Something I considered interesting: Susan B. Anthony, one of the huge feminists and advocate of women's rights, once called abortion "the horrible crime of child-murder". The point I hold particularly close is that which she makes in saying, "Much as I deplore the horrible crime of child-murder, earnestly as I desire its suppression, I cannot believe with* the writer of the above-mentioned article, that such a law would have the desired effect. It seems to be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains."
An example, I think, in which the systematic worldview really needs to be employed. But I won't get into it.
(This information found on p.45 of "50 Things You're Not Supposed To Know", by Russ Kick, gratefully borrowed from Sal of companionableills - thanks!)
*['Believe with' doesn't make very much sense to me, but that's how it was written.]
It seems to me there are two sides of the spectrum for dealing with emotion (stemming from two perceptions of it):
In an instance of the first, a person does not perceive emotion as something not of oneself. The anger I am feeling is me. This is one version of me: the angry version. I don't recognize emotion as something that is happening to me, nor do I recognize it really as something at all. This, I think, is often a person with a temper, a person out-of-control, or a person who buries emotions or is unable to deal with or work through them.
In an instance of the second, on the other hand, a person views emotions as something. Emotions are tangible and there and, though inevitable and unavoidable, things that can be dealt with. There is with this perspective the danger, however, in dehumanizing emotions. It is so extremely possible to think about and analyze emotions so much that they aren't emotions anymore - reactions become dull or nonexistent and even another encounter with the trigger of the emotion can elicit no emotional response.
(Some people, of course, fall under neither of these categories. I suppose I haven't quite figured out those ones.)
It is interesting to me the ways in which the two kinds of people use the mediums of emotional expression (music, art, poetry, etc.). These mediums, undoubtedly, are potentially consuming - music, from my experience, especially (but perhaps this is only because it is the one to which I am closest). A person of the first perspective, it seems, is more susceptible to being consumed. I would definitely consider these mediums of expression demonstrations or substantiations of emotion, and so, a person that does not recognize (emotion) these mediums of expression as something of which to be wary, or something that can be manipulated to one's benefit, far more easily falls victim. It is far more difficult to defend yourself against an enemy when he is not visible. Contrarily, a person of the second perspective, by employing these mediums of expression as a means of substantiation, more often is able to make them tangible (there should be a verb for this) enough, conceptualize them enough that they are no longer abstract, to be able to work with them.
So many organizations, Christian ones the top among them, seem to say, "You are so valuable! You are so wonderful! Believe in yourself!" They stress the importance of self-esteem. It is very frustrating for me.
I do not believe that humanity deserves self-esteem. God doesn't need you. The world doesn't need you. The world needs God, and you do as well. We do not deserve or in any way need self-esteem; what we need is God-esteem. What we need is humility: the ability to recognize the nature of our humanity, and then to throw ourselves before God anyway. The ability to say, "Lord, take this shell of a soul and make it whole again, so that it can work for you." We do not need self-esteem. We do not need any inkling, any shadow of the dirty lie that we can make any sort of good on our 'merit' alone.
Currently reading: aforementioned book, and its sequel
Currently listening to: soundtrack to Notre-Dame
Seattle Sessions acoustic EP, by the Classic Crime (Yay, I have it!)
We're So Far Away, Mae
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
perhaps adding the word "along" would help: "believe along with..., that..."
and while i don't think that anthony is incorrect, i don't devalue putting a law into effect.
i think i would be the second one you described, by the way.
you remembered your password! ha.
i don't devalue a law, i suppose - i believe it would not be wholly advantageous but the benefits would far outweigh the risks. i do think, however, that our focus shouldn't so much be on this but on attacking the root of the problem. i've said this more than once, but i think we should work more, as a society, on not getting pregnant with babies we aren't gonna be able to have, rather than punishing the people who've done this already. there is an urgency in the latter and so it shouldn't be ignored, but there is great potential for rectification with the former. sense?
Creepy. You described how I view emotions completey accurately. (Second group). But I dont think I dehumanize myself or my emotions... I recognize myself as susceptible to their pull but a separate and stable identity independent of them. I think this group are the people who gave rise to the imagery of emotions as one's "demons" or "black dog" that I've used in our notes. I can't get a grip on something that is essentially myself. Also, I don't want to define myself as those demons because I think I have more control over my choices than they'd like me (there I go personifying them again) to have. And I most definitely use art in the way you described for that group. Oh, and I hereby make "tangibilify" a word.
From a solid Christian standpoint, your "God-esteem" is an amazing and true idea. And yet I don't think we ought to completely throw out the notion of self-esteem. We are to follow the example of Christ; and He did His best to make everyone feel valued and loved. I remember a passage from Blue Like Jazz where Miller says that he knows some Christians who act in love so deeply that they make everyone feel like a movie star. I strive for that; and I don't think working for self-esteem in others is contrary to the message of the Cross. But on the other hand, I'm not afraid to call someone out when they're being small, hypocritical, unfair, etc. - Jesus set a precedent for that as well. (I think "WWJD" is the most complex, nuanced and misunderstood lifestyle goal in existence.)
I think the 60's-today Humanist movement skewed our perception of self-esteem. I'm not running around handing out "I'M SPECIAL" gold stars - but I'm not treating everyone like the dirty sinners my faith tells me they are. Ann Coulter isn't building up anyone's self-esteem... but she's not exactly a spokeswoman for Christianity either.
I think the idea of God-esteem should be a more inward thing, directed at ourselves and close, fellow believers - and that we should still strive to make people feel valued and loved the way we know God values and loves us.
also: aren't those books awesome! they're so awesome.
i did finally figured it out. although it always takes me a few tries.
and you both covered everything i would have to say very well, but yes, along with companionableills, our focused efforts need to be on God-esteem and others-esteem. while there is nothing wrong with others esteeming me, there is something wrong with me focusing my efforts on esteeming myself.
you both know that, but i thought i'd throw it out there anyway.
GUESS WHERE I AM RIGHT NOW?
WE JUST LAPPED TECHNOLOGY AND CIVILIZATION
HIIIIII
figured it out! there should be a comma after the 'believe'.
companionableills and ambgtr - i agree with both of you.
topic's too old to me to continue but maybe in person.
Post a Comment