To Be Continued

I'm thinking again about borders and boundaries.  I was having a long and lovely conversation about our lives, exterior and interior, w/ a friend at a marvelous new little cafe, when I found myself again asserting that I don't believe God uses force, and that I prefer permeable and flexible "boundary markers" over "walls."  Yet, as I was expressing what I consider ideal, I realized that I recognized there might be worthy exceptions to this and that I would like to gain clarity on this topic in the coming decade.  Laughter.  Notice I'm giving myself a whole ten years to figure out this facet of healthy relating!

But before entertaining exceptions, I'd like to examine more closely why I believe God doesn't use force, or prefers to not use force.  Where, how, and why did I get this idea?

My Musical Preferences

Dear Leo,
Even though I am a musician, I am not fond of all types of music, nor all genres of presentation.  I have found I prefer music without words, artistic compositions more than popular works, symphony or ballet (and a few operas) over theater or musicals, sacred over secular, nuanced more than dramatic, solo more than ensemble, contemplative more than directive, quiet more than loud, engaging the interior world more than the extroverted.  

I find that many people who are not musicians are often surprised to learn of musicians who don't love all music (but then they also tend to be people who prefer anything popular and contemporary over all else).  However, if they really thought about it, wouldn't they realize that the more a person knows about,  experiences, and works with something, the more detailed and refined their particular preferences will be?  It doesn't mean I can't find something to appreciate in nearly any musical expression; for my education has helped me develop tools (ways of listening, thinking, analyzing)  that make everything more accessible to me.  What seems to be less obvious is this: I will also know myself better, and what my true preferences are, and why, and how that is good!  Just as there are some (usually novice music-majors) who think it's the highest form of enlightenment to find what's lacking in every work without connecting with what moves them (a mis-use of critical thinking); I think it's equally dishonest and immature to think we must find equal value in all styles, genres, etc.  I.e. my broad (and educated) appreciation for any musical expression allows me to choose my own preferences because I am freed from a passive dependence on the preferences of my social milieu.

Because of this view, I know there are some (many?) who would label me as "elitist."  I could be.  However, I know people who have similar views as mine but also have great disdain for any "lesser" view and are even dismissive of persons who dare to express their love for something "lesser."  Contrasted to that, I simply recognize that my passion for my chosen particulars is equally legitimate to anyone else's passion whether theirs be more or less diverse/inclusive than mine.

Truly enlightened "tolerance" will positively value (not just passively accept) the diversity of individuals' varying preferences, and does not expect nor attempt to force conformity to one homogeneous preference for everything!

Thanks for listening!
~Mack

Free-Fall

Dear Papa,
I'm SO lonely today.  And I know this hole in my heart is a lovely door for a gracious space where I can be w/ You, just Be, w/ just You.  And yet I resist.  I turn to music, I turn to social networks, I play w/ my pets, I think about things I "should" be doing.  Lord, here I am.  Slowly letting go of all the other stuff.  Please take my paltry treasures and hold them for me, let me let go and free-fall into Your heart.

Here we go, Jesus! :)

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be
World w/out end.
Amen!

Words

Dear Leo,
I'm trying to sort out why I have such ambivalence toward words!  Clearly, I like using them!  However, I too often feel misunderstood.  Even when speaking English, I so often feel that others and I are not speaking the same language!  I realize conversant speech, formal speech, and written language are all different uses of words.  Regardless of the genre, I often find different meanings in words than what others intended, and my words often fail to convey to others what I believe they mean!  It sounds like I'm making a bad choice w/ words, that the fault of failed communication is w/ me.  However, I don't see it that way!  I also don't believe the fault is w/ others.  I really believe that human words can have so many meanings and subtle nuances that it really is the Norm to find various interpretations.  I think the problem is that some interpretations are so much more popular (or so much more easily found) that many think that's the only way to understand, where-as my interpretations and perspectives tend to be of a minority.  I think my relationship w/ words has much to do w/ being an INFP musician and of a mystic's life-view.

Really, given that I view language this way, it's surprising that I'm ever understood!!!

When something matters greatly to me and I want to communicate w/ someone who uses language differently, I guess I have to work harder to find ways to bridge the gap.  Or maybe simply be more creative.  Maybe I need to explore even more obviously different ways of using words.  Like e.e. cummings did in poetry.  Hmmm...  I don't know if I'm gifted enough for that, but it's worth consideration!

More later,
Mack

Much ado about nearly nothing

Dear Leo,
So it took me 45 minutes to disinfect the master-bath.  I disinfected/cleaned the toilet, shower, tub, and sink, and their areas (surrounding counter-tops or tiles), but I didn't vacuum or reorganize anything (except the items around the tub) yet.  I estimate it could take another 45 minutes to do all that to my satisfaction.

Re my fear of failure: to tackle the dreaded task wasn't so bad: I'm happy w/ the quality of my work even though I'm surprised that it took so long.  I'm a little bit nonplussed w/ myself that I am putting off the vacuuming, but yet hopeful that after a bit of a break, I will resume and completely finish the larger task of "cleaning the master bathroom."

I think most people would think it a bit silly that I can spend so much time thinking about this kind of thing.  I'm sure some would say "you could finish the job in the time it takes you to think and write about it!"  While that may be true, it's a certainty that my back can't tolerate so much bending w/out a break.  That's why I have to break up these "little" tasks into smaller bits.  It's also one of the reasons I dread this kind of work; I like to avoid pain!  It's also true that this kind of work, in terms of process, bores me.  But really, who isn't bored by such?  Is there anyone who gets excited about cleaning bathrooms?  I think, surely, "menial" house-hold cleaning is one of the most Christ-like (sacrificial) of services!!!  Heaven must be full of moms who made their house a home for their loved-ones.

It just occurred to me that manufacturers of cleaning products should add into their formulas scents that would be so appealing that people are eager to clean just so they can breathe the lovely aromas!!!  (If that were even possible, someone would probably abuse it and the FDA would have to ban the product!)  Sigh.

Well, this letter is terribly self-revealing, but I'm sending it anyway.  Thank you, Leo, for being such a safe confidant!!! ;)
~Mack

Just Begin

Dear Leo,
Whenever there is something on my mind that I feel/know I must do, but don't want to, if I avoid beginning, my ability to focus on doing anything at all (even things I want to do) is thwarted.  So why do I procrastinate?  I suppose because ambivalence is stronger than my sense of duty!  Hmm...  Do I like fostering ambivalence?  Not really.  As I examine this thought process I realize I also have a great sense of fear.  What is it I fear?  I'm afraid I won't be successful w/ whatever it is I feel obliged to do.  Is it really that I fear I can't do it?  No, it is that I fear I won't measure up to doing it as well as I think it ought to be done.  Wow.  This is a tremendously strong fear in me.  However, the teacher in me responds w/ compassionate sympathy yet persistent encouragement to "just do it."  "Begin.  And as you proceed, trust you will improve."  Okay.  I'm going to take one thing I've been avoiding today, and simply "begin."  I'll get back to you later on how it went.  Thanks for listening!!! :)
~ Mack

Visions From The Verge

Dear Leo,
I've finished reading Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday.  There are several excerpts I'd like to look at more closely.  The first is as follows:

Each figure seemed to be, somehow, on the borderland of things, just as their theory was on the borderland of thought.  He knew that each one of these men stood at the extreme end, so to speak, of some wild road of reasoning.  He could only fancy, as in some old-world fable, that if a man went westward to the end of the world he would find something -- say a tree -- that was more or less than a tree, a tree possessed by a spirit; and that if he went east to the end of the world he would find something else that was now wholly itself -- a tower, perhaps, of which the very shape was wicked.  So these figures seemed to stand up, violent, and unaccountable against an ultimate horizon, visions from the verge.  The ends of the earth were closing in.

~ from Chapter Six: The Exposure

I like pondering the meaning and function of borders.  It seems to me that the idea of borders is one of those things that is essential.  By "essential" I don't mean simply "necessary," as in something required to fulfill a practical need, but rather "of a fundamental essence," as in it cannot not be!  It seems to me that, just as the human mind can't fully grasp the idea of eternity and yet cannot truly believe in it's own end, the human mind also seeks to define things: to sort out "this vs that," and it is the notion of "borders" or "horizons" or "thresholds" that helps us conceive the distinction of things and of ourselves.

I'm not sure I really believe absolute borders exist anywhere other than the human mind, except between Creator and the created.  It seems to me that all creation is more one than it is its dissect-able parts.  Furthermore, the Creator has sought to be "One" with His creation!  So, it seems to me, that the fundamental nature of reality is Whole-ness, One-ness.

Even-so, it is also clear that human-beings NEED borders and definitions in order to function healthfully and peacefully.  I think we have to place these limits on ourselves and each other because we have lost our Original Freedom when we sought a faux-freedom outside of God's revelation of the Reality He created.  When we cast aside our relationship of the created w/ her Creator, we find ourselves bound to making our own limits.  We continually try to break those limits, but we keep making other limits.  Our only True Freedom is in a loving relationship with our Creator.


But, really, I diverge.  Back to Chesterton:  What does he mean about the tree and the tower at the two ends of the earth?  He could mean the tree of life which became the Cross of Christ, but what then is the tower?  Is it the tower of Babel?  Furthermore, he doesn't really describe that tree terribly favorably.  And why is one "possessed of a spirit" and the other has a "shape [which] was wicked"?  By giving us a metaphor that seems to be made of polar opposites, he seems to favor a dualistic world-view.  But I know that he elsewhere shows he doesn't favor dualism.  Chesterton, it seems to me, holds a more whole view of the world, life, and thought.  I'll try to find sources to back up my assertion.  But for now I want to wrestle w/ his metaphor.  The phrase "violent and unaccountable" is certainly a major clue.  And the notion of an "ultimate horizon" gives us the sense he's talking about the world's destiny: where what we know meets up with what is utterly beyond us.

What does Chesterton mean by "unaccountable"?  Does he mean rebellious?  As in "not accountable to any other entity"?  I'm more familiar w/ that word used to mean "inexplicable," but I really think, here, Chesterton is saying these figures representing anarchy are looming violently on the horizon because they hold themselves accountable to no-one, and by default to chaos and ultimately oblivion.

When was Chesterton writing this?  1908.  So, this was before World War I, which began in 1914 with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria.  What would Chesterton have been experiencing and observing in England in the early 1900's?  There was an election in 1906, and the winners introduced new welfare reforms.  But how did Chesterton view all that?  I'm sure the Boer Wars had to influence Chesterton's thought re governing and anarchy.  But I know nearly nothing of this period of history.  The more I research, the more questions I have!

Sigh!  I guess I'll have to do much more study before I can dig into this!