistaken and harmful.

In the midst of all this struggle, pain, and confusion, we have to make a myriad of moment-to-moment decisions on every conceivable thing. With each decision, we can take only one of two courses of action, neither of which guarantees good results, safety, or prosperity, neither of which feels like an obvious best choice, neither of which is completely defensible, and both of which are risky, confusing, frightening, and difficult.

One course of action is to focus on our fears about the evil that mankind is capable of. This fear-based course of action can seem like common sense if we feel individually and collectively under constant attack from those who would hurt or compete with us. This course urges us to prepare to defend ourselves, to act aggressively, and to return fear with more fear, on both a personal and global scale.

A second course of action focuses on the good people are capable of, believing that love, in all its forms (respect, gentleness, openness, kindness, listening, patience, forbearance, acceptance, tolerance, forgiveness, cooperativeness, agreeableness, and so on) is stronger than fear in all its forms (hate, anger, violence, envy, suspicion, jealousy, greed, etc.), and also works better to improve human lives and relationships in the long run, whether personal or global.

A fear-based life assumes that, aside from minor human similarities, few people are really very much like you; most are less trustworthy, less virtuous, and less reliable, and most are more dangerous—so it makes sense to hold people at arms’ length, to hurt them before they hurt you, and to hurt them back, even more, when you are hurt.

A love-based life assumes that, despite superficial differences, most people are very much like you in most ways, having the same human sets of fears and needs and goals and loves and failings as you do—so it makes sense to offer compassion, respect, and forgiveness to all, including yourself (i.e., treat others as you would want to be treated—the “golden rule.”)

Both courses of action rely upon having in mind a particular attitude—“where you come from” mentally—rather than any differences in “what’s really out there.” Both courses of action are difficult paths to travel, confusing, and tenuous. Both require courage to live faithfully. Neither offers any guarantee of safety.

A life based on self-protection can offer comforting feelings of power, control, and safety—at times. But since most people like to be trusted, loved, and forgiven for their many mistakes, a defensive/aggressive attitude can become an increasingly lonely option, as relationships become more complicated and difficult to control, micromanage, or resolve—both personally and globally.

A life based on open giving also has many drawbacks and disappointments. No one likes getting kicked in the teeth, suffering injustice, or being walked on. A life based in love can be very frustrating, since love is an ideal impossible for humans to live up to—and no one ever gets it right. At most, you can chip away at such goals, and hope to keep on improving. Even then, since everyone is human and fallible, others will still hurt us and let us down, and we’ll still do the same to others. On the whole, though, people who care and trust and forgive draw other like-minded people to them, so lives based in love often move toward greater sharing, acceptance, support, and peace—both personally and globally.

Both general courses of action are logically indefensible. Laying down one’s defenses and allowing oneself to be vulnerable and open seems like asking for nothing but trouble—both personal and global. And just as surely, schoolyard bullies and warmongers seem to be asking for trouble, since they frighten and alienate others and accumulate dangerous, angry enemies, both personal and global.

Is either of these approaches right, and the other one wrong? Who can say? Everyone gets to choose the approach they think will work best for them.

In response to some specific comments in your letter: No, I don’t hate military forces, either ours or “theirs.” I believe that most soldiers everywhere, on all sides, are trying their best to live good lives and live up to their ideals. I have lived around soldiers all my life, and am drawn to their courage, idealism, and selflessness. It is true that I don’t distinguish between the actions of soldiers who drop expensive high-tech explosives on civilian populations, and the actions of suicide bombers who strap themselves with cheap nail-bombs and climb on school buses; both choose to further their political goals by indiscriminate, deliberate acts of violence that result, as you say, in dead babies, which I can’t agree with, no matter what the cause; there has to be a better way to achieve one’s political ends. Yet both sides believe their cause is just, and both are willing to sacrifice their lives, and others’, for their ideals and beliefs.

I am profoundly impressed by the vision and courage of the many senior officers currently in our Department of Defense, not to mention the line officers and foot soldiers, who are exploring and suggesting peaceful, effective, and far less costly alternative approaches to defending our country that don’t involve militancy and war, demonstrating the admirable and thoughtful tradition of leadership and high ideals historically associated with our military.

I’m not a pacifist, although I suspect I might be safer and happier if I were, just as the noncombatant Quaker farmers who welcomed all weary soldiers from both sides were safer during the Civil War. If someone were climbing in my window, though, I would defend myself and my family, although research tells us that reacting fearfully and aggressively (especially using weapons) during such situations usually produces worse results all around.

I don’t believe God co-authored any religious documents (including the Bible and the Koran), although we can all receive his inspiration if we ask for it,. I do, however, think that most collections of ancient religious writings (like the Bible and the Koran) offer a lot of wisdom, along with some clunkers; fortunately, God gave us brains so we could thoughtfully tell which passages are which. Anyone can find a rationale for anything if they look hard enough in religious texts, including both violent and non-violent action.

I’m wary of all explanations of what went on in the past—what we call “history”—because history is always written by the victors. The truth is, no one can ever know for sure the whole story about any event in the past, just as we can’t even be sure we have the whole story today when reading the newspaper—which is the first, and always controversial, rough draft of history. There are, for instance, a variety of versions of why the Cold War ended. I always like to ask myself, when reading someone’s theory: “Who is benefiting from people believing this particular version?” And although I approach all history cautiously, I was a college history major, and love reading history.

I don’t think either you or I are naïve about the depths of ignorance, depravity, despair, and cruelty to which people everywhere can fall. I do think it’s naïve, however, to imagine that one’s own familiar, particular culture has a lock on moral superiority. Every culture has much of value to learn from every other, so it’s naive to think that “we” (“our” culture, religion, nation, race, ethnicity, gender, kind, etc.) is “right,” “superior,” and “good,” while other, unfamiliar ones are “wrong,” “inferior,” and “bad.” We should be very suspicious of all the frightening things we hear about foreign nations, religions, and cultures, because well-paid demagogues whose last interest is truth create huge profits for those who pay them well to drum up fear. If America had as many crazed, bloodthirsty enemies as some demagogues now claim, all the kings horses and men couldn’t have prevented whole U.S. cities from being blown away long ago, our civic water supplies and food supplies being poisoned, and so on. It’s just too easy to wreak civic havoc cheaply and anonymously.

I also think it’s naïve to assume that our own local or national politicians are generally any more trustworthy than are politicians anywhere, or smarter, or any less greedy, or any less megalomaniacal. That’s why our framers built checks and balances into our constitution, and why we should strive to maintain them.

I also think it’s naïve to think that a non-violent democracy can arise courtesy of a violent foreign occupation, or that torture and rape are not natural outcomes of, and necessary to the maintenance of any violently-achieved power structure, or that freedom of the press is not repressed by unchecked power, or that the ranks of armies are not filled with desperate people willing to accept jobs and money from any well-heeled power.

It’s naïve to think that any war, ever, is initiated for unselfish, pure motives. It’s naïve to think that gentle, cooperative people living quietly in the lands of their ancestors are the bad guys, while the good guys are the armies from afar blowing everything up. It’s naïve to assume that partisan politicians are ever fully in control of any situation, or have much of a clue about taking care of people, or about international relations, or about running wars. It’s naïve to think that more killing ever results in less killing, and that hatred and violence don’t create more hatred and violence. It’s naïve to think that any nation with a growing number of enemies will be safe during the 21^st century.

It’s naïve to think that the most-endangered and most-threatened nation in the world today, the one most urgently in need of taking pre-emptive military action to protect itself, is also the single, most-feared hegemonic empire best-armed with far more nuclear and conventional and high-tech weapons and money and soldiers and political and economic power than any other alliance of nations in the history of the world, the one nation with established military bases all over the world, the one nation currently waging wars in countries with prized economic resources, while ignoring (or supporting) dictatorships and tyrannies elsewhere.

It’s naïve to assume that any bureaucracy allowed to hide its activities behind a cloak of “national defense” is telling the truth about its results. It’s naïve to think that a small minority of citizens who perceive they have an interest in voting every four years for one of two unappealing candidates from two smarmy and very similar political parties running big-money campaigns in elections replete with fraud, have achieved much more than a degree of democracy. To be sure, I count my blessings and strive to strengthen the many great things this nation has achieved, because many countries are far less democratic. On the other hand, there are many far more democratic countries (including some without constitutions, by the way) from whom we could learn a lot.

On the subject of Islam: No one likes change, and Islamic migration has frightened those in the West who know only enough about Muslims to be terrified of what TV, radio, and pulpit demagogues tell them. Yet the highest and best practitioners of all major religions, including Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, are people anyone would respect, for their caring, their responsible lives, and for their great wisdom—if only we had the opportunity to know and understand them. On the other hand, there are practitioners in every religion, including Christians, Muslims, and Jews, who are ignorant, terrified, angry people who would bomb whole countries, who hate whole civilizations, races, and even genders, because they fear them too much to make an effort to understand them.

The West has much to learn from Islamic culture, as Islam has much to learn from us. Furthermore, both cultures are often wrong, mistaken, and cruel—in different ways. All cultures, ours included, grow accustomed and blind to their own particular sets of shortcomings. For instance, most Muslims are simply aghast that our culture allows so many young girls to grow up alienated from their families, schools, and churches, to become diseased, pregnant, promiscuous, alcoholic, addicted to drugs, divorced, abandoned, prostitutes, single mothers, etc. Just as we, in the West, are dismayed when we hear that Muslims cover their women and keep them hidden and schooled at home. The only thing we can know for sure, though, about what we hear, is that nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and to be wary of well-rewarded demagogues and their sponsors, who have a lot to gain financially from terrifying people with horrifying visions of the inhumanity and stupidity of our imagined enemy-of-the-day. The only road away from fear is understanding, which only comes with willingness to actively learn more about what it is we fear.

Non-violent activism, a form of love, is the most powerful force in the world, far more powerful than armies and weapons and bombs. Gandhi’s non-violent protests brought down the most powerful empire in the world in India, and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s non-violent power brought civil rights to blacks in the American South. Both of these were long-standing, hard, hard problems, resolved, not by cowards and flakes, or by violence, but by courageous people of faith, who believed in the power of love, and who offered the tough, powerful solution of non-violent political activism.

The night before he died, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The choice is no longer between violence and nonviolence. It’s nonviolence—or nonexistence.” The Dalai Lama has declared the 21^st century, “the century of dialogue.” We can all learn more when we exchange views, listen to one another, ask questions, and keep an open mind.

Please send your comments to epharmon@adelphia.net

Real Geisha, Real Women, Real Men, Real Relationships, Real Feminism

Posted on January 8, 2006 by Nancy Pace

In Memoirs of a Geisha, director Rob Marshall missed out on a real opportunity to be a useful iconoclast showing the west what’s so special about geisha: why men admire and want them, what esoteric knowledge they have about pleasing men, how they work their spells….

Instead, Marshall played out only the same-old-same-old standard, politically-correct, puritanical view that geisha (and other sex workers) are pitiable at best and contemptible at worst, either evil manipulators or miserable powerless victims exploited heartlessly by the self-serving animals they generously called men….

Marshall also chose to heavily reinforce the popular delusion that no real feminist could ever, in good conscience, put herself in service to a man.

To be sure, Marshall provided us with beautiful, talented actresses dressed up in gorgeous geisha outfits, and acting out a poignant variety of human emotions on arresting, historically and culturally accurate sets. But none of this display showed any hint of the range of talents and social skills displayed by truly accomplished professional geisha.

Marshall’s vision suggests that geisha's primarily physical services emerge from a secretive, machiavellian world of women who dislike and disrespect men, and who plot together to exploit men’s weaknesses.

Nearly all religious and philosophical traditions, not to mention leaders in every field, teach that selfless, caring, compassionate service to others is a powerful, transformative act (the golden rule, even.) Rob Marshall could have chosen to offer a sympathetic alternative view of geisha—one less politically-correct—as a select, prosperous, accomplished group of women who like and enjoy men and feel comfortable with physical intimacy, who have mastered the arcane arts of pleasing men, and who accept the limitations and dangers of their work—women with skills, beauty, and talent who choose this line of work over other career options, among them, marriage.

The important, tragic and unfeminist thing about sex work is not that it provides a service, but that it usually exploits people economically, just as, say, child labor and child trafficking and porn does, or just as any other poorly paid, undervalued, and underappreciated work does. Feminists are rightly concerned about the grossly inhumane contexts in which workers with no economic options must sell their bodies into undervalued servitude—or die. Sex workers at the low end, like all other unskilled laborers, are victims of indifferent societies that first casually produce and then abandon them.

Feminists are legitimately concerned with women (and men) who have few or no choices because of gender discrimination, or whose particular and uniquely individually-selected gifts are rejected, devalued or unreciprocated because of gender discrimination.

Beyond such ravages of economic and gender exploitation, feminism has no legitimate interest in judging women’s specific choices of activities, such as, for instance, all the many possible forms of loving, or being loved by men and women. Loving men and women, including their bodies, does not necessarily imply gender exploitation or degradation or subservience, however distasteful or immoral some may judge it to be.

Nevertheless, even the world’s top geisha get no respect for their work from puritanical westerners, not because their work is sexist, but for the same reason that prostitution is everywhere disrespected: prostitutes’ competitors–the many “honest women” happily ensconced within the powerful majority who believe they have a real stake in insuring that sex workers remain hidden and powerless.

Many modern women are completely confused about whether feminism is compatible with any kind of compassionate service (especially to men!) at all. Some women have come to wonder if service work of any kind–nursing, house cleaning, waiting tables–is unfeminist and demeaning. Many women feel constrained even within their marriages or romantic relationships, fearing that offering a life of lovingly exchanged service to a man must surely be anti-feminist—a form of caving to the enemy, of servility.

When modern women do find it within themselves to offer men their friendliest services, many still wonder if there’s not something smarmy or beneath them about such offerings, even if their every hormone and natural givingness urges them ceaselessly to slather their beloved with wholehearted attention and kindness.

There is nothing sexist or anti-feminist about loving men (or women, for that matter)–about attracting them, pleasing them, or giving to them wholeheartedly. Loving, giving, and compassionate service of all kinds are never unworthy in themselves, although unworthy contexts involving extremes of compulsion, lack of appreciation and reciprocation truly are sexist and immoral.

Devoted service offered willingly and lovingly in an appreciative, reciprocal (if not tit-for-tat) context is absolutely necessary to optimal human functioning and happiness, and completely different from the kind of forced or half-hearted service in which someone’s gifts are disparaged, unreciprocated, and unappreciated.

Too many people nowadays overlook the fact that the very essence of a good relationship is standing in service to one another, regardless of whether that partnership is between husband and wife, mother and daughter, friends, siblings, in-laws, a CEO and her new mail clerk, young lovers…whoever.

Every conceivable positive relationship is based in reciprocal service. Relationships that are not about reciprocal service—however loosely defined—are not really relationships at all; they’re isolated billiard balls knocking about an empty lonely pool table universe, banging together sporadically and spectacularly in conflict and competition before resuming their separated lives.

The most universally prized life-enhancing romantic relationship, regardless of whether you’re a man or a woman, is one in which your dearly-beloved treats you like a king (or a princess), a goddess (or a god). Among the keys to such heavenly bliss are good-faith, wholeheartedness, appreciation, and reciprocation.

Because of confusion about the subtleties of feminism, modern romantic relationships evolved to become less concerned with caring, commitment, and helping one another in a challenging world, and more about cold, competitive calculations and sexual politics. Both sexes worry whether warm displays of affection will be perceived to be neediness. Both sexes fear that generous-spirited service iwill mply servitude. Both sexes exhaust themselves in endless, awkward, conflicted, back-and-forth rituals of worrying whether they’re giving more than they receive. Both sexes are all about, “you go first.” Yet both sexes are fully aware that their beloved wants a partner who is both powerful and slavishly devoted—because frankly, that’s what they want too. Many people deeply enjoy the lavish, tender, solicitous attention of an enchanting member of the opposite sex.

More young people of both sexes these days are giving up on what they see as the relationship game, foregoing the pain and uncertainty of modern committed relationships in great part because of their understandable confusion about the wisdom of putting themselves at service to another. I mean, if their long-dreamed-of personification of virtuous masculine/feminine perfections is ultimately unwilling to bow down, worship and serve them all their days, well really, why bother?

The age-old willingness of both sexes to offer their personal gifts to a single individual over a lifetime is in considerable decline, and considering the grave new shortage of available perfect partners for such paragons, may never recover.

Some women who would willingly offer loving service to women friends still feel historically (and often legitimately) constrained about giving to men, who thus are relegated to a very sad, under-served, second-class half of the world of often otherwise deserving, well-intentioned parents, bosses, employees, children, siblings, friends, and colleagues, which is too bad, too.

If feminists want more solidarity and sisterhood, they might consider offering compassionate service and empathy to exploited (or unexploited) sex workers. And while they’re doing that, they might benefit from listening to such workers’ hard-won geisha-type advice about how to please men, just as men could learn much from their gender's most supportive exemplars.

Most single young women today devote a large part of their earnings and their waking hours to pleasing men anyway, regardless of how feministically-conflicted they may feel about such efforts. Consider the successes of recent best-sellers offering love advice from former prostitutes….

It is certainly grossly sexist when women (and men) are constrained, unwilling givers to unappreciative, inequitable, unreciprocating receivers who have been deluded into thinking that such service is the rightful due of their gender.

Much of modern feminism is a reaction against unappreciative men who historically not only gobbled up all the good jobs and roles, but also most of the money, prestige and power that came along with them, and who later had the nerve to expect continued affectionate service from women, not as a freely-given, loving, and valued gift, but as their legitimate if unreciprocated due. Women, too, are finally seeing the sexism behind the long-standing assumption that men owe women a living….

To the often justifiably-aggrieved women who find little to like about men: please stop insisting that there’s something slavish, inappropriate, and/or sexist about freely choosing to be in a generous, mutually supportive relationship with a man (or a woman?) There isn’t.

Forewarned is forearmed: men like women who like them. If you don't much care for your man, or for men in general, for whatever reasons, don’t be surprised if he someday wanders off with someone completely unworthy of him but who likes him a lot and aims to please. The same goes for men who don't find much to like about women.

To all women: please try to see fit never again to disrespect a geisha or any other sex worker. Like the rest of us bumbling God-isn’t-finished-with-us-yet-either humans, sex workers need compassion, acceptance, and understanding, not contempt.

And finally, to women who love men, or who want to learn how to love them better, we can all reasonably choose, if we wish to, to learn a lot from geisha. Because geisha aren’t just about sex, you know. Sexuality, like spirituality, pervades all aspects of life. It's not just about genitals. The brain, they say, is the most important sex organ. Geisha know a lot about making men happier which is well worth knowing, if you’re one of the many who aspire to mutually enjoy and serve another.

Geisha lore offers a tempting (but not exclusive) window on relatively rare social arts: attentiveness, affection, tenderness, flirting, gentleness, refinement, courtesy, agreeableness, femininity, respect, presence, charm, humor, kindness, intellect, sensitivity, openness, loyalty, sensuality, giving, honoring, playfulness, intimacy, nurturing, acceptance, forgiveness, support, generosity, assistance, vulnerability, respect for tradition, and, in general, making a fuss over, and spoiling men rotten. Geisha are really good at making men feel truly wonderful about themselves. What’s not to like about that?

Whenever and however did this venerable list of praiseworthy social skills become politically incorrect? These subtly but important graces–along with physical beauty, gorgeous accoutrements, and skill in the arts of music, dance, serving food and the like–are a goodly part of what real geisha are all about, not to mention real women, real men, real relationships, and real feminism.

I don’t see much clarity about any of this in today’s society. I would love to see more thoughtful commentary and dialogue on these engaging contemporary issues, and regret not having found an in-depth treatment of them in Rob Marshall’s movie. I do think his film was beautiful made and visually and emotionally rich; he just missed this one important boat.

I hope someday to see highly-accomplished geisha finally receive from western audiences the recognition, support, and respect due them for their historic, centuries-old, artful, dedicated, cheerful, and very valuable example of freely-given, highly-valued compassionate service—not servitude or subjugation—to fortunate and highly appreciative men.

Please write comments to epharmon@adelphia.net

Here is a conversation I had with a thoughtful reader….)

Hello,

A colleague forwarded your article to me, and I found it most interesting. I agree with the vast majority of your assertions (although Marshall's set was not, in actuality, culturally accurate). I wrote a doctoral dissertation on geisha (2002), and I propose geisha as feminists. I have an article in a book entitled Bad Girls of Japan; in a dialogue between me, a few geisha, and several customers, we discuss geisha as feminists. I spent almost three years with geisha, and studied them as artists; I frame them as women in control of their own futures and outline just exactly how they exist within the arts world (the Ph.D. was completed in ethnomusicology). I propose that the “bought and sold” model of geisha so treasured in America is a form of feminist Orientalism, and we need this false notion if we are to appear advanced in the gender department (another pipe dream).

The film was ridiculous. Even someone who's seen geisha for only a few minutes would never have tried to pass that off as accurate. The Chinese actresses the country continues to rave about were pathetic actresses — we just have poor standards for this. Real geisha couldn't be more different.

The arts scenes were so far off as to be laughable — imagine casting the American basketball team as the Bolshoi, putting them in leotards, giving them a few lessons, and then allowing their “dance” to be passed off seriously as ballerinas. These Chinese actresses couldn't even wear kimono properly because they hadn't done it for thirty odd years, couldn’t walk properly (an art learned from dance).

Anyway, kudos to you for smelling a fraud even though you don't have the experience I've had, and for pointing out one of America's greatest blind spots. Unfortunately, the rest of the nation is eagerly gobbling up the fantasy, and real geisha will suffer the consequences because young Japanese men don't want to be part of something that the world condemns.

Feel free to email — kforeman69@hotmail.com

Best,

Kelly Foreman, Ph.D.

Dear Kelly,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and interesting letter; it was very gratifying to hear from a scholar who is so experienced and knowledgeable about geisha, and I appreciated your support as well as your clarifications. What a fascinating experience you had in Japan!

My background in geisha and feminism is avocational. I was introduced to an exquisite geisha in Kyoto when I was a little girl, visiting the gardens surrounding a teahouse during the early 50's, and later that night saw more geisha singing and dancing on a kabuki stage, if my memory serves correctly. My father, a great Japanophile, was stationed in Tokyo in the U.S. occupation army–we lived there three years. My father described the “top” geisha to me as prized national treasures, personifications of the Japanese feminine ideal, carriers of a long oral cultural tradition, and the epitome of social refinement, courtesy, sensitivity, delicacy. My dad was my childhood hero, so his admiration piqued my interest greatly.

Perhaps I read a review of Bad Girls and picked up your idea of geisha as feminists–I don't remember, I'm sorry–we bloggers are pretty free to throw “our” stuff “out there” unhitched to anything, and just see what happens, unlike you more conscientious folk…. I really like your great thesis and agree with it, and I loved your NBA/Bolshoi image….

I've been blogging since Feb 05 and am enjoying it. I forwarded the geisha article to your colleague (I only sent it to one person) since her name came up, when, as an afterthought, I googled “geisha” + “feminism.” I had started the piece as a review of Memoirs of a Geisha, and I guess it got away from me!

Thanks, too, for your comment on the set. The old town took me back a long ways into nostalgia-land, although to be sure, I shouldn't have pronounced it accurate, since I didn't know. I remember that I would take my 200-yen allowance weekly and wander the little shops in search of treasures. Everyone was always so kind to me–I'm still drawn to Asians. I didn't know there had been a war; I felt perfectly safe.

I will look for your book/article…. I hope to return to Japan some day. I remember spending a week at a lake resort called Kanizawa (I'm not sure of the spelling)–perhaps it has changed less than Tokyo? My favorite movie is Lost in Translation–I watch it over and over. I mean to review it–I'll send it when I do…. I've also been accused of having Japanese influences in my art–my compositions and technique too? I posted a couple of my portraits on my blog–do you see a Japanese influence? Interesting, as I left Japan when I was only 9.

What a fascinating field you are in–it's just exploding.

I really like/agree with your thesis on the American view of geisha; I'm guessing that the Japanese view is very mixed? I do hope some still cherish the geisha. Yes, the young everywhere are easily embarrassed by old ways, and hasten to throw them out; our Indian cultures come to mind. I remember how WEIRD I thought authentic (American) Indian music was when I first heard a recording (in elementary school)–anything different shocks the young–they are so rigid so early. I love it now, so it must have been a fruitful introduction–I stayed intrigued.

I was very interested by what you said about the actors' portrayal of the geisha in the movie, because I thought perhaps my memory might have been playing tricks on me. The movie geisha, to me, looked, in comparison to remembered geisha, very big, crude, and galumphing, sort of, although of course they are beautiful women. I loved Gong Li in To Live and earlier movies of Zhang Zhi (spelling?) better. My very different memory of geisha is of amazingly tiny, delicate, small birds. They also had beautiful cultivated voices, and were incredibly poised; every move seemed artless yet amazingly beautiful. My geisha was so gentle and warm to the little girl (me) shyly admiring her. And yes, no one in the movie reproduced their incredible walk….

I do recall seeing Sayonara many years ago, and the geisha/star in that movie seemed more authentic; I'll have to Netflix it and see what I think now, lo these many years later….

Thank you again, Kelly, for your kudos and your kindness. If I receive any interesting mail on the topic, I'll forward it to you. I will be very interested to follow your academic career.

Sincerely yours,

Eppy Harmon

Hi Kelly-

An afterthought… May I post your letter to me on my blogsite (www.epharmony.com) along with my reply to you–following my geisha article, in the comment section? May I also post your email address, in case someone has a question for you? Thanks again so much for writing….

Yours,

Eppy

Hi-

Thanks for your letter. I like Kyoto too, and lived there, but kind of found that there were more actual artisans in Tokyo than in Kyoto (almost all of the arts headmasters who teach Kyoto geiko live in Tokyo or Osaka). I love Tokyo's energy, and Tokyo geisha are really fun! The kind geisha you saw in Kyoto are the real thing; they are far too busy to be as langourous as that film depicted, too refined to be as catty as that. There's competition for the arts roles and artistic rivalry to be sure, but nobody has the time to waste like that.

The real problem with the film, that the media seems not able to acknowledge, is that this awful film is based on an awful book. Golden's book is a fiction, and nothing more than a cheap white boy fantasy at that. He wrote it to cater to American orientalist fantasies, to sell copy (which it did). So the movie should be viewed in the same vein as Harry Potter or something, if at all.

Geisha do not spoil men; men feel spoiled around women who spend all day studying art, for most of their lives. Imagine having dinner with a Bolshoi ballerina, or with Nadia Solerno-Sonnenberg? Or a person with both talents combined? We don't have anything like this. Geisha don't cater to men's whims at all — I can assure this. They are actually pretty aloof, in the way that artists are (even around the people who pay for their living). Japan has gradually devalued its own arts, especially traditional music and dance, so any future audiences for geisha rely on a cultivated taste in these things, and this is unlikely. Even the music tracks (all except for two) were completely inaccurate; there's Chinese er-hu or pipa for many of them, shakuhachi (never heard in the geisha quarters), and tsugaru shamisen (a northern folk form). Would you use blue grass fiddle music to depict classical ballet, just because the instrument is associated with it

(the violin)?!

Please read the actual memoirs: Geisha, a Life, by Mineko Iwasaki. This is the same person that Golden interviewed for Memoirs, but chose instead to create his own weird version. The two stories have no relationship whatsoever.

Bad Girls of Japan (Palgrave Press, 2005) includes my chapter, called “Bad Girls Confined: Okuni, Geisha, and Negotiation of Female Performance Space.” It answers a lot of the questions many people have about geisha. My dissertation is called The Role of Music in the Lives and Identities of Japanese Geisha (Kent State University Press, 2002), and I have an upcoming book being published by Ashgate Press in London called The Gei of Geisha: Music, Identity, and Meaning (2007?).

Thanks for the interest, and for doing the blog! I’m fine with posting this conversation too….

Best,

Kelly

Hi Kelly-

Thanks for your permission to post our exchange. I must admit I enjoyed Golden’s book, and admired his story-telling abilities. I’m sure I projected my own image of geisha onto his. You, on the other hand, were evaluating critically, from an informed background and interest, which is another thing entirely…. Thank you for the above references…. I will post them too.

One last comment: I wish I’d said, “Geisha make men feel spoiled” instead of “geisha spoil men.” I agree that geisha are too hard-working and serious of purpose to have time to indulge men often. The lucky few men, on the other hand, who are graced with the good fortune to enjoy the complete, gentle focus and presence of a geisha, even for a short time, must feel spoiled and honored by that moment’s special attentiveness to their needs and thoughts. Too often, western women perceive attentiveness to men as flattery and indulgence, when sometimes what men want is merely courtesy, kindness, and a little unrushed attention…. They feel spoiled just to get that!

I look forward to talking with you again someday, Kelly.

Yours,

“Eppy”

<a href=”http://technorati.com/tag/Memoirs of a Geisha” rel = “tag”>Memoirs of a Geisha</a>

<a href=”http://technorati.com/tag/feminism” rel = “tag”>feminism</a>

<a href=”http://technorati.com/tag/iconoclast” rel = “tag”>iconoclast</a>

<a href=”http://technorati.com/tag/manipulation” rel = “tag”>manipulation</a>

<a href=”http://technorati.com/tag/victim” rel = “tag”>victim</a>

<a href=”http://technorati.com/tag/feminist” rel = “tag”>feminist</a>

<a href=”http://technorati.com/tag/intimacy” rel = “tag”>intimacy</a>

<a href=”http://technorati.com/tag/labor” rel = “tag”>labor</a>

<a href=”http://technorati.com/tag/service” rel = “tag”>service</a>

<a href=”http://technorati.com/tag/princess” rel = “tag”>princess</a>

<a href=”http://technorati.com/tag/goddess” rel = “tag”>goddess</a>

<a href=”http://technorati.com/tag/feminine” rel = “tag”>feminine</a>

<a href=”http://technorati.com/tag/prostitute” rel = “tag”>prostitute</a>

<a href=”http://technorati.com/tag/contempt” rel = “tag”>contempt</a>

“To Live” is To Die For

Posted on December 25, 2005 by Nancy Pace

If To Live was intended to be a very persuasive heroic epic offering a model of feminine perfection during a lifetime of political and personal adversity, it succeeded admirably. I had to keep reminding myself that it was only a movie, and that the character played by Gong Li was fictional; I was stunned by her purity, refinement, selflessness, tranquility, quiet charm, and gentleness, and her apparent total commitment to creating a peaceful family life. Repeatedly, she let go of past regrets and bitterness, and worked through the many negatives of her life with a positive attitude toward the present and the future—despite a marriage to a weak, difficult husband.

I so admired the quality of contentedness I saw in this movie. Without any apparent advantages in education, cleverness, wit, talent, athletic ability, skill, spirituality, creativity, or money-making abilities (and other qualities many people aspire to), Gong Li’s character accepted herself, others, and her own situation, quietly working to improve her life without throwing energy into resisting or rejecting her challenging constraints. Her character projected no struggle whatsoever against the injustices of her situation, while so many of us second-guess every aspect of our lives, every choice we’ve ever made or have yet to make.

Most Americans—and probably most Chinese, who knows?—want so much more than “just” a quiet life with their spouses and children. And even when our steady American stream of personal requirements is lavishly addressed, few of us feel fulfilled, or filled with anything like satisfaction. Instead, we’re restless, doubtful, and grasping for more.

Gong Li’s character was so–believably–pure, I almost felt dirty–selfish, demanding, spoiled, neurotic. This film made me resolve to be less so in the future. I’m perfectly capable of getting myself in a big twist over a small thing; Gong Li’s character managed to make a happy marriage and a good family life out of very difficult circumstances and an unlucky match. Yet the movie still seemed a convincing personal vignette about a unique family.

To Live left me with a quiet ache for more simplicity and gentleness in everyday American life. For example—I was touched by how kindly and hospitably the older couple welcomed a shy young man as a possible match for their daughter—how accepting they were—especially when I consider all the hoops we sometimes make our prospective sons- and daughters-in-law jump through, and the impossible expectations we burden our children with.

Although I’m sure that Chinese culture has its many areas of challenge, I suspect that this movie is at least representative of values and attitudes the Chinese government would like to promote, and possibly is supporting through direct advocacy of such filmmaking. I wish we would see more similar work in our own culture; the media is such a powerful tool, and our airways are supposedly owned by the public—why not use them more wisely for the general good? Universal values are universal values—there’s little argument about what values we can all aspire to if we want to be happier. Yet, too often, our powerful media seems to be working against parental attempts to raise positive, productive, mentally and physically healthy children, and to create accepting, contented marriages.

I’m aware of the popular notion that Chinese blockbusters glorify communist history, but I saw little of that here. To be sure, the movie was pro-communist, just as many American movies are fundamentally (if perhaps less consciously) pro-capitalist, but viewers will see both the pros and cons of a rapidly-emerging culture during a very complicated, difficult, very human and fallible political and social era. In that sense, the portrayal of historical social and political realities should be familiar to Americans.

I found this window into a very-different-from-my-own private lifestyle completely fascinating.

I didn’t much enjoy the depressing, off-putting first fifteen minutes of the movie, as the director set up its initial sad premises. Furthermore, unsophisticated western ears won’t appreciate the traditional Chinese dramatic music during opening scenes, and may also find the opening gambling scenes, and dissolution of the early family, abhorrent. I was also restless during the initial revolutionary war scenes in which the Red Army was unrealistically idealized (war is, after all, war.) But when Gong Li finally returned to the screen, everything picked up, and the film was fascinating from then on.

The acting and the direction were outstanding, and the sets arresting and probably authentic. The very sad and memorable scenes depicting personal tragedies were compelling, beautifully, and convincingly produced.

I can’t wait to see Gong Li as the evil Hatsumomo in Memoirs of a Geisha. I’ve read that she does a brilliant job as Sayuri’s rival. What an opportunity to see Gong Li’s full range of acting abilities—from her portrayal of the somewhat Melanie Wilkes-type character in To Live, all the way to her villainous geisha in Memoirs.

If you think you might enjoy a poignant, thoughtful, beautifully-made movie depicting a starkly different culture, and offering on the side some sense of recent Chinese history and politics, you will enjoy To Live.

Please address comments to epharmon@adelphia.net.

“Eat Drink Man Woman” – Universal, Instructive, Thought-Provoking, Culturally Fascinating

Posted on December 7, 2005 by Nancy Pace

One reason I watch foreign films is to broaden myself about the ways American films, families, and culture are different from those of other cultures. This movie was richly rewarding in that sense, as well as very enjoyable, and artistically very well-done.

“Eat Drink Man Woman” is a thoughtful drama about a Taiwanese master chef/widower with three marriageable daughters.

The many intertwined plots were surprising and satisfying, never pat. The disparate characters were each interesting and believable, and their choices turned out to be very true to their characters. I felt a sense of real people, distinct, unique, each with his/her own very human set of strengths and weaknesses, each making real, important choices; yet this movie left me with no sense at all of strings having been tidily or predictably tied up, or even ending. Instead, I felt that much had changed, much had stayed the same, and family life would go on, a bit differently. How like life….

It was interesting to see how each character isolated him (or her) self from the others concerning their most important, major private struggles. It was also interesting to see how unique and true-to-character each was in his/her choice of personal struggles, and how differently, in terms of personal styles, each one went about pursuing his or her chosen quests–and finally, how OK all these varied paths felt.

This movie left me with so much respect for uniqueness, and with a renewed realization that there really are no universal answers that work for everyone, although there are some pretty good universal values.

For instance, one character’s personality was quite unconscious about herself and others, resistant and defensive, even to choices which later worked out to be just right for her. Yet she was always true to herself, and worked to surround herself with others who cared about her.

One character strove toward a difficult long-term commitment, taking step after careful step to overcome heavy obstacles to achieving that goal. Another character merrily flowed along in life, characteristically open, eager, honest, generous and thoughtless—and of course stumbled enthusiastically into his/her destiny.

An unusually talented individual with great integrity anguished over every small deliberate choice, making small, excellent, creative decisions among many options despite considerable adversity, opening many more new opportunities to yet more expansive sets of difficult choices. This individual subtly worked to balance all her choices for the good of everyone she cared about, herself very much included, miraculously without being obnoxious about any of it.

Each character in this movie, like every human being, came burdened with past mistakes, regrets, heartaches, disappointments and misunderstandings, which of course impacted their present feelings and choices.

I admired this family’s loyalty, and their mutual respect and support, all very evident in their efforts to be kind, helpful and courteous to one another and others, despite life's many challenges.

I was intrigued as well about the evident “Asian” diffidence concerning effusive affection. Americans are often more pal-ly (pal-ish?) and casual, which can be hurtful or helpful, depending perhaps upon sensitivity and luck? It also seemed “Asian” somehow that no one in this movie really knew much about what was going on in one another’s lives and thoughts—but then, do Americans ever really know very much either, despite how much we share about ourselves and how many questions we ask? Everyone in this particular family seemed to accept one another’s right to privacy (perhaps to a fault); evidently this is a mixed blessing, which Americans often share with equally mixed results. Just like in America, these characters avoided and deflected direct questions about the really important issues in their lives–yet everyone still did a lot of guessing and gossiping, with all the usual resultant confusions–because everyone’s assumptions are always way off. All of which made the movie that much more interesting and universal.

The many intricate plots were each compelling, moving, and beautifully acted, and each story was worth telling and well-told. Each story, as well as the story of the whole family (an interesting plot in itself) was allowed to develop naturally and richly over time, yet efficiently, with no extraneous detail.

Although each person was very private, sharing little of their personal lives with one another, and rarely consultative about decision-making, each announced important personal decisions which would affect the family courageously, honestly, and openly, even when such disclosures were sure to be upsetting or unwelcome. The family always seemed to surmount initial emotional reactions and eventually come around to respect, acceptance and support for the different choices and values of the others, with no attempts to change or manipulate one another.

I was also impressed, coming as I do from a culture of fast-food and fast-living, with how much time and excellence this family put into its mutual offerings of caring for each other, friends, colleagues, etc.

If you like beautiful cooking, you’ll like this movie.

I took away a strong sense that things tend to work out in families (if not in the exact ways each family member would want) when family members strive to uphold ideals and values of commitment, courtesy, acceptance, caring, and respect, despite conflicting personal values, personalities and choices, and often in the face of tragic, embarrassing, or unwanted outcomes. In this sense, this movie reminded me of a Japanese book I once read (and also enjoyed very much) called The Makioki Sisters.

I found it difficult to keep up with the many names and faces at first. But I enjoyed this movie so much that I watched it again, so as not to miss all the delicious, rewarding details, and was glad I did.

The filming was gorgeous, particular the details about food preparation. I particularly admired the acting of the father, and the middle sister, who was memorably beautiful and charming. I appreciated that “Eat Drink Man Woman” was exemplary of the “show me, don’t tell me” school of art.

A character in the movie made the comment that different families communicate in different ways: this family communicated—really, loved one another–through food. It made me remember how much my birth family loved one another through singing together.

I recommend this movie for anyone interested in a charming, artistic story about individuals in a close family facing many challenges, both together and apart, over time. I also picked up a lot of fascinating details about interesting cultural differences in Taiwan.

Please send comments to epharmon@adelphia.net .

Harsh or Happy Realities?

Posted on October 28, 2005 by Nancy Pace

I’ve accepted that I’m going to keep on making mistakes forever. The rest of the world will too. So my life will always be challenging, and the world will often be chaotic.

On the other hand, I’ve also come to realize that in any present moment I can always choose to see myself, others, and the world through spiritual eyes–peaceful, accepting eyes–and this small choice will change both my own reality and any reality “out there” in happy and often unknowable ways.

What does it mean, to see the world through spiritual eyes? It means to look for and see only the good. It means to let go of past mistakes, ours and everyone else’s, as well as future fears, and instead, focus, here and now, on the good that is right before us.

There’s a spiritual trick to all this, though. Whenever we react negatively toward ourselves and others—as we all often do, almost continuously, in fact, because we’re well-trained judgment machines—whenever we’re feeling judgmental and resistant, we can ask our favorite higher power to help us see that person or situation differently. If we’ll look, listen, and wait for our answer, we’ll soon see with new eyes, new sight.

Using this approach, I create every day, for myself and for others, a different, better reality than I could create alone.

As more and more people realize that acceptance of whatever and whoever we see is our primary work in this world, we can all relax. Instead of mirroring a fearful collective craziness, we’ll reflect the higher eternal truths and realities we all recognize during transcendent moments, when we know without question the love of God and the beauty and unity of his creation—however differently we explain such truth.

So, does seeing with new eyes mean we should we all fall into denial? Avoid looking at the bad stuff in our lives, and give up on changing or improving it? No. Asking for help in seeing things differently allows us to look more closely at all that is frightening and difficult in our lives—and this time, with acceptance and forgiveness. God will transform all of it into something useful and good.

Life will always bring up an endless stream of personal judgments and resistances begging for transformation. Although we’ve all made mistakes, none are so dark they can’t be made light if we so choose. All our relationships can be changed, all our sadness, our hard lessons turned to good purpose and peace.

Each of us is powerful far beyond anything we now believe. We’ve already shown ourselves powerful enough to project a whole world—a terrible one. And to see ourselves as hopeless cases. And everyone else as no better than we. Usually worse.

If we want something to be true, even if it’s some cruel reality we’ve settled on as the only kind we can rationally and honestly imagine, then soon enough we’ll find the evidence necessary to reinforce even such a sad belief system. We’ll no doubt react indignantly and angrily to the fearful world we’ve surrounded ourselves with, but we’ll continue to look for, reinforce, and initiate evidence for it, until eventually we make for ourselves not only a personal state of near-insanity, but a planetary madhouse as well.

Instead of resigning ourselves to chaos and despair, however, we can use our awesome creative power to turn things around. We can courageously drop our defenses and barriers to caring. We can turn the insanities of this world into happier realities by using our awesome power to see and create a different, better world for all.

I could not have imagined how lovable my former “enemies” could become—all my crosses-to bear, even my own useless ugly self—until I chose to see each person and each situation differently, with eyes that let the past go, let mistakes go, overlooked shortcomings and fear, and saw only good.

To be sure, I often forget to choose to see differently, moment-to-moment–that’s where the “I’ll never get anything right” part comes in…. Yes, I’ll keep on making mistakes, and add to the drama and confusion instead of transforming it—and so will everyone else. God had his reasons for making humans fallible, but he also made us capable of learning and loving.

When I look on others with loving, spiritual eyes, I give them an amazing gift—the gift of seeing themselves completely differently—more loving, more beautiful and good than they ever realized. My accepting vision accurately reflects back to them the truth about their deepest nature, which is no less than the most thoughtful present anyone can ever give to another human being.

We all wish we could receive only such loving gifts from one another. We appreciate it so much when others give us the benefit of the doubt, choose to see us in our best light and as our best-possible selves. What other kind of help could encourage us so much to become the best people we can be?

The gift of seeing our own strengths and goodness is not one we can easily give ourselves. It takes another person choosing to see us lovingly, to see our own selves at our best. Most often, we only know our love and power when it is reflected in the appreciation that is shining in the eyes of another, in response to our own similar gifts to them.

What a delightful moment-to-moment reality this can be: whenever we choose, we can see the best in others, see ourselves lovingly reflected in their eyes, and offer one another a new reality, a chance to see ourselves anew. Genuine mutual admiration societies are happy places, just as relationships based on fearful judgments are hotbeds only for more fear and sadness.

On an eternal scale, seeing everything spiritually is what we’re here for. God created each of our lives, and this wonderful planet, this universe, as his great gift to us, for our delight, but also for his. Our mission, should we decide to accept it, is to love his gift—our world, ourselves, each other—in each moment of eternity, asking his help to see his creations freshly each moment, through accepting, spiritual eyes.

We do not live in a “same-for-everyone” reality that is somehow “out there”—No. Instead, each of us uniquely reflects what’s “in here”— whatever belief systems we’ve chosen to embrace about how the world works. Yet, although we each experience our individual realities differently, eternal spiritual reality doesn’t change. The ultimate truths about what lasts eternally—God’s goodness and love for his creation—are truly beyond our mere human brains’ explanatory abilities. But even if we can’t explain it, we can experience eternal truth whenever we choose to.

Spiritual realities aren’t intuitively obvious in most day-to-day lives. We’re so used to our familiar, if less-than-pleasant, mundane realities that we overlook other perspectives. We're like goldfish swimming around and around in our bowls. We don’t even notice the water we're in because it’s always just sort of been there. We’re unwilling to create waves in our already turbulent inner lives by considering a radically different worldview.

If we’ve concluded that we’re pretty much alone in a meaningless universe, in competition with everyone else, forced to fight for every inch until we die, we can find all the evidence we need to continue to reinforce that belief system in everything we do, in everyone we meet, in everything we learn. As necessary, we’ll project what we believe onto our experiences, and act in ways that fulfill our prophecies.

Life becomes more and more difficult, interspersed with peaceful moments of refuge and transcendence when we intuit a world that makes more sense. But we keep turning back to what we know, or to what we think we know. We hang on to our tough-guy philosophies “for dear life,” because, no matter how hopeful alternative views may appear, no matter how hard our present lives are, we’re—sort of—used to them already. Our cold approach to life feels familiar, and what is familiar feels safer than launching into an unfamiliar world of ideas and relationships, into uncertain territory that turns our whole way of looking at life upside-down.

Even if we don’t have a lot in our lives right now, at least we have what we know. Or we sort of have what we think we know. Or at least, we don’t have what we don’t know…we think. And for that small shred of certainty, we’re willing to sacrifice all other possible alternative realities. Too exhausted and beaten down from upholding our chaotic, leaky thought systems to try anything new, we settle for “being right” about what we already think; we cling desperately to our little lifeboats of certainty in our personal storms.

Thinking our belief system the least-worst option, we “right”-eously keep choosing to see a chaotic world full of unacceptable players—ourselves included—as more predictable, reliable, more controllable than any as-yet unknown, different worldview might be. Somehow, someday—we hope—we’ll learn how to manage the mean world we’ve chosen. Someday, surely, we’ll get used to it, learn how to deal with it—once we’ve figured out the rules.

But there are no rules for a spiritually empty world, a loveless, meaningless void. Life sucks and then you die. As life’s difficulties multiply, it becomes ever more important to be right about the way we’ve always seen things, because as long as we can keep on pounding away at what we think we know, as long as we can keep on looking into the same dark corners for the cheese that isn’t there anymore, as long as we can keep piling up the evidence that says “I’m right”—only then will we feel we have some chance of muddling through at least until we die–which is all that anyone can do anyway, no matter how we look at things….

Yet, over the course of a lifetime . . . some people seem generally contented, happy, resilient, positive, cheerful, optimistic, while the rest of us become more and more miserable. Why is that?

Tough-minded pragmatic stoics have lots of plausible theories to explain this phenomenon, theories which fit semi-satisfactorily, if not cozily, into their unhappy belief systems.

But what if the differences in the lives of accepting people, and resistant, fearful people, arise in large part mostly from their different choices about what they want to see, about what reality they choose to create, in the world, in their relationships…?

We can all choose to undertake a completely new life-task, a purpose different than any we’ve chosen before. And that new choice of purpose will make all the difference. We can choose to see the world, ourselves, and others as acceptable and lovable, through spiritual eyes, asking for the help we need to see each moment’s challenges, one by one, differently.

Yes, we’ll keep on making stupid mistakes—forever—and everyone else will too. Because we’re human, we’ll often forget to ask for help, or forget to act on it. But seeing through visionary spiritual sight isn’t as difficult a change as you might think. God only requires from us a tiny bit of willingness. He will handle all the rest.

He’ll take each mistake we offer him, all our sad stuff, and transform it—all of it—into something useful and good. Someday, too, he’ll take the new improved world we’ve made, all the happier realities we’ve created, and work the same wonderful transformations with it. We can’t do everything that’s needed, powerful though we are, but we can do what we can do—our small parts—and leave the rest up to him.

When we choose to see through spiritual eyes, the whole world quite miraculously will become a happier, more peaceful place, both for ourselves and for everyone else. Each time we remember to ask to see whatever comes our way differently, we take the small necessary step to change both what's “in here” and “out there.” As we invite God to do his mysterious work, we change reality.

E.P. Harmon welcomes your comments!

epharmon@adelphia.net

A History of Violence Offers Hope For A Less-Violent Future

Posted on October 14, 2005 by Nancy Pace

A History of Violence is a very good movie. Yes, the violence is graphic and hard to take, but that’s a positive thing in a movie intent on provoking thought and dialogue on the subject of violence. So, for you many testosterites (both male and female) who depend for your jollies upon superhuman heroes gloriously avenging the depraved acts of craven evildoers—and if you also happen to be married to a Quaker spouse—this is the family movie for you. If you gotta have gore, at least this gore isn’t simplistic; it’s powerful, purposeful, effective gore.

I was gripped and thoroughly entertained by A History of Violence. The production displayed a beautiful Casablancan integrity–nothing superfluous, nothing left out.

The movie’s many surprising moments of really funny dark humor were a nice added kick. At its blackest, life is ridiculously insane, and laughter covers the sad eyes of clowns; it's never either/or. Shakespeare knew this. So, this sad, funny, violent movie makes perfect sense as it moves along inexorably, belly laughs preceding abject tragedy setting up comic tittering introducing disaster….

History is also authentically moving, a tricky thing to do considering the thin fine line between effective emoting and hokey schmaltz. It’s a rare treat to have my jaded heartstrings expertly twanged by a good script in the hands of an inspired director leading brilliant actors.

History’s clarion response to the long-standing ethical question: When is violence morally justified? Only when you or someone you personally love is directly, persistently and seriously threatened. History’s imperfect characters conscientiously persevere in minding their own business, and endure the injustice of repeated outrageous attempts to provoke them to retaliatory violence–without adding to it–demonstrating the multitude of non-violent options available to unwilling participants.

I also appreciated the movie’s generous advocacy for second chances, and third ones, and however many it takes. In this movie, people who make big mistakes (no matter how big) receive support, not punishment–at least so long as they convincingly demonstrate conscientious intentions and results over time. History’s message–that sometimes motivated people can and do change—isn’t heavy-handedly religious; Tom admits that even after three long years in the desert, he wasn’t really born again until he met his wife. We all need both God and man to lift us up over our barriers to caring.

The very explicit but lively and original sex scenes were touching and memorable, and essential to the movie’s theme, since affection, loyalty, intimacy, and sexuality are often all that hold humanity to sanity and purpose.

I enjoyed watching Tom, like Lady Macbeth, futilely attempt to scrub the blood from his hands, and then receive the grace to be washed clean, rebaptised—forgiven–probably for the seventy-times-seventh time.

I wish the writers had clearly disavowed any hint that a schizophrenic split-personality-thing might be going on. For a confused moment I thought the story was bending that way, which would have disappointed me. I was relieved when it turned out to be about one man’s honest efforts at transformation.

Tom’s brief but telling dialogue with his brother offered a perfectly adequate argument for his stunning attempt to climb up from the horrendous dark pit of his childhood environment.

The movie offered several intriguing mini-plots—one for each character—most of them feel-good stories anyone could relate to. When Tom’s son finally got around to soundly beating up the kids who had continually attacked him, our theatre audience cheered. And when our thoroughly besmirched and discredited, yet undeniably righteous champion returned home, his family’s acceptance felt honest and right.

So why is it that we Americans still feel comfortable flinging our invading armies into the far corners of our empire, to threaten the persons and homes and families and livelihoods of complete strangers who are quietly trying to get ahead, in the lands of their ancestors? Where do we get off invading other countries, tearing up their infrastructure, disrupting their social fabric, blowing up their children? A History of Violence should make perfectly clear that people (of all creeds) who are doing their best to care for their families deserve to be left alone.

If my gentle reader still holds a belief that our superior culture justifies empire-building, I suggest you go back to your Bible, perhaps starting with the part about the kindly Jewish itinerant rabbi, Jesus, delivering his Beatitudes and his Sermon on the Mount. As A History of Violence demonstrates: fighting for peace on this incredibly small, interconnected and fragile planet–unless the bad guys are really climbing in your window—makes about as much sense in the real world as it does in the movies.

Acceptance 13 – More questions about “acceptance”….

Posted on October 9, 2005 by Nancy Pace

(This is the latest segment of a 15-part series of questions and answers about “acceptance” which I began posting early in 2005. I think the series is best read from the beginning, so click on the topic “acceptance” if you would like to see the whole series. All the October posts to the series were written quite a while ago, but I never got around to posting them. So I'm doing it now, in case readers want to read the complete series, as originally written….Thanks! Eppy)

I guess it's impossible to fix/change the whole world and everyone in it, and I guess I couldn't control it if I could fix it. But it's very hard to fix me, and all my reactions. I've spent a long time accumulating all this stuff.

So what else are you doing for the rest of your life? I'm just suggesting a moment-to-moment substitute. Currently, you freak out at a lot of things. I'm just suggesting that you try acceptance instead of freaking, and see what that changes. It's a start. Both are hard paths, but one leads to peace of mind.

How does acceptance work, in psychological terms?

Everyone's experience in life is different, so although what is “real”–“out there”–may be the same for all of us, what is “real”–“in here”–our experience of life, of others, of ourselves, of the here-and-now–is unique to each individual. So, there is the stuff “out there,” and there is the stuff we add to it to make it ours, all our thoughts, emotions, images, explanations, history, fears, hopes, dreams–you know, our “stuff.”

Acceptance is a practice that helps us change the way we respond to the stuff “out there” in more effective ways. When we practice acceptance, when we work to “be with” the stuff “out there” without adding all our own personal stuff on top of it, we learn to operate with much less extra baggage added on to “what is” in life, in the world, in ourselves, and in others. It really helps to notice, to be aware, of how much stuff (often negative) we bring to what “just is.” And it really is amazing how rich and full and interesting life is, just as it is, when we can live in the present and interact with life without a lot of heavy baggage interfering with our immediate interactions with “what is,” in the present moment.

Where does acceptance fit in with philosophical traditions? Religious traditions?

Acceptance of “what is” has long been counseled in all philosophical and religious traditions. Acceptance seems to be the beginning of wisdom, and is often only attained, if at all, in maturity or old age, often because life is too difficult by then to face without some help. Acceptance offers a lot of help. Maybe our smaller, faster globe has sped up life so much today that sensitive people need to learn acceptance much younger, just to keep on living.

I believe in the Bible as the infallible, direct, consistent and always true Word of God. How does acceptance square with the teachings of the Bible?

The Book of Job, many of the Psalms and Proverbs, and many other teachings in the Old Testament are all about learning acceptance. Jesus always counseled accepting the will of God, i.e., “what is,” and set a fine example of submitting his will to his father's, despite his trials and terrible crucifixion. Nothing in the Bible contradicts the many benefits of acceptance. Acceptance doesn't imply complacency or inaction or indifference.

I believe in a clear right and wrong, an obvious good and an obvious evil. How does acceptance square with these beliefs?

Strong convictions, strong values, and a strong sense of morality are real assets when they are not misused. We all have experienced people who follow the letter of the law and miss the spirit. Jesus told us clearly to treat others as we would like to be treated. He also said that love of God and man contained “all the law, and the prophets.” Acceptance is not about making everything mushy and gray, or accepting bad, wrong things. It's about living peacefully and graciously and lovingly in the present, with the things that can't be changed now, so that we can rise up during the next instant calmly and effectively, hopefully to right the wrongs, and to shine the light of good on darkness.

I'm terribly afraid of dying. How can acceptance help me?

You're not afraid of dying, but of the struggle against dying. You're afraid of your life ending before you're finished with what you want to do, afraid of the difficult process of dying, and afraid of what suffering might come after death. Many religions recommend dying before death: sitting with others who are dead or dying, and meditating on death. Acceptance of death and dying comes with not pushing away the thoughts of death, just sitting quietly with thoughts of death, while you're alive.

While you're dying is not the best possible time to come to peace with death, because dying is hard work, because sometimes it happens suddenly, or painfully. And besides, dying, like being born, is something new, it's change, and thus, is tiring, scary work. Those few who enjoy a peaceful death are usually those who worked to prepare themselves for its acceptance in advance, by accepting the idea of it, by dealing with it.

How can you accept death while living? Sit with it. Don't try to think about it, or look at it, or wallow in all the scary, sad feelings you may have attached to death. Instead, just be with death itself. Just notice all the negative and unhappy stuff that comes up for you despite your willingness to stay unresisting and quiet with your thoughts of death.

What will happen when you try this? The more you pray/meditate/rest unresistingly with the idea of death, the less frightening you will find it to be, until one day, death will just be one more door opening to one more new and different place, a door you will push open with curiosity and eagerness.

I'm shy. How can acceptance help me?

Spend some time with your feelings, right now, in the present moment, about being shy. Eventually, shyness will seem more like what it is–merely an irrational emotional reaction to new situations.

You're afraid of feeling shy because in the past the feeling of shyness panicked you and distracted you from focusing on what you wanted to accomplish. You're not afraid of new things, new situations, or whatever or whoever is facing you, but instead, of that feeling of being paralyzed, helpless, panicky. Get used to the feeling and stop running away from it, pushing it away, resisting it. Go with it. Be with it. Stay with it and stop fighting it. And meanwhile, get into the new person or situation before you as well, without resisting them. Accepting the scariness of shyness, and looking more closely at the needs and requirements of the new person or situation will help you move more quickly and calmly to meet those needs.

I'm generally uncomfortable with members of the opposite sex. How can acceptance help me?

Most of your discomfort with members of the opposite sex is “stuff” that you have learned about them that may not be so, certainly with individuals, and probably not generalizable either. Don't resist all the negativity you feel about them, don't push it away; try to accept that you have a lot of negative stuff on the opposite sex. Try to be aware of it all, be with it, and know that all those negative beliefs and feelings are very real to you, if not necessarily true in every situation.

Eventually, if you can learn to accept your own reactions and beliefs, you will gradually learn to react to each person that you meet or interact with freshly, without all the stuff you've put onto men or women in the past. You'll find that you're not really uncomfortable with given individuals, but instead, with all the stuff you've assumed about them. Look at all that stuff, accept your fear or distaste or judgment about it, and then look again at individuals. You'll see something new.

Sex and sexuality are difficult for me in many ways. How can acceptance help me?

You're probably less nervous about actual sex and sexuality than you are about all the stuff you've personally attached to the idea of sex. When you think about sexuality in its most basic form–a drive to reproduce—and then you look at all the cultural, emotional and mental stuff we add onto it, it's no surprise that our sexual mechanisms feel gummed up.

Stop pushing your own sexuality away. Accept the idea that among all your other identities, you are a sexual being. Just “be with” all the fears and discomforts that being a sexual being bring up for you. They are all your unique added “stuff” as an individual, separate from any particular sexual act. When you allow yourself to get into “being OK with” all the stuff you previously resisted, pushed away, fought against, sexual relations lose a lot of their heaviness, and become a lot more simple, natural, and in-the-present “what is,” without all the heavy stuff you add onto them.

I can handle my own sorrows, but I can't handle my children's, past, present or future. How can acceptance help me?

Well, for one thing, you don't have to handle them. Your children do. And they will do it better if they have a calm, courageous, supportive friend to encourage them along the way…. But sit with your present fears and sadness. Stop pushing them away. Just be with them for awhile, without reacting to them. Observe them, know them, accept that what is, is. With this calm and lack of resistance, you will be much better able to offer your children the peaceful support they need to move forward in life toward their own dreams and goals and greater understanding.

My life is OK as long as I can work, stay busy, and contribute. But I'm getting older, frailer, less capable, and it scares me. What can acceptance do for me?

Spend some time with the idea of helplessness. Don't think about it, react to it or develop a lot of mental pictures about it. Just sit with the idea unresistingly. Most of the reactive stuff you have to helplessness is about your own sense of self, about your actions in the past and your hopes for your own future. You don't, for instance, react against helplessness in others, you don't judge it as wrong or disgusting, except as it reflects on thoughts of your own helplessness.

Try to sit quietly with the idea of helplessness, and as the reactions and thoughts and pictures come up, notice them, accept them unemotionally, and let them go. Eventually you'll realize that complete helplessness, without all the stuff that people tend to attach to the idea when it applies to themselves, is quite neutral. It's just what it is. Then extend this acceptance to the idea of your being gradually less capable. Finally, look at your present capabilities, with new eyes.

How does acceptance work? I mean, what's the trick of it?

Acceptance is about learning to stay in the present moment, and be with, unresistingly, what is in the present, no matter how frightening your reactions and feelings might seem. In learning to do this, you learn a lot about what is not part of the present moment. You learn that your culture and your experience have added a lot of emotional and mental stuff to the present moment that put a lot of heaviness and fear into it. When you can be with the present moment and its challenges, separated from all of the extra baggage of culture, individual experience, assumptions and fears, then you can handle it, move past it, and move forward effectively toward making the changes you want to see in your life.

It's fine and dandy to “fix” myself so I'll be more peaceful and happy, but what about the rest of the world? Does acceptance mean that I jsut abandon everyone and everything and go within and be peaceful and meditate or something?

Hey, fixing yourself ain't all that easy…. It took each of us quite a long time to get so messed up…. So, a certain amount of time spent working at acceptance in all the various areas of our lives that we've messed up is necessary….

But every step in learning acceptance in the various areas of your life will also be steps toward being more effective in relationships and in making the difference you want in your life and in the world. It all happens simultaneously. The more peaceful and accepting you can be about “what is,” the more committed and persistent and persevering and focused you will become, the more calm and positive and effective you will become. Working at acceptance changes the way you respond to situations and people, which will make you happier and more effective.

I can't stand relativism. “Everything's relative” is such a weak place to come from. Everything's not relative; it's clearly one thing or another–good or bad, right or wrong. So we can accept what's right and good, and reject what's wrong and bad. Right?

Strong values, strong convictions, a strong moral and ethical sense are great gifts. They come from a lifetime of assessing situations and trying to make the choices and decisions that are the most helpful. The hardest decisions are the ones in which we weigh two goods against each other, or try to find a best alternative among few attractive options–in other words, the gray areas….

Killing is wrong, but what about in a just war? Divorce is wrong, but what if abuse and adultery are committed? Shall I feed the baby, get dinner for the family, or respond to my son's urgent request for understanding on his homework? And so on. In real life, we have to weigh individual goods and evils, rights and wrongs, relative to some other goods and evils, rights and wrongs.

Acceptance that life is very difficult and that each moment presents brand new challenges for acceptance of “what is,” right now, that moral decisions are often difficult and perplexing, allows us to move forward calmly and lovingly to make good decisions and choices about the difficult gray areas, the areas of moral/ethical confusion that we often find ourselves in.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Feb
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

epharmony.com

Just another WordPress site

Tag Archives: marriage

Depends On If You’re Our Good Guys Or Their Bad Guys

A Generic, All-Purpose Letter, Ready To Send Out To Your Political Representatives

Media (of the People, by the People) for the People

Left, Right, Left, Right…Wrong?

Real Geisha, Real Women, Real Men, Real Relationships, Real Feminism

“To Live” is To Die For

“Eat Drink Man Woman” – Universal, Instructive, Thought-Provoking, Culturally Fascinating

Harsh or Happy Realities?

A History of Violence Offers Hope For A Less-Violent Future

Acceptance 13 – More questions about “acceptance”….