Not this

One of the difficulties in today's era, not that it did not exist earlier, is that in protesting or condemning something of the present or ongoing, we declare, "Not this!"  That this is not what we want.  We detest that the present standards or incidents are far below the 'accepted' norms or expectations.  That these events or policies or plans are not what we want.  But most often what we fail to progress to is to explicate what it is that we actually want.  To merely state 'not this' in protest is nothing noble or progressive.  Such protests can also be carried out by those who want to basically disrupt life and create a diversion.  They are happy to join and sustain the melee because it serves their narrow interests elsewhere. 

Nobility in protest is where we have the courage to stand up for what is right and are able to express that what we stand for; not merely be satisfied with 'not this'.  

Man of God?

Reflection for April 7, 2017: Believe in the Father

In the movie 'Evan Almighty' there is a particular point where the protagonist, a reputed modern American politician-turned builder of the Ark (at God's command) is questioned by the reporters, “What makes you so sure that God chose you (to build the ark)?” Evan replies, “He chose all of us!” 

Most often we are so convinced that God only chooses the prophets and saints, we forget our baptismal grace by which, each of us is a child of God. That each of us have a vocation. Therefore everytime a person claims to be a messenger of God, we smirk, we frown, we mock. Jesus offers us a simple remedy to verify the authenticity claims of anyone: do the works lead me to understand and believe in the Father. Even if the answer is no, we can still take it to remind ourselves of the grace we already are blessed with: being a child of God. Or use the occasion to discern our vocation, what God really wants of us.

Curse of categorizing

The inherent craving for classifying what we perceive or come across into existing categories or types is perhaps the curse of an analytic or scientific brain.  We do it so often and for so long that unconsciously that we become a victim of it.  We look at people and in that first glance already pigeon hole them into the existing type of people we have in our mind, based on past experiences.  Mind you the other has not even interacted with me, yet I 'know' what kind of a person he or she is.

I'm seeing the drawbacks of such a mentality, in our philosophical discussions in class.  The whole attempt is often to brand a particular philosopher as such (that he is a realist or a transcendental idealist).  That the category itself is a very lose concept with no clarity of its own (all the more certainly not for the ones engaged in the discussion), makes this exercise quite ridiculous and very agonizing.

Reflecting on the aspect of human rights, the whole puzzle is on which foundation to base the legitimacy of the same?  The temptation to classify these rights under one or some of the types of rights is a very serious one.  The agony is that these rights do not really come under any existing categories. And the danger of leaving them out of any category or categories is to attract criticism for being imaginary or unreal.

Am also seriously questioning the very classification of human rights under the umbrella of 'rights' itself! Given the political connotations of the latter, the meaning of human 'rights' get minimized and tend to lose their essence in its deeper analysis.

The closest I've come to think is 'expressions' or 'elements' of being human.  But that leaves it to some wishful plea rather than having any real obligations on anyone, especially in contexts which blatantly operate blind to these essential elements of humanity.

What then to call them?

Uncompromising Commitment

You cannot play with the animal within you without becoming wholly animal, play with falsehood without forfeiting the right to the truth, play with cruelty without losing sensitivity of mind. He who would keep his garden clean does not reserve a plot for weeds. 

- Waymarks by Dag Hammarskjold

Grinding coins instead of knives

Somehow, in all our discussions in the lectures, one thing that seem to underlie or play a subtle role (acknowledged or not, accepted or denied) is that of language.  Therefore really look forward to the course on Wittgenstein the next term.

Anyway here's a quote from Anatole France's Garden of Epicurus

... the metaphysicians, when they make up a new language, are like knife-grinders who grind coins and medals against their stone instead of knives and scissors.  They rub out the relief, the inscriptions, the portraits, and when one can no longer see on the coins Victoria, or Wilhelm, or the French Republic, they explain: these coins now have nothing specifically English or German or French about them, for we have taken them out of time and space; they now are no longer worth, say, five francs, but rather have an inestimable value, and the area in which they are a medium of exchange has been infinitely extended.  

Though sounding amusing and to an extent realistic, there is something fishy about doing away with standards or basics (eg. truth).  Is it the basics themselves or claims of some/most about the basics? Or may be I'm missing something here?

For a purpose

With yesterday's farewell we officially concluded the academic year. The evening get-together specially organised to bid farewell and thank the final year students was well organised by the first and second course Brothers. Most of the ideas were theirs but I did have to intervene and polish them. What they wanted to do was 'something' but with no definite purpose or intention - other than merely doing it! I had to make them see the various things they planned and wished for in a comprehensive manner. I wanted them to have a clear sense of purpose for which they were doing all that they were doing... so that they could send out a meaningful message and not just some hotchpotch of actions.

Finally the programme went on well and as planned - contained in the time allotted and appealing to all involved. All the Brothers - including the outgoing students - liked it.

The backdrop with an alphabet printed on one side of the paper and the other half containing a funny description of one of the third year student and a photo of the same, was quite an innovative idea.

Discernment

The animator of the retreat asked us to spell out our expectations of this retreat. And that was perhaps my first real preparation for the same! I realise that I need to really discern what God wants of me. I thought I had it all figured out, straight and clear. But somehow, now I'm not so sure. It is not that God has not given me hints but I've not bothered to pick them up, of late. I seem to have enveloped myself in my little work and world and shut myself out from the larger and greater picture of myself and the world. I need to get out of the cocoon.

Need for integrity and consistency

I know not if I'm biting more than I can chew... I do speak a lot in my classes. I love to challenge the Brothers to something greater and higher. I also do confuse them and force them to think out of the box or differently. At times I wonder, if in my excitement, I tell them contradictory things over a period of time. In my enthusiasm to drive home a point, I do not wish to lose my own line of thought or have extremely baseless ideas myself. I really ought to ensure that there is no discrepancy between what I say, how I live and what I believe in.

Help me, Lord!

Workstyle: goal and process

A hectic day ... meetings are always exhausting! Anyway, surprising was the amout of paper work we put in! Just imagine 4-pages x 12 themes! I also am aware that the whole package of last year is still intact with me in the office! And each page drafted, revised, edited, checked, discussed and redone (still to be polished)!!! I suppose it is like the Tabor experience - from the ground reality to the paper and from the paper to the ground reality.

Also sitting in the hall as an observer has its own advantages. One gets to see the whole process/discussion from a distance. (I remember Fr Ivo speaking of 'maintaining a historical distance' as a criteria for reaching the truth.) Not that I claim to have attained the 'truth' watching the whole process, but it is an experience by itself. Some respond for every intervention, others lost at the whole process only to be dragged in all of a sudden when their name crops up or their sector is mentioned. Then there are those who just want to get over with the whole schedule or their presentation. Of course, some keep hopping from the sleep-zone to the waking-zone to the vigourous-intervention-mode. There are some who intervene only when specifically asked to do so. Those who intervene without knowing what exactly is being discussed provide the best 'entertainment'.

Now to what is my contribution (not shared in the group, though): Most of the difference of opinion is because each one sees only a part of the whole. Perhaps the need is to see the whole - at least, a glimpse of it. Now again wondering: can I see the whole without seeing the parts? Well, I believe, it is better to have variety of opinion than everyone thinking alike. (When everyone thinks alike, one one thinks much!) But sticking on adamantly to one's opinion as the only possible way out or the best possible thought gives rise to unnecessary discussion and at times even leads to misunderstandings.

Anyhow, whether I see the whole picture? Not at all! Look forward to others to enlighten! But I'm happy this way. Perhaps if everything was clear, I'd be god! I'd prefer to be the rat lost in a maze than the one caught in a race (- escapism? maybe)!