Charter for Compassion
When I wrote this post last week, I really struggled with it and in part I am still struggling with it. Thoughts are always a work in progress, I strive to allow these to evolve over time, and in the process can come up with a lot of muddle. Earlier I was reading some more poems (Mental Cases, Disabled, Recalling War, War Books, and two literary pieces My Cousin Christopher and Horrors at Dawn), and still mentally revising.
A healthy sense of historical perspective aside, and leaving history where it is (events of the past have happened nothing can be changed, sure learn from but then put it away with respect); in writing that entry I had issues (a) the parameters of my own identity (that's for another day) and (b) how to link to the present. Conflict is very much still with us, usually in the form of economics (oil) or religion, and for this the post felt disjointed. The Pandora's box that comes with the past, has happened; its only the future where healing can take place and where hope exists.
The capacity for human greed is probably limitless, the flip side of the coin being compassion through which we can show kindness. Traditionally, religion has taught compassion, yet it is this very vehicle that has misconstrued to cause abuse.
Today often any public association or perception with religion, is usually around it causes trouble, encourages war and even seeks to exclude or judge people. The common denominator often the desire to control and subsequently as an agent of oppression (even if inadvertently). With a fundamentalist or literal stance only getting heard, many people - and rightly so - want to push religion right away; it creates barriers between people. In the process causing more suffering, against original intention.
There are other oppressive factors that can appear, for example when there's no separation of religion and state. A separation, in principle I very much support, but I don't think is ever fully achieved. Here we get into the realm of jurisprudence, where there's always a relationship between law and morality. This throws in its own issues, including the sometimes lack of fluidity between morals and religion, and how the majority of a jurisdiction influences morals. This starts to become problematic, however I have no desire for this to be a legal post, so I'm leaving that paragraph right there.
In terms of my own beliefs, this is deeply personal, I rarely - if ever - talk about to anyone. For this reason, people may be taken aback, because I don't wear anything on my sleeve. Its no-one else's concern, not there to be preached; ultimately its nothing more than a personal inward journey, a relationship with consciousness and how you live your life. Within this, you can seek external learned pointers, but that is guidance for your internal existence and humility towards others. And sure, you're going to make mistakes. Huge ones at that.
The Charter for Compassion is a collaborative project, seeking out stories of compassion to inspire people to think differently about religion. It has a promotional video, and its worth a look. This version is subtitled:
Compassion is probably one of the inherent paths to happiness, and certainly something the world could do with right now. For this, I have to give this idea kudos. My small gripe with the site, and anyone who knows me well enough will have seen my rebellion against being boxed or classified. (Classification to give us frames of reference to understand our and others place in the world, is for another day).
I'm going to break out a bit here, and pen some thoughts. I think there's strands of truths we can learn from all religions. (By strands I mean an underlying message of intent not some literal interpretation that can be used to bash the nearest person over the head or fulfill an agenda). Likewise, all religious messages are imperfect, because they were penned by humans (even if you want to say they are messages from a God). We're imperfect creatures or as a scientist would say, not a perfect copy. Also, some consideration needs to be given to evolution, our understanding of the life is constantly being built upon; those penned thoughts from some Millennia ago need to evolve too.
Ultimately, different belief systems are nothing more than different expressions of a higher power (that's the beauty of humanity and all life with it, it expresses in many different ways whether it be language or a relationship with your soul); its a shame when these expressions are used against each other. That does not mean to say, there's elements of certain belief systems I could not subscribe to, because they do not resonate with me. Some people might say you can't go cherry picking, but I'll disagree.
History matters too, and the historical decisions made by your ancestors do influence us.
I'm Welsh, in other words descended from Celtic peoples, thus my earlier ancestors were Druids. Druids still form a symbolic role in Welsh culture today, cf. the Eisteddfod right alongside a Christian context. In the second century, Wales switched to Christianity because the Romans invaded and with it importing the Roman Catholic faith. Fast forward to the 16th century, because Henry VIII wanted to knock up Anne Boleyn and the Vatican wouldn't play ball; we had the dissolution of the monasteries and Catholics were driven underground. With most of Wales, my ancestors then became Church in Wales, which is how I was brought up.
To add to this, many people in Wales abandoned the church in the 19th century to subscribe to nonconformity (a rebellion against state control over religion); my maternal line followed this path. Traditionally within Welsh culture, the religion of a family usually follows the upbringing of the mother, i.e. the husband switched to whatever denomination if required. My maternal grandmother was Methodist, but my maternal grandfather wouldn't leave the Church in Wales (probably because of family snobbery, although their marriage was Methodist). Their children, and my mother, was brought up Church in Wales.
Whilst people are capable and do, make independent decisions as adults, for many we often don't stray too far from the beliefs of our parents. It offers a realm of familiarity and with it culture. To reject is akin to asking you to divorce (betray?) your gene pool before you. It is worth acknowledging, my religious upbringing was decided by (a) the fact my grandfather was stubborn, (b) the fact that Henry VIII wanted to have sex with someone and create some heir, (c) the Roman invasion. I could very well have been brought up Druid, that's how insane our religious identity can be, its all an accident.
For this reason alone, I will dig my heels right into the ground. I have to wonder why people are so hellbent on focusing on difference and intolerance of the other, when truth of the matter their religious identity was possibly determined just by the roll of a dice.
Comments
People focus difference and intolerance because of fear. They fear what they cannot control, identify or label.
Less charitably, they control, idneityf and label, for their own ends. That is, to push their own view of how things should be.
Personally, I think people are actually incapable [or unwilling] to have a relationship with a person [human being] because it means opening themselves up, and being receptive to the other person in a more honest way than a label would allow.
Labels allow some distance to be placed bewteen people. Allowing them to feel safer in their dealings.
Last but not least, reading the fallout from the recent Proposition 8 vote in California, USA, people don;t want to actually ahve to THINK. It means too much hard work. Labels and compartmentalistion means never having to think, but nodding yoru dumb fucked mind up and down in agreement!
Posted by: Tony Nicholas | November 17, 2008 9:16 PM
Or nodding your head sideways with the same dumb fucked expression, when you don't want to face the consequences of your actions.
Posted by: Tony Nicholas | November 17, 2008 9:19 PM
Tony - fear, am with you. We all fall for it. This raises its head, even unintentionally.
I read something yesterday. Shyness can be described as a form of arrogance (because of your belief self importance), and with it lack of reaching out to others. Within this lack of reaching out, you are forgetting that other people are going through suffering. Ultimately, you get one life - be bold.
The hunger for 'power', and its subsequent abuse, I'm not sure is entirely driven by fear. Greed comes to mind. Humans are greedy, society encourages it.
Also, I think people confuse *pleasure* and *happiness* as being one of the same (and to acquire the former - you need greed?)
Everyone desires to be happy, they may wrongly assume the gateway to happiness is via pleasure. I'm not advocating abstinence here (simple pleasure is a need) but isn't the root of living is around *balance*. Without which (via excess or not enough of something), then we become miserable.
We live in a society that places the concept of the individual at the centre. We think we are entitled to unlimitless wants and our own universe can 'collapse' when this is not fulfilled. Implications on natural resources aside; it doesn't encourage us to reach out to others, open up and subsequently show compassion. Without which, we miss out on the very basic human experience, and people wonder why they aren't happy.
Despite what I have said in the post above, I can see how much religion is used as a tool to control people. This post is worth a read to get that point across.
Re Prop 8, I have a post sitting in my drafts folder that I wrote the day after the election. Something along the lines of CA thanks for spoiling the party and deserving a slap. And that's perfectly arrogant of me, (a) telling another country what to do ... just some rights transcend borders, (b) I know better than to label all Californians with the same brush, I have some great friends living there.
CA is a huge state. This map - from my CA geography, I understand the support for this prop comes from rural areas (Sacramento, the capital, the glaring exception). SF, LA, Silicon Valley, etc have their head screwed on. I think I have that right.
I did see some other breakdown of demographics how people voted via Twitter (I need to find the link).
In my draft post I went off at a tangent re the relationship between law and the *perceived* morality of the majority. Whilst Prop 8 not a judicial context, the basic issues are still there, re law / morality relationship.
Rehash of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Plessey v. Ferguson (1896) - both US cases and permitted slavery because it was acceptable to the morals of the majority at that time.
(UK law people, R. v. Brown (1993), R v. Wilson (1996) - both around S&M, with sexual orientation treated differently. Such a judgment is difficult to comprehend 15 years later).
One of the reasons the law is needed in the first place is to protect minority groups (because people don't get it / discriminate), yet here you're still calling on the majority to decide the law which is going to protect them against discrimination (from them). Not quite the case here, but drift is there. Sure, using the law for such purposes takes somewhat of a paternalistic stance.
The week before the US elections, someonet said to me ... I wish citizens could directly vote on issues (rather than just assign collective power to parliamentary representatives. Funnily, I used prop 8 / CA as an example of the implications of placing too much power into every individual (they don't have time to learn about the issues - too busy living, don't get the perspective, etc). In CA alone there was 12 propositions (I think I got that right), does every Californian *really* have time to swot up on all those issues and form a learned opinion? Do people really get the implications, if you have no ownership of the issues? Aren't they too busy working 24/7, to pay off their ridiculous mortgage / pay high taxes because the state budget has gotten way out of control?
The referendum style voting (as we call it in Europe), I think has historical roots (backlash against power).
I think this may have severe implications if this is taken to the the Supreme Court, and will have much wider implications beyond the state of CA.
See Lessig and danah for more thoughts. However I can't help knowing what burn out that comes with any campaigning, and no-one should have to run a marathon to have to enforce basic rights.
Posted by: Alison | November 17, 2008 11:55 PM
Tony - I just read this.
Posted by: Alison | November 18, 2008 12:18 AM
Gee Alison..reading yr links and then following on more links, all I can think of is the fall out to the deaf & eugenics issue that exploded all over the net last Xmas..... my head is gonna explode!
Posted by: Tony Nicholas | November 19, 2008 12:08 AM
Have you seen this Alison?
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/do-you-determine-your-beliefs-or-do-your-beliefs-determine-you-part-two.html
Posted by: Tony Nicholas | November 19, 2008 12:14 AM
@Tony - now you're getting warmer re some ideas that I've had recently.
Link, yes I skimmed. Ultimately I think the title of that blog post is a moot point. Its very easy to drive ourselves insane with our thoughts, we can think ourselves to death asking questions and answers we can never be sure of. At a guess, the truth possibly lies on some mid ground - there's some truths in most schools of thought - and will differ from person to person. Ultimately, an intellectual conclusion would just support agnostic fundamentalism, due to lack of proof. Some philosopher will disagree with me there and slam me for my lack of logic or reasoned argument.
There's zero point in head bashing ourselves. We're on earth, our existence is valid, just be. We're different expressions, etc. cf. language argument parallel above.
Thought of the day: consciousness. If your awake consciousness is one state of being, your consciousness when you dream is another. What is the level of consciousness that *observes* your dreams and is able to transport this observation into your awake consciousness?
I have more thoughts, but I don't want to be the very thing that I'm advocating not to do above. It can be no more than a personal journey.
Posted by: Alison | November 19, 2008 10:15 PM
I wish I could have recorded my shrink sessions so far... there's stuff in there I would like to put in writing. To record the sessions would be to interrupt their flow.
However, the path I am on [as I've always wanted] but don't know if I will succeed, is to learn how to just be.
Not only does that take work. It also takes courage. And it is pretty hard ot be oneself in a world [and people] that is so vested in projecting it's own ideas on to you.
How the hell do you defend yourself against all these projections and expectations without dehumansing oneself?????
That's what I am trying to learn at the moment!
Posted by: Tony Nicholas | November 20, 2008 1:53 AM
Tony - make notes after? Would give you a chance to build on? Re fear, be easy on yourself. You are not going to miraculously be whatever you aspire to be overnight. Being realistic, most of us won't even get there in our lifetimes. You can only keep chipping at it.
Posted by: Alison | November 22, 2008 8:06 PM