Reflecting on "Borges and I"

In a brief piece entitled "Borges and I," the writer points out how the other self turns one's own preferences "into the attributes of an actor." What is it, however, that one prefers?

The problem is not the acting but the objective of one's action - we are called to become "imitators of God." Without God's grace to breathe life into what we do, our imitative action is an empty performance, essentially absent rather than present. To say "I am" is presumptuous. There is only One who can truly utter those words. Rather we are called in Scripture to imitate the Pauline self-identification by saying, "By the grace of God I am what I am."

Truth may be the key. Perhaps when what one writes is true, than that which has been written may have been inspired by the Spirit of Truth which proceeds from God. All truth being God's truth, even the atheistic writer whose words are true may be breathing the Word of God, albeit unwittingly.

Fiction need not be falsehood. One’s story of seeing a sparrow may still carry truth in its telling even if one is pretending to have seen the sparrow. The pretense is problematic if one’s intention is to lie rather than to tell the truth. Consider the difference between acting in theatre and hypocrisy in personal presentation. Is one concealing rather than revealing what is true? This is what matters.

In the case of "Borges and I," the writer is careful to remain mindful of the difference between his person and his persona, the "me" of one's self and the "not-me" of the mask his words may have made from this same self. The confusion comes when one is confronted with the "not-not-me" created over time when the multitude of words remaining in one's memory begin to define one's personal image of oneself. This is where intimate relationship with others becomes very significant; those who know one best are most beneficial for revealing who one really is apart from who one may present oneself to be.

Truth identifies itself. One either recognizes truth or not. Truth may be concealed and then must be revealed in order to be known.

The elemental property of truth is coincidental with the ultimate authority of the Creator Himself. All truth is derived from what is ultimately and absolutely true. (The same can be said for all that is good, all that is beautiful, etc.) I do not mean some Platonic Ideal though it may seem like it. Right relationship with God really matters in making one's ideal correspond with what is real. Yet even when one may not be in right relationship, one may still, by the grace of God, express what is true.

The problem comes when one and others do not recognize why it is true. The consequence that may very well follow from this misrecognition will be something less than true. Thus is it possible that the quality of what one creates is commensurate with one's perception.

I believe truth is that which does the defining. What is the purpose of definition except to truly describe something so that it may be known? If a definition fails to describe something well, there is something false about the definition. Perhaps this has something to do with recognition – a definition makes most sense to us when we recognize it as describing something we have perceived/conceived ourselves. This object upon which I sit is a chair, a chair being an object designed/used for sitting.

Consider one's own face – each of us carry some idea of what we look like as an individual. Seeing oneself in a mirror presents one with as exactly true an image as one can have; representing that image becomes more and more problematic depending on the medium of representation, whether posed photograph, candid snapshot, painted portrait, quick sketch, or cartoonish caricature. One may more or less recognize the representation of oneself as being true. Others may agree or disagree with our assessment of the representation depending on how well they know us – again we see the significance of relationship in regard to truth.

Perhaps I am too taken with the idea of mimesis. Our call to become imitators of God is to be understood in the light of our being created in the image of God. This ultimate truth about ourselves defines who we are and who we must strive to present ourselves as being.

Disguise often depends on socially recognized conventions – even if one is unconventional. Social convention is often why someone may be presented as someone else; to discover the truth about such an imposter can be quite difficult (consider the movie CATCH ME IF YOU CAN). In this way it is interesting to re-read the essay writers complaint, "... my life is a flight and I lose everything, and everything belongs to oblivion, or to him."

THE DRAMA OF DOING WHAT CAN BE DONE ... HOPING IT OUGHT TO BE DONE

I do what I can, hoping it is what ought to be done – therein lies the drama. This is what I posted as my FACEBOOK status on May 15, 2010. It sparked a number of comments from others.

I said in reply to a friend who asked about “the comedy” that the comedy can be seen in the folly of my ridiculous acts of self-righteousness. He responded, “hey – me too!”

A student then posted the following: “Who decides what ought to be done?” I found this to be an interesting question. My reply: If something OUGHT to be done, is such ought-ness defined prior to the deed or at the moment of the deed?

Priority implies order - toward what end is the deed to be done ordered? Christian moral philosophy contends that all moral action must be ordered to God. So one who would do what ought to be done will have decided to act in accordance with God's will. However, given one is a free moral agent, the one who decides what ought to be done is the one who wisely does the rightly-ordered deed or unwisely does otherwise. The actual deed will then be judged accordingly.

One's conscience comes into play as one considers what is just about to be done, what one is now doing, and what one has done already. Ideally, conscientious consideration will be critically consistent with the ultimate judgment to come to pass on the Last Day after all is said and done.

My son, Vincent, wrote, “I agree with you metaphysically, but my poor human brain doesn't think like that on a daily basis. ‘Ought’ is really more mundane. It seems that it's based on relationships. If we're honest with ourselves, we can see what the best thing to do is. And we know that if it isn't, then there is grace and we are ready to talk it out. Our conscience is wiser than we give it credit. Also, I find that it's important to be ready to admit that we, too immature, might not be able to decide and seek help in decisions. I mean, I only feel at peace when I feel my decisions are centered on Christ."

My immediate reply: “Exactly, Cenzo.” I think he have expressed it very well.
What we ought to do is indeed based on relationship.

The basic relationship to being human is, of course, one's relationship to God. Basic as well, however, is one's relationship to others; as I have often said before, there is always way to have a right relationship with anyone. What ought to be done depends on what is right for one's relationship with another.

Our conscience is wiser when well-formed. Relationships with others form who we become. One's conscience strives to conform one's actions to one's being. As one relates rightly with others, one will discover one's conscience is more consistently wise. Making wise decisions makes one more mature, more able to do what one ought to be done.

The student wrote that he agreed “nearly completely.” He wondered, however, whether we can “interpret His will without bias?” Going on, the student asked, “How can we know what He wills as the flawed beings that we are?” Then a qualified question, “can we assume to know the will of God?” The qualification, “barring divine intervention,” provoked this response from the first friend who responded to my original post, “Good thing barring divine intervention is unnecessary.” He continued, “You can't barr it or except it. Having a fallen human nature, knowledge of the will of God comes only through divine revelation – often through the mechanism of his Word and always through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.”

I answered that we can, by means of each one's conscience, always know our own will. Will we or will we not want to follow God's will? Being willing to do God's will puts us in the right mind to know God's will. We then trust God to help us discover what His will might be for us who are so willing. (Scripture speaks of this in a variety of ways - cf. John 3:21; 7:17; 8:43; also Daniel 12:10; Psalm 25:9; Hosea 14:9.)

One way to discern God's will is to seek the wise counsel of others. This helps counter whatever bias one may have in the effort to interpret what is right. God's grace keeps us alive despite the deadly folly towards which we are prone – that is sufficient intervention, don't you think? Expecting divine intervention to be the means of prevention is irresponsible. Flawed as we may be, we are still responsible for each thing we freely choose to do.

The student clarified his question by writing, “how can we do God’s will in the times when there is no obvious intervention?” Then he went on to write, “Seeking wise consul and being true to oneself, while also being true to the scripture ... this is the best route through which we flawed beings can attempt to do His will?”

To which I stated that God's will be done. That is a given without exception.

We have the opportunity to participate in doing God's will. That is grace. Without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, our participation is impossible. Sin sets the bar before us, blinding us from seeing the way we ought to go; the crucial part Christ plays is essential to breaking through that sinful barrier so that we can play with Him before the throne of God. This is what the Word of God reveals and what we need to know so that we can live.

RIGHTS OF RELATIONSHIP

To speak of rights is to bring into consideration relationship. Being human is to be in relationship with another. The responsibilities of relationship define the rights each person in that relationship can expect to have. Such expectation becomes the basis for demands one makes on the other in a particular relationship. Right relationship considers rights and responsibilites adhering to living in the same world with another living person. All power must be directed at promoting life lived well. The less well another is able to live, the more those more able to live must consider how well they are able to respond. The healthier a society, the more able all can share in acting responsibly toward those less able to live well.

Coming to a common understanding of marriage and the family must be a priority for anyone hoping to comprehend human rights. Human rights are much less abused in a society which does not fail to foster healthy marriages and families. Families function best in such a healthy society. Humans living together as a family have more intimate expectations of one another than will be found in other relationships found in human society; healthy families bond through how well these expectations are communicated and met. Marriage is central to human family - healthy society will have the best environment possible for any marriage to flourish.

Ethics is the way one lives with others. Christian Ethics is the way one lives beyond one's own ablity in living with others. The demands of Christian Ethics require one to be more responsible in relating rightly with others; one may even forego one's own rightful expectations in order to live well with others. Such self-sacrifice imitates the sacrifical life of Jesus Christ, who gave Himself up for the life of others. The Christian hope is that a life lived sacrifically for the sake of Christ will bring satisfaction beyond what can be expected from a more self-indulgent life that is much less considerate of others. The expectation of Christian ethics is that this way of life leads beyond death to eternal joy in the presence of God, in whom all humankind has been created.

A PERSONAL PAUSE FOR PONDERING

Here he sits --

hat in hand,

heart on sleeve,

foot in mouth,

-- and hopes for grace ...

STANDING NEXT TO ONE ANOTHER YET REMAINING APART

A friend wrote that he was re-organizing his library and put Where We Stand, an Assemblies of God's textbook on doctrine, next to Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed. He figured I would enjoy the humor in that shelving juxtaposition.

I responded:
Nice juxtaposition! I am mostly familiar with Freire through my study of August Boal (THEATRE OF THE OPPRESSED) - Paulo Freire was a major influence on Boal’s teachings.

It is interesting to note that the A/G and Freire worked with very similar populations of people. The main difference was the perception of oppression. The A/G insisted and insists still that the major source of oppression was/is neither political nor educational but spiritual. I happen to agree and thus continue to prefer the A/G over other more politically-oriented institutions.

Why I like Boal's THEATRE OF THE OPPRESSED is the practical approach to working with oppressed populations. I can apply my theological theory of theatre using his program of workshops and interactive performance. It is challenging not because of Marxist theory behind Boal's theatre but the "Marxists" who put Boal's program into practice - in working with these practitioners I have to call on God's grace to help me not be the one who brings too much friction into our working relationship. I have come to appreciate what they can teach me and hope that they have learned something reflecting God's grace from me.

My friend commented:
While I agree with elements of Freire's "praxis," I don't necessarily agree with his world-view. I found his concept of teacher as facilitator and fellow student quite profound. The symbiotic relationship of student and teacher as co-learner and co-educator is, in my opinion, a better philosophy of education than the teacher as expert.

I responded:
I, too, find the cooperative nature of teaching and learning to be profound. Willi Marxen, commenting on Philippians 3:17 [in which is found Paul's Greek coinage summimetai from which I coined symmimesis to describe my theology of theatre],considers mimetes as "one who shapes further" and reasons the "only people who have been shaped themselves and pass on their received shape through their own acts of shaping are mimetai." This idea is behind my concept of symmimesis, performance in the company of one another whereby one's performance shapes the persona of the other while becoming shaped personally by the other's performance, the whole peformance being done before an audience of One who shapes all things according to His own will.

Perhaps this is the difference between a mimete and a hypocrite. Both Greek words could refer to an actor but the latter word came to be associated with deception, action which concealed rather than revealed character. Might one's willingness to be shaped by another matter in how one acts in the presence of another? The less I am willing to be open to you knowing/forming/reforming who I am, the more I will tend towards hypocrisy. Teachers unwilling to learn from students or stubborn in refusing to step aside while another teaches may well be the worse for it.

A post that looks at "e-books" and real books ... e-vil vs. good?

I am one who likes the looks of books,
is amused by amazing music,
and finds fellowship

with friends and family

refreshing!

How can anyone who does love books
consider the faddish phenomenom of

"e-books"

a good thing?

Let's resist the lure of "convenience"

and "portability" and "capacity"

with which we are being tempted

to go and buy into

this bibliotechnical masquerade.

I know my quest is quixotic (even my own brother has succumbed to e-vil e-books), but I am ever hopeful that the practice of buying real books at real bookstores will not become extinguished by the convenience of buying "books" bit by bit so that some screen becomes one's illusory "library."
As a public service, I offer the following link:
MOBYLIVES » Do ereaders harm your eyes?
mhpbooks.com

Consider this as well:
Devices like the iPad and the Kindle are a wholly new kind of thing—they function like bookshelves that reject all books except those the manufacturer has blessed. Publishers today worry that retailers like Wal-Mart might control too much of their business—and rightly so. But imagine how much more precarious things would be if Wal-Mart sold bookcases that were programmed to do what the iPad and Kindle do—refuse to hold books bought in other stores, and by canceling Wal-Mart's account, your publishing house would lose access to any customer who didn't have the desire to throw out their Wal-Mart bookcases or Wal-Mart–approved books, or room to add another brand of bookcase. http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/456751-Can_You_Survive_a_Benevolent_Dictatorship_.php

A friend responded by writing:
"Totally agree. I hate reading books on screens, not only can I feel my eyes slowly falling to pieces, but I love the feel of having a book in my hands... cracking the spine for the first time or the smell of a well-loved favorite... all necessary parts of the book-reading experience in my opinion."

I found interesting the phrase "book-reading experience." Also interesting to consider -- what is necessary to be part of "the book-reading experience"?

Anyone who has visited anywhere I have ever lived knows how books figure prominently in my life; the house where my family now lives is certainly no exception (as my witty wife -- long-suffering as she has been for 25 years putting up with my book habit -- likes to quip, "We need no insulation in our walls - the bookcases lining every wall in the house have enough books to do the job just as well!"). I cannot imagine some "e-book" kindling in my heart the joy real books bring to me. My experience of books goes beyond reading, so my response to the cybernetic simplification of "the book-reading experience" comprehends much more than merely "reading" the written word. I understand how some are thrilled by economic convenience, but is there not more to life than that?