Go to Twelve Steps to Becoming Moderately Okay
- Add a comment
- Go to Admitting To Whom It May Concern
No, A Shepard Is Not Necessary
Desirable in some instances on a temporary basis, but not necessary.
The early Christian church quickly (within 200 years) abandoned the teachings of Jesus and adopted principles of Greek and Roman organization. Intercessors, priests, scribes -- these became necessary as natural law passed through a machine of dogma. What was once clear became foggy. What was strictly the province of the individual became the province of the Church. Identities weren't freely given to a community, they were wretched without regard to boundaries of individuality, freedom and social compact.
Later interpretation of church scripture became lensed by this filter, this necessity for outside authority in order to define wholeness; without an invasive force to identify with the Creator of the universe, whole moral systems and dogmas would evaporate rapidly. And if you happened to be the scribe or priest whose whole livelihood was based on a specific interpretation of scripture, you fought like hell, quite literally, to ensure that your world view survived intact. At least while you were alive, anyway.
I can understand how this POV evolved. Philosophically speaking it is because I can know that there is, in fact, an, "other," in my world that I know, for a fact, that I am not alone in the universe. It is because I am not alone in the universe that room for a higher order of beingness becomes possible. Therefore I should strive to make my encounters with my fellows a reflection of deep gratitude for their presence in my awareness. Without them I would be very alone and wholely uncertain as to the nature of the world in which I find myself.
Twist, warp and distort this perspective through a lense of dogma and you arrive at the necessity for supplication to higher authority as practiced in the Catholic Church. Gratitude and humility are quickly replaced by envy and humiliation as the priest, alone, becomes the guarantor of one's personhood, rather than a viable symbolic representation of my relationship with the Creator of the universe. Note also that the priest becomes, "special," in the role as intercessor, rather than just another fellow whose existence is proof that loneliness and separation are delusional states of mind.
I don't see Freud's model of the human psyche, triparte though it may be, as particularly enlightening. All three elements are described as whole entities which operate autonomously. I don't believe that that is the case in temporal reality. The seer stays constant, but that which is seen and how it is seen can change. I don't believe Freud ever mentioned that kind of interplay taking place. Berne may have with transactional analysis, but I don't think Freud, once he was established, wanted to alter the canon of his own teachings and risk putting his entire movement on the chopping block.
As far as who the shepard is, it varies from moment to moment. Chuck Brodsky communicated it beautifully in his song, "We Are Each Other's Angels." One never knows the impact one will have on the lives of those seen, or not seen, in any given moment. And this has been my beef with the Republicans since Reagan. Maybe even back to Nixon. There does not seem to be any room for the kind of interpersonal respect that is required to treat each human being as one's potential messiah, as a messenger with an important message to communicate to me from the Creator because there really isn't any other way to get my attention. Republicans actually believe, these days, anyway, that the market can and will determine the impact others will have on each other. Might, in one form or other, will make right.
I have news for our fundamentalist friends and neighbors: truth requires no might, nor any feeble defense from any human being at any time. Imagine an entity so potent that its complete invulnerability gives It the capacity to appear as wholely vulnerable, if not impotently transparent.
The message is clear: might does not make right, truth does. I don't have to prove a damn thing to anyone if I know something to be true. In time might can appear to be very formidable, but time isn't really real in the first place. What is real is right here, right now, and what we do with that moment. Do we choose to reflect our knowledge of truth and its hegemony, or do I choose to roll the dice and pretend that only space and time are worthy of any pragmatic consideration?
Here's to learning to cease thinking and to become comfortable with knowing. Oh, but if it were just as easy as it is simple.
posted by
Volaar
on November 27, 2004 at 9:55 PM
| link to this | reply
My compliments
to you for how you handle the fundalmental mindset. I like the hole in the head analogy. For this reason, that there are those who cannot set their own boundaries of morality, cannot manage their id through their self-ego, they need to have an external source to set the boundaries for them. They are so full of fear of life and death that they refuse to experience anything but what they are told is "safe." For these, a shepard is necessary.
Peace,
Freerain
posted by
freerain
on November 27, 2004 at 7:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Interesting view, GWB
But I'd like to challenge you to look at the triumvate that you are promoting and ask yourself, why? The human psyche is formulated long before we can recognize the manipulation that is taking place. The Super-ego, identified by some as God, is established by parents commands in association to culture. Children are taught what is "right" and "wrong" from parents who were also taught by parents. . . ad infinitum. When the social culture infuses religious dogma into the definition of "right" and "wrong" you get a really messed up foundation on which you build moral identity. It is the moral identity that defines your actions. If parents instill the moral gaurd of the "super-ego" as a god outside the self, then children (and society) look outside themselves for solutions to the questions of right and wrong as well as justification. To develop natural human morality, that reflection should come from within, from the self that is in balance with and acceptance of human nature. If you build on the foundation that human nature is corrupt, prone to violence, inbued with disregard for the welfare of others, and full of insatiable lust, then you cannot know the truth of human nature. These ideals produce a self identity that gravitates to the extreme behavior that the "super-ego" prohibits. "Thou shalt not. . ." become a statement. The commandment is give because of the belief that if you weren't commanded NOT to do it, you would. Just as the "Thou shalt. . . " is given to you because you would not "naturally" do such a thing.
A "super-ego" that is developed by the self (ego) produces a moral self-identity based on experience and choice, not commandment and fear (all commandments use fear as their support). Your moral ground is founded on what is natural to your humanity. We are first vessels of love, for ourselves and our own life, then for others and the greater world of humanity. Identifying this as our nature, then we will build our choices around the giving and receiving of love. Believing that our nature is not corrupt and in need of an outside source for salvation is the one thing that neither science nor religion has comprehended. By doing this a new society will flourish. Keep up the good work, your writing is great and worth reading!!
Peace,
Freerain
posted by
freerain
on November 27, 2004 at 7:22 PM
| link to this | reply
I love your writing.
I enjoy the way that you perceive the steps to be. Can I make a tiny suggestion. Break you writing into small paragraphs, shorter sentences and smaller words. The internet makes dificult reading even more so
posted by
Make2short
on November 24, 2004 at 6:46 PM
| link to this | reply