Flying Finger Theology

A post by Peter Swanson:

The other day I heard some news about an old friend of mine that shocked me to the core. He was working for his dad, who owns a boat upholstery company, using some of the heavy-duty machines. Unlike old timers who didn't wear wedding rings if they works with machines and tool, my friend was recently married and had his wedding ring on, and it got caught in the machine, and ripped his ring finger off his hand and sent it flying across the room. They have since re-attached it and most of it will survive, though with questionable functionality at this point.

You hear stories of this sort here and there, but when it is about someone you know with a finger you have seen and probably touched it brings the reality home, and this news was surprisingly shocking to me. You hear news like this and you spontaneously double over, and reach for your own finger making sure it is still there and isn't going anywhere and plead with it to stay. Visions flash in your mind of your finger, your very own finger, flying through the air away from you, up and arching down, hitting the wall and falling to the ground, lying still. You look at your hand and something is wrong.

Wow. This imaginary experience that occurred to me on hearing the news prompted some reflection about why the thought sicked me out so much and caused me to shudder so deeply. Unfortunately the reflections require some rather gruesome examples, but in the end I found the path worth pursuing. Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Here we go.

Where the shock wasn't: It wasn't an issue of blood. Blood doesn't bother me. It wasn't an issue of simply a severe wound. A huge stab wound to the stomach doesn't really bother me (to think about, that is), even though the amount of flesh that is broken, cut, and separated in such a wound is much greater than with the loss of a finger. I don't think is was the violence of the injury, the sounds and sensations that would accompany the ripping apart of a part of your body that is so strong that some people could probably hang from with their whole body weight. I don't think it was even that it was a chunk of my body that is now separated from the rest of me.  I had my appendix out and that doesn't bother me, and thinking about the removal of some piece of my body such as skin for a skin graft, or donating a kidney, or even if my ear was cut off doesn't really bother me (at least not as much as a finger). I really think that the majority of my shock was from the fact that it was a finger that was ripped off.

Aristotle says that the hand is the tool of tools. Almost any tool you use is itself used by the hand. The hand is the perfect tool of the soul. It is handier (ha!) than the greatest Leatherman with 300 uses, for the hand is what can put those 300 uses to use, along with thousands more. The hand is the ultimate übertool.

Even though there is a special relationship of persons to their hands, the hand is probably not the most special of all the bodily components. We receive knowledge primarily through eyes and ears and we express knowledge of various sorts with the tongue. Yet after these more knowledge/mind/soul related bodily components, I tend to think the hand is most important. Judge for yourself: If you had to lose one, which would you choose?

Eye or ears? 

Ears or tongue? 

Tongue or hands?

Hands or legs?

I think most people would agree with this order. But yet, I do not think I would be as shocked by seeing my eyeball fly across the room (I don't know what it would be to have your sense of hearing fly across the room), or my tongue fly across the room. To me, something remains most shocking about a finger (by finger I also mean the hand) even though I would rather lose a finger/hand than a few other things.  Why is the detached hand the most disturbing?

I think the reason is that seeing our own hand, detached from the rest of our body, possibly gently curling or bending slightly before coming to a still and silent rest on the floor, is the clearest illustration we could ever see of our own death. 

I don't think the eyes, ears, or tongue symbolize bodily death as clearly, and therefore even though they are more valued, they do not shock as much as the hand. 

How so? The eyes, ears, and tongue (maybe we could say the entire head) are in a sense "spiritual organs"--they are so closely associated with the soul that they do not seem to be as truly "body" as the rest of our body. When we talk about someone having a "nice body", we tend to exclude the head and face from the term "body". The head is like the soul's window for looking "onto" our body and therefore it is not as truly a part of our body as is from the neck down. In contrast to the head which merely looks, listens, and talks, the hands move!  They make things happen in the world. They sow, they reap, they bring the food to our mouths. They chop, they sew. They rescue, they kill. Their territory is Earth, while the head's territory is, in a sense, above the Earth, in the realm of knowledge and other people. 

The hands are much more directly and exclusively engaged with this life during this limited time on Earth, while the head can roam other ages, other worlds, and roam the universe as it pleases. The mind can be anywhere; the hand and only be hanging right there, by your side. It's humble, homebody existence is like that of the body itself: it sits there slouching in a chair while the mind is anywhere. The hand just hangs around until it is needed.

So I think the head possesses an affinity with the expansiveness and spirituality of the soul, while, in contrast, the hands possess an affinity with the limited-to-the-here-and-now engagement of the soul with direct material surroundings. So, if we aren't sick of metaphors, the head is the soul of the body, the hands are the body of the body. 

So back to the question: Why is the detached hand the most disturbing of all parts of the body? It seems to me that this is because of all the components of our body, the hands represent our bodily life the most clearly. Because of this, seeing your own hand (or finger) no longer being your own, being totally unmovable no matter how hard you want it to move, so close and yet in a totally different world. What used to be so integral to you, and so intimate with yourself, truly a part of yourself, is now a piece of dust. This lifeless finger shows us in miniature a vision of our dead body, lying still and unmovable. Ours, yet not ours.

Here is your finger alive and well, dancing at your request, running around, accomplishing tasks, making money, sewing upholstery, flying across the room, utterly lifeless. No exertion of will makes it wiggle, no flash of inspiration makes it spontaneously exclaim.  That could be your finger right now. Just because it is not, does that mean your finger right now is really that much different?  In less than an instant it could be still and silent. You are entirely made up of stuff like this, that in less than an instant could be a motionless pile of stuff on the floor. 

This is the horror of mortality. The detachment and death of a finger reveals to us that death is not some event that happens in the future: it permeates our very being, it is part of our very make-up. We are made of mortality. Death doesn’t come from without, it is built within. The David is made of marble; I am made of death.

To be sure, that is not all I am, as the David is not merely marble. But I cannot escape it.  How quickly the finger becomes lifeless! Right away it becomes lost from you and from life. Sure it might be able to be reattached depending on circumstances, but the vision it gives of the ultimate detachment of the entire body at death is not changed. Your life is utterly gone from it; your will and power can not extend to it, even though it may gradually go on by itself in some weird way for a time. Your life does not disappear from your finger as heat disappears from a coffee. Rather, your life disappears from your finger as your voice disappears from a telephone. The soul's life flowed through it for a time, but it never had that life even when it had it. As it is with the finger, so it is with the body. It too is alive, but it is not alive. This horrible mortality must be faced squarely before pat answers about the resurrection can be deeply appreciated. 

Look at your finger, bid it to remain happily attached to your hand, and rejoice in its life, but very soon the life and the finger will be parting. Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

Yet let us not be morbid by ending with dust, for that is not where the story ends. Instead end with Paul, who continues on, giving believers hope based on God's plans and deeds: "For while we are in this tent (this body/bodily life), we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed (we do not want to be disembodied/die) but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.  Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us (believers) the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."

IT COULD BE IRRATIONAL TO BE TRUE TO YOURSELF

 

As long as you resist the natural desire to perfect yourself by living in accordance with sound judgment through the cultivation of the virtues, you will continue to experience frustration. I am sorry to sound ‘moralistic,’ but there are too many therapists, philosophers, politicians, and entertainers all too willing to pander to your every whim by suggesting that you need to be ‘true to yourself.’ Well, being true to yourself is what has gotten you thus far. How is that going for you?

I must admit from the start that there is a semblance of truth in the be ‘true to yourself’ philosophy. This truth is the human urge ‘to fully live,’ ‘to be actualized,’ or ‘to live a whole, complete, and real life.’ Not merely following the herd or doing certain actions without understanding why they are done.  People want to know and feel their actions flowing truly from them. This is all understandable and commendable. Unfortunately, problems emerge when these natural urges are interpreted through the lens of a bad philosophy—a philosophy grounded in irrationality.

As I have argued elsewhere, our culture is one that sets many of us up for failure, for the channels of our culture deny there is such a thing as ‘true human flourishing’ in the strict sense of the word. They deny this because they deny that there is such a thing as ‘real meaning’ or ‘real purpose’ for all human persons. No one better expresses this philosophy than one of the founders of the be 'true to yourself’ philosophy—the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. One of Sartre’s most famous teachings is life is absurd because we lack a true human nature directed to a specific goal or end. Rather, all we have is a radical freedom of indifference such that we are, regrettably, as Sartre says, left with the task of determining our own essences. In the words of Sartre, “man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.”

Now many of you reading this blog may see a life without true meaning and purpose problematic. I certainly do. Sartre tries to tamper the anxiety his philosophy creates in the hearts of his followers by assuring them that creating their own meaning and purpose in life is being “authentic”—as opposed to being a mere ‘conformist.’ But I hardily see this as comforting. An artificially contrived meaning is still without meaning no matter how you look at it.  An altruistic life is just as ‘meaningful’ as a selfish life. Your desire to love children is just as ‘meaningful’ as those who hate children. 

Such a philosophy flies in the face of common sense, for nothing is more self-evident than the fact that humans are rational being order to pursue the true goods integral to human perfection and avoid evils that thwart and wreck human flourishing. However, if the be ‘true to yourself’ philosophy is correct and our common sense is mistaken, then there is no rationality behind your choices. They are just arbitrary whims with no rhyme or reason. They are just expressions of your ‘authentic self,’ which are none other than projections of an illusionary sense of fulfillment—neither aiding you in perfecting yourself (for there is no human nature to perfect), nor giving true satisfaction (for the goods you seek are not fitting to your nature because there is no nature for them to fulfill). This philosophy of life is the essence of irrationality, for as Sartra’s philosophy entails, your life is absurd because your choices are in fact absurd. Thus, by being true to yourself you are actually forging yourself into a web of lies only to have your soul drained by the angst it creates. All is without meaning. All is without purpose.

I opened this blog suggesting you truly consider your natural desire to perfect yourself by living in accordance with sound judgment through the cultivation of the virtues. Your own well-being depends on it. Paradoxically, the real way for you to be 'true to yourself’ is not by renouncing real meaning and purpose in life; nor is it found in opposing moral absolutes and crying ‘oppression’ at anyone who suggests there are definite rights and definite wrongs. For don’t you see, by opposing the right and the true and the lasting good and beautiful you are opposing reality itself by wishing to exist apart from reality? But to choose to live outside of reality is to live in a world of irrationality.  Such desired existence is what Thomas Merton calls ‘my false self.’  Ironic indeed! The more you try to be' true to yourself’ the more false you will become.

Thus, the answer, I believe, is the ‘true self’ is found in just the opposite way than that of Sartre. It is affirming a real human nature created by God with a real purpose and meaning. Instead of fighting for the false self’s freedom of indifference, we succumb to truly finding ourselves by acting upon our Freedom For Excellence! That is, we are most free when we desire and will what is truly fulfilling of our human nature, for we discover in our nature that we were meant to flourish as children of God. We discover He hardwired us to function in certain ways conducive to live as fully actualized men and women. To act contrary to this hard wiring is to live a frustrated and, ultimately, an unhappy life of irrationality.  The 'true self' is not found in giving into all your base desires in opposition to God; rather, 'the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it--he will be blessed in what he does' and truly find himself.

 

Why Happiness Is Going To Be Hard For The Next Generation And Mine

(I wrote this before the Riots in London, but choose to publish it now in light of the mayhem)

I am beginning to sense a troubling predicament facing young adult’s moral development in the United States (and London). While it is true that humans across cultures have a certain fixed physiological development (for example, puberty and menopause) and psychological developments (for example, language development and teenage insecurity), it is not true that humans across cultures have a certain fixed moral development. As Myron Magnet’s The Dream and the Nightmare shows, one’s culture plays a dominating role in shaping a persons mores. This of course is not to reduce all mores to culture relativism, for, as J Budziszewski argues, there are moral beliefs that ‘we can’t not know,’ even if these moral beliefs are not fully developed or suppressed. Rather, Magnet’s thesis simply states the obvious that humans are not autonomous beings shaping their own essences and seeing others as hell, in the way Sartre would have it, but social beings relying upon their culture to help shape and mold their character, as Alasdari MacIntye beautify argues in Rational Dependent Animal.  Thus, it is more likely for a twenty-year-old to have a properly functioning conscience, if this young lad’s culture is such that it fosters the cultivation of the virtues and refines the inchoate ‘we can’t not know’ instead of focusing, as our current culture does, solely on “self-esteem,’ ‘expressing yourself,’ and a sense of entitlement without contribution. It is the current culture that is so troubling to me.

Our culture, as Magent says, ‘rejects traditional bourgeois culture as sick, repressive, and destructive.’ The old sexual views of chastity and marriage are pathological, and the idea of delaying gratification, so as to achieve future blessings, is all but archaic.  As Magnet says, ‘its sobriety and decorum are mere slavish, hypocritical conformism; its industriousness betokened an upside-down, materialistic value system; its family life is yet another area of coercion and guilt.’ In its place, our culture reinforces a ‘let it all hang out, expressing yourself, and acting upon what you really feel’ as what ‘constitutes authentic, liberated selfhood,’ for this is what is truly ‘healthy and life-affirming.’ Jean Twenge, in here book Generation Me, captures this ethos when she reports Melissa, 20, saying, “I couldn’t care less how I am viewed by society. I live my life according to the morals, views, and standards that I create.”  This relativistic worldview is expressed in all popular mediums, and is felt in the new social presser to ‘keep your opinions to yourself,’ if you so happen to agree with the antiquated ethos of our grandfathers. As the once thought prophet Bob Dylan says,

Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

Well, the times have changed, and what have they brought us? Dylan may have been right when he tells the writers and critics to prophesizes with their pens, for,

For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win

Unfortunately, while Dylan and all those crying for social revolution were earnestly wishing to see the losers to be the ‘old fashion mores,’ in actuality the losers have been the kids born since the Sixties, for they inherited this relativistic worldview, which provided them with a foundation built on sand. The culture now cultivates a practical reason of anarchy directed towards misery instead of happiness, for the philosophy of the Sixties seeks to keep all in a pubescence, rebellious state by resisting all pressure to grow-up.

Is it any wonder, then, why my generation and the next are addicted to Comedy Central, the Cartoon Network, and Spike T.V. channels, which all celebrate and glorify the adolescent-adult-male? As Kay S. Hymowitz says, in her article, Where Have The Good Men Gone?, this generation ‘watches movies with overgrown boy actors like Steve Carell, Luke and Owen Wilson, Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, Will Farrell and Seth Rogen, cheering their awesome car crashes, fart jokes, breast and crotch shots, beer pong competitions and other frat-boy pranks.’ Hymowitz continues by saying, ‘most men in their 20s [and 30s, I might add,] hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance.’ Being out shown by women their own age, many sit around in their parents' house playing PlayStation or Xbox, while masturbating to online porn. What can I say; our parents raised a bunch of perverted Peter Pans.

This Perverted Peter Pan Syndrome I witnessed a few years back while attending an outdoor Shakespeare play.  While waiting for one of western civilizations pinnacle expressions of culture, I happened to look to my right to see a young man and his girlfriends sitting on a blanket. The man reached into his backpack and pulled out some food, drinks, and the latest issue of Maxim. In utter bewilderment, I watched as the young Peter Pan skipped over the ‘informative articles’ to the almost nude women pictures (to which I quickly turned away).  I could not believe what I was watching. Here, a young man, with his attractive girlfriend, about to watch Macbeth, was passing his time looking at porn (it is not simi-porn) in a public park.  What a romantic night out!

But it is not just the ‘boys’ who are stuck in Perverted Peter Pan Land, for who are the boys sleeping with? Who’s picture are they looking at in Maxim. The hit HBO series, Sex and the City is not directed towards males per se. One quick glimpse at the magazine rack in Walmart will tell you what a lot of women are interested in. In the latest Cosmopolitan, our young ladies can learn 1) ‘How to Outsmart a Bitch,’ 2)  ‘50 Sex Moves,’ 3) ‘The Sex Confidence Men Can’t Resist,’ 4) and something about a Kim Kardashian (reality Star Right?).  But if that is not enough, you can buy the last issue to learn about ‘78 ways to Turn Him On.’ Really?  I doubt it will take 78 ways in Perverted Peter Pan Land, for in a culture that glamorizes sleeping with another man’s wife (in the new movie Limitless), I am sure all a woman has to do is say, ‘I’ll sleep with you.’ 

Yet, we know things have gone sour with our ladies when insidemovies.ew.com reports, ‘girls ruled the weekend, as the new romantic comedy No Strings Attached [a movie about friends with benefits] attracted an audience that was 70 percent female while topping the box office with $20.3 million, according to studio estimates.’ While I did not see the movie, I am sure in the end, the characters fell in love and at least started dating. Wow! So the message our ladies are hearing is maybe if a woman sleeps with a guy a few times with a promise to not desire any form of commitment from him, he might take her on a date.  Congratulations modern culture in liberating the young women from the oppressive male. Trust me, the Perverted Peter Pans of our culture are welcoming this ‘liberated women.’  Sex without commitment . . . Yipee!  

But here is where it even gets more troubling, for if Magnet is right when he says, ‘what you believe at twenty . . . has a way of leaving its stamp on your worldview for life,’ then many of us are really going to struggle to cultivate a happy life, which requires the virtues opposite of what our culture is pontificating and what we consciously or sub consciously believe and act upon.  A happy life means a total rejection of the Perverted Peter Pan Land. It’s time to grow up. Reality as checked in, and it turns out the Sixties culture sucks. It does not liberate, it does not bring about equality, and it does not bring happiness. Bob Dylan was wrong. I know because I lived and breathed it for many years. And because I lived and breathed it, I can tell you right now it takes a lot of work (even with grace) to untangle yourself from the tight grip of our culture.

So, why happiness is going to be hard for the next generation and mine can be stated fairly simply: our culture has deeply influenced how we see the world and the influence is not towards virtue and refining the inchoate ‘what we can’t not know.’ Many have bought into the culture in settle ways and develop deep-rooted habits preventing us from see and desiring the truly good and beautiful. Returning to a time of self-sacrifice and social decorum seems impossible.  As Twenge says, “asking young people today to adopt the personality and attitudes of a previous time is like asking an adult American to instantly become Chinese.” Lets face it; we resist change, hate rebukes, and rationalize like crazy. We will struggle because we have become spiritual slothful. Perhaps the only hope is ‘today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as they did in the days of rebellion.’

Why The Virtues Need Time to Brew

There are others who are vexed with themselves when they observe their own imperfectness, and display an impatience that is not humility; so impatient are they about this that they would fain be saints in a day.

John of the Cross

The desire for instant perfection is an acute flaw plaguing many beginners of the virtuous life.  These people see the virtuous life as a drive-through. They order a value meal of courage or purity with the expectation that in less than a week, a month, or year they will be valiant warriors or temperament saints. They suppose they are virtuous because they have read the ‘right’ books, have the ‘right’ thoughts, and can speak the ‘right’ moral language.  They are zealous for law written on each person’s heart and often find others wanting in their approaches to the virtuous life. They hide their faults from those they esteem highly, unless it is advantageous to appear humble. They believe themselves clean on the inside because they are squeaky clean on the outside.

Mean while, they do little to ride themselves of the many ‘cues’ in their lives that spark the ‘old desires.’ Thus, while striving to loose weight in hopes of gaining greater self-control, they go out with friends to Buffalo Wild Wings believing themselves strong enough to only eat a salad. This is like the person who desires to grow-up by not having boorish humor anymore, but sits around and watches Family Guy.  At first they may succeed, but very quickly they fall into temptation. They slowly begin to rationalize their situation: ‘Well  . . . I did eat a small breakfast’ or ‘Well . . . I can run more tomorrow’ or ‘Well . . . didn’t God call all things good?’  Such rationalizations allow them to keep imagining themselves as virtuous, but for all their ‘good thoughts’ they are no more likely to control their desires than their friends.  

Being in such a state, they will slowly notice their actions are not matching up to the desired state of self-control, thus a waning desire for virtue begins. Different forms of despair will begin to settle in. They might try to arouse their self-confidence by priding themselves above others, for while they might have failed at being perfect, they are certainly better than their fellow man. How could they not be, for at least they tried . . . Right?  Yet, this form of pride can only last for so long before reason sees the delusion (hopefully), and they tend to drift back to acting just like they did a week, month, or year a go, and in some cases they are even worse. All to often, these people begin to blame virtue and slowly, through a process of repeated failures and corrupt thinking, they either begin to believe (on various scales) the vicious as virtuous and the virtuous as vicious, or they become pessimists of moral development.

But just like all imperfection, this desire for instant perfection is not departing anytime soon. Cultivating the virtues is a slow brewing process. They are like a good whisky. They require diligence, persistence, and a heart directed towards the good. All whisky brewers know that the right conditions, ingredients, and methods are required to achieve the desired state of delectability; likewise, the patient person desiring virtue, knows his predominating faults and seeks with all his heart to avoid situations, occasions, and objects that weaken his moral sentiments. When failure occurs, his sadness does not lead to a self-pity sorrow but to a daring hope to keep pressing on towards happiness. After repenting to God and neighbor, he learns what he needs to learn from his failing and moves on. No point dwelling on the past, for the vitreous know that it is through repeated failures of attempting great actions that success will come. He knows the more good thoughts and actions brew in their soul, the happier he will be.

Thus, if one wishes to advance in the good life, they will need to work on riding themselves of the desire to be perfect tomorrow. Unless God miraculous purifies them, which He can do, the process of moral development takes many years. This will no doubt discourage many, but there is no fix quick to habitual vice. Sorry! Even the Christian, who processes sanctifying grace, is not instantaneously perfect, but must “put on the virtues of Christ,” as Paul says.