More Musings

In Zen we are cautioned not to mistake the pointing finger for the moon. Or the map for the terrain. To become more self-aware or spiritual many of us have attended retreats, listened to fine speakers, or read helpful books. My penchant was for the last---I read all kinds of books on Zen, various aspects of Buddhism, and generally on Eastern wisdom, much of it dealing with respect and compassion for others. The latter concepts had a great intellectual impact on me, except for one thing---I did not change my behavior a bit, at least not for 30 years. Neither did most others I know. Talk (or reading) is cheap.

What passes for conversations these days is sad. Not perfect 50 years ago, things seem to have gotten considerably worse. As self-concern and narcissism have increased, people see themselves as more important than the person opposite them. The unspoken message is, “You exist only as listening post or a foil for my next story, observation or opinion.” Of course, this is deniable, but still prevalent even among very nice people. When I was teaching college, one such person would greet me with, “How are you?” Early on, thinking he was actually interested, I talked a bit about what was going on. He could barely suppress his urge to start talking about himself. Once I was finished, he launched into a monologue lasting as long as we were interacting. It took two of these “conversations” for me to start looking for someone else to chat with.

I have heard for decades that each person has her own truth, valid in and of itself, and for which she is answerable to no one. At one level this seems reasonable because of human subjectivity. But at another, perhaps not. If I accept that you have a complete right to your unique truth, then I have nothing to say about it. You could call me any horrid thing you want, short of libel, and I must accept your truth. Carrying this a bit further, as a devoted post-modernist (which I’m not), I should actually welcome this display of individual “truth uniqueness.” But my moral high ground collapses, and hypocrisy raises its ugly head, as I exercise the unfortunately normal response to a perceived attack---counter-attack or defend.

“The stupidity of people comes from having an answer for everything.” A quote from the fine Czech writer Milan Kundera. The more uncertain the world, the more some people need Answers, utopian silver bullets that temporarily soothe their angst and “explain” the world and its unstable condition. Overall societal uncertainty breeds fear and causes many to look desperately for structure. Answers and people who think the same way provide this, albeit at the expense of reality. Fear also arises from those with a personal need to have Answers, a dynamic generally arising from childhood, where not having the Answer meant very big trouble. And fear also comes, usually in conflict settings, when folks are confronted with others having a different view of something, anything. When fear generates the need for Answers, for whatever reason, people usually live in a constant state of agitation. They see slights, insults and problems everywhere which, in utopian fashion, they want gone. But the world and people in it stubbornly resist fitting into a defined and rigid structure. Intentionally blind to reality, they redouble their efforts, magnifying their anxiety, and often inducing rage. Not a healthy picture for society or for interpersonal relations.

You may have been on the receiving end of some harsh words by a friend, relative, or even total stranger. Perhaps that person apologizes, but does so with the “but” caveat. Whenever you hear someone say, “I’m sorry that I trashed your mother, but…,” run for the hills. This is a cheap trick to avoid real responsibility for an unkindness or a loss of temper. Following the “but” is the supposed rationale for the outburst, negating the apology. It means, “In spite of my token apology, I will tell you why I was completely justified in calling your mother an idiot.” Simply apologize. No justifications, no denials, no explanations.

“Via negativa” is a Latin phrase originally used to explain what God is by looking at what He is not, as opposed to what He is. Non-theologically, it can be used to improve our lives by subtraction rather than by addition. Akin to the “less is more” idea, the most obvious action is to reduce material goods. Fine. But more subtlely, suppose we give up something in our relations with others, like our unhealthy needs---to be right, to win, to be loved, to be perfect, to punish, etc? An obvious benefit to us and others. Of course, even conceiving of such an effort itself requires a “give up.” Disposing of the ardently positive thinking we have about ourselves is a good start. Accepting that we have these unhealthy needs must precede the subtraction of those needs and their unpleasant outcomes from our behavior. Addition through subtraction.