Are alphas born?

by Andrea Elizabeth

My new thought on western romanticism, mostly born out here in posts on C.S. Lewis’s Allegory of Love, where it is claimed that courtly love began around 1100 a.d. (which seems timely with the schism between east and west, imo), is that it is very tied to alpha male and alpha female ism. I believe most people identify with lead characters in stories of dashing heroes who save beautiful princesses. Even if we do not believe ourselves to be as dashing and beautiful as the people in the stories, we probably hoped that we would be when we were children, and that hope may still be unhappily buried throughout life. I am thinking that this may be a western phenomenon.

In western chivalry, all spoils go to the victor who rules over the kingdom, from where he selects the most worthy lady to co-rule with him. Those who lose in this struggle either die or become meaningless servants, valued for their tributes only. Thus the appeal of western romanticism is to identify yourself as the victorious, special male or worthy, special female, even vicariously. I’m also thinking this plays into the American dream of individual home ownership. “A man’s home is his castle.” There’s really no room for equal community in this scheme. Even supporting American laborers are allowed some measure of this individual alpha identification after hours.

From what little I know of Russia and Russians, where Eastern Orthodoxy has been most largely played out, I do not get the same sense of order. It seems that things were mostly a free for all, even though strong men and women held sway. But it was not because they were the most romantically worthy. They best not go to sleep because anyone could take back from them at any time. Individual conquering men do not seem to have been held in the same savior role. Individually strong characteristics may push harder than others, but I don’t think the whole person was glorified in the same way.

This difference may affect how the east views spiritual fathers and elders. A western convert, or even a western influenced cradle Eastern Orthodox, may bring in the western romantic idea of a spiritual father being their alpha savior to whom they can pledge allegiance, and perhaps through whom they can become the alpha queen equivalent (don’t get too literal about gender here) in their own realm. This idea may need adjustment.

I believe the proper view of a spiritual father is that they can guide one on the path to becoming united to Christ through passing along the three fold path of salvation: purgation, illumination, and theosis. He is a guide who serves, not a romantic savior. I think this confusion also influences how we view veneration of the Saints. To view them as chivalric saviors is idolatry. To see them as guides to the proper worship in and belief about God is to see them as helpers. They should also identify with us as equally created fellow humans, not as special alpha people.

I think this unhealthy romanticism also influences how people, especially women and perhaps some men, see mentoring in general. It should not be about the personal association with an alpha male, it should be about guidance in the truth of how to be with God.

Where does badness come from

by Andrea Elizabeth

“Bad people aren’t born, they’re made.”

“A broken heart can make you do unspeakable things.”

- Once Upon a Time, last night’s episode.

Once your broken heart has somewhat left you alone, then you can start to think about the other people’s hearts you have broken – the children you have let down. Lord have mercy. I think of this in a top down way. Children aren’t responsible for their parents’ hearts, and I don’t think women are responsible for men’s hearts. That doesn’t mean women can’t break men’s hearts and children can’t break their parents’. But the responsibility isn’t theirs. Seems to me parents and men need to look deeper at why it happened backwards like that. Did they do something to cause it?  Was there too much unrealistic expectation in the first place? This is also not to say that men and parents shouldn’t expect anything from their wives and children. Nor that if they don’t get from them what is proper that it is always their own fault. I just think it’s safer to assume that it is. Even if it isn’t, if you love your children or your wife, you don’t want them shouldered with the blame.

death and taxes

by Andrea Elizabeth

It was jolting when after KERA’s sensitive documentary on people’s spiritual journeys after 9/11, they immediately air a show on finance. They had talked about how people got in touch with the importance of love and kindness over materialism, then, money starts floating through the air to promote the next show. Yuck.

I remember being told as a teenager after Christian summer camp that it’s hard to go back to the world after these mountain-top, spiritual experiences. Being confronted with death isn’t exactly a mountain-top experience, but it is a very spiritual one. Our culture tells us that we have to put these things behind us and re-engage with the world’s concerns. Materialism and entertainment seem to be at the top of this list. The family members interviewed on NBC last night demonstrated slightly different degrees of separation from 9/11. What happened 10 years ago was still very vivid to all of them, but one lady in particular seemed to be having a hard time coping. She has remained immersed in the sadness of it.

I wonder if there is a way to not despair and to not get distracted by the world’s concerns at the same time. The Fathers tell us to keep death in our minds at all times. Not a morbid fascination, but an awareness that this present circumstance has more dimensions to it than the one we often get caught up in. Somehow death can illuminate these other dimensions. In remembering those who have passed on, hopefully we can see clearer those who are still with us.

One of the most touching reflections on the KERA show was about the people who jumped out of the windows to escape the fire. How their holding hands with others on the way out was a picture of how humans can connect and find love and support amidst the most desperate circumstances. Another person said their leaving the fire in that manner demonstrated a choice to be placed in the hands of God instead of the fire.

There was also a discussion on religious tolerance. One priest generated controversy by wanting to share the pulpit with other religious leaders. I don’t agree with sharing the pulpit in Church, but I do believe God cares for everyone and that he will probably save, or at least give more people the opportunity to be saved than our exclusive claims can suggest. I think at least Orthodoxy best explains and contextualizes what is more commonly experienced. 9/11 brought people in touch with death in a unique, attention-getting way. People felt more connected with the departed in their efforts to save, rescue, and recover people they cared about more that day than they realized. Now, how to remain in that awareness.

Of course we can’t totally forget about money, and even happier thoughts. Perhaps the re-designers of Ground Zero are finding the right balance. It looks like they are keeping the original craters where the twin towers stood empty with water curtains on the basement walls. People describe those sites as sacred and I agree that it shouldn’t be covered up. But they are building an even taller office building right next to it. This is an act of defiance that I agree with. It seems resurrectional to me. As did the two beams of light where the towers once stood that they displayed at the original memorial service. There is a proper way to think about money in context with love for others, but mostly I think finances are way too talked about. Lord have mercy.

by Andrea Elizabeth

About 1/4 of the way into Bleak House, it seems to me that Charles Dickens is describing Ada as a codependent personality to Richard’s irresponsibility. She is determined to believe in him no matter what and to squelch any misgivings she may have about anything that bothers her. Mr. Jarndyce is continuously hopeful for the best, but is also forthright with Richard about his need to not disappoint those his irresponsibility affects. Esther seems the most worried and open about her concerns while maintaining a close, warm relationship with him and Ada. Since I’ve seen the Gillian Anderson made for TV version, I know that none of these treatments save Richard from himself. Esther probably is least affected by it because she is neither dependent upon Richard, as Ada is, nor responsible for him, as is Mr. Jarndyce. I think I mentioned in another post that Dickens blamed Richard’s shallow education. Mr. Jarndyce comes to blame himself for being too hard on Richard.

I wonder what would have happened though if Ada had exhibited a bit tougher love. I think there is a way to be too hard. Dickens criticizes the stern punishments that didn’t really deter debt. People seemed to have a fatalistic, self-destructive attitude towards it instead of being motivated to change their ways. Dickens probably favors Esther’s non-dependent, yet open and loving manner towards him. Perhaps Ada should have distanced herself until he made healthier choices too.

Enmeshment In Co-dependency

Enmeshment has come to be a popularly used term when speaking about co-dependence. Co-dependence is defined as, being psychologically influenced or controlled by, reliant upon, or needing another person to fulfill one’s own needs or to complete oneself. Originally being co-dependent originated from the recovery movement in Alcoholic Anon. Co-dependents, in that sense were defined as those who were dependent upon or in relationship to or with someone addicted to alcohol or drugs.

Now, generally, people are defined as being co-dependent if they are in a situation where they are psychologically mutally reliant on someone else to meet needs for them that they “should” be able to meet for themselves.

“A co-dependent person is one who has let another person’s behaviour affect him or her, ans who is obsessed with controlling that person’s behaviour” (Melody Beattie, in her book, “Codependent No More”.

What is enmeshment?

“We’re enmeshed when we use an individual for our identity, sense of value, worth, well-being, safety, purpose, and security. Instead of two people present, we become one identity. More simply, enmeshment is present when our sense of wholeness comes from another person.

We hear enmeshment phrases everyday such as, “I’d die without you,” “You’re my everything,” “Without you, I’m nothing,” “I need you,” or “You make me whole.” Many of us find our identity and self-worth by becoming the mate, parent, or friend of a successful and/or prestigious individual, or we find the need to fix and caretake individuals to give us a sense of purpose.

Enmeshment doesn’t allow for individuality, wholeness, personal empowerment, healthy relationships with ourselves or others, and, most importantly, a relationship with our Higher Power.”

 

The fact that I’m discouraged that even Esther’s treatment didn’t fix Richard, and wanting Ada to be tougher, perhaps that I am “obsessed with controlling that person’s behavior”. Hmmm….. But…. Even Charles Dickens has spent a lot of energy analyzing, diagnosing, and possibly alleging guilt in order to affect change. Is that so bad? I’ll admit a certain disillusionment about Mr. Dickens when I read that he ended up leaving his wife and multiple children for another woman in his mid life. So what did all that relationship analysis accomplish for him? Is it ok to leave people to themselves (not isolating, but learning to not try to control them) and just pray as Elder Zacharia says? Can we not possibly presume to know what’s good for others? At least our own kids? To some extent?

Prince Memorial

by Andrea Elizabeth

After coming across this compelling story of Weatherford’s Black School, originally begun in 1877 at Prince Memorial Colored (renamed “Christian” in the 1960′s) Methodist Episcopal Church, I got in my car and spent a while exploring beyond a couple of old dead end streets trying to find the school built in 1917.

Here’s what I found:

I wonder if the wooden part is the original. The brick building was built in 1927. Here’s the entrance to it:

Watch your step as you enter. There be holes in the floor.

The two classrooms are to the right and left of this hallway, which extends to the wooden structure. Here’s the one on the left:

View out the window:

Through the tiny clearing you can see quite a ways as the school sits on top of a hill, hidden away as it is.

And the classroom on the right:

Proceeding toward the back/original wooden structure?

Maybe they’re offices. And out the door,

Finally, where they were made to salute America’s back door,

by Andrea Elizabeth

I look forward, my dear, to our meeting easily, and without constraint on either side. I therefore have to propose that we meet as old friends, and take the past for granted. It will be a relief to you possibly, and to me certainly, and so my love to you.

John Jarndyce (Bleak House, Penguin Classics, p. 80)

J-O-Y, J-O-Y, this is what it means, Jesus first, yourself last, and others in-between – a song from 3rd grade private school

by Andrea Elizabeth

Oscar Wilde’s An Ideal Husband reminds me of a few things. One is how I used to admire self-absorbed people like Cher and Barbra Streisand. Lord Goring proposes, “To love oneself is the beginning of a life-long romance.” In contrast, maybe it was a facebook commenter who said recently, “people who find themselves interesting are usually boring to others,” and vice versa. I haven’t really found that to be true in the past, but their self-absorbed moments are beginning to irritate me at least. Still, ambivalent me has also loved this quote from Joe Vs. the Volcano, “I have no interest in myself. I think about myself, I get bored out of my mind.”

One is supposed to find onesself, as it were, in relation to others. Sometimes though I think one has to reset how one relates to others. What if one has a messiah complex and thinks she can fix everyone’s problems? What if one has a chronic need for approval and affirmation? During this process of resetting oneself, I think one could possibly decide to view herself sort of apophatically. She could step back and be quiet with others. She may observe that others who have chronic needs for approval and affirmation may suffer from a sense of deprivation in their past and mourn with them as a co-sufferer. She has to stop herself from adopting the person though. This can lead to enmeshment and self-absorbed co-dependence. It also involves the blame-game instead of quiet intercession. Elder Zachariah has advocated a much more passive role in other people’s dysfunction. He advocates no intervention besides intercessory prayer, which he ironically has verbalized to people who he thinks confront too much. I tend to think people, particularly one’s children, need a little more interaction than that, but I am trying to learn to give even them more space.

The one who is perfect in love and has reached the summit of detachment knows no distinction between one’s own and another’s, between faithful and unfaithful, between slave and freeman, or indeed between male and female. But…having risen above the tyranny of the passions and looking to the one nature of men he regards all equally and is equally disposed toward all. For in him there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither male nor female, neither slave nor freeman, but Christ is everything and in everything. – St. Maximus the Confessor

Anxiety with freedom

by Andrea Elizabeth

Kierkegaard disagrees with the idea that Adam fell because forbidden fruit is more enticing than permitted fruit. That may be a motivation now, but in Adam’s innocent state, he had no concept of evil or even of death to arouse desire or fear for them. Instead it was freedom that awakened anxiety.

When it is assumed that the prohibition awakens the desire, one acquires knowledge instead of ignorance, and in that case Adam must have had a knowledge of freedom, because the desire was to use it. The explanation is therefore subsequent. The prohibition induces in him anxiety, for the prohibition awakens in him freedom’s possibility.

Post-fall, it has been explained that freedom in Christ means that with grace we can choose righteousness over sin. This has been used to contrast the notion that freedom means the ability to choose to disobey, which is what Kierkegaard is pointing out here in a pre-fall context. More neutral language would be, it is the ability to choose among several possibilities. Gnomically we want the best, as did Adam, but then it becomes a matter of deliberation and inspiration, for better or worse.

What passed by innocence as the nothing of anxiety has now entered into Adam, and here again it is a nothing – the anxious possibility of being able. He has no conception of what he is able to do; otherwise – and this is what usually happens – that which comes late, the difference between good and evil, would have to be presupposed. Only the possibility of being able is present as a higher form of ignorance, as a higher expression of anxiety, because in a higher sense it both is and is not, because in a higher sense he both loves it and flees from it.

After the word of prohibition follows the word of judgment: “You shall certainly die.” Naturally, Adam does not know what it means to die. On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent him from having acquired a notion of the terrifying, for even animals can understand the mimic expression and movement in the voice of a speaker without understanding the word. If the prohibition is regarded as awakening the desire, the punishment must also be regarded as awakening the notion of the deterrent. This, however, will only confuse things. In this case, the terror is simply anxiety. Because Adam has not understood what was spoken, there is nothing but the ambiguity of anxiety. The infinite possibility of being able that was awakened by the prohibition now draws closer, because this possibility points to a possibility as its sequence.

In this way, innocence is brought to its uttermost. In anxiety it is related to the forbidden and to the punishment. Innocence is not guilty, yet there is anxiety as though it were lost. (The Concept of Anxiety, p. 44, 45)

This is a sad thing, but it is better than the idea that God was dangling an enticing carrot in front of Adam. In His love, he knew the  consequence of anxiety, but to love means to make free. Anxious freedom in love is more important than peaceful security in lower ignorance. This anxiety is not the goal however. It takes maturity to push through it and to find peaceful facility with the knowledge of good and evil.

Why I don’t care anymore

by Andrea Elizabeth

(another follow-up)

1. I’m tired of being upset about things.

2. I don’t believe in emotions as much as I used to.

3. I believe in the danger of spoiling people.

4. Being upset on someone else’s behalf can lead them into self-pity. Something I have to fight off with all my being.

If someone has a habit of being motivated by emotions, which are unstable and have to be pumped up by entertainers and salesmen and sensational newsmen, then when that particular motivational factor is removed, they can experience a void. This void can render them cold and detached from things. A passive state. I don’t think this is what is meant by dispassion though. Hopefully it can be a step towards it.

While in this passive state, people who really “care” about their causes can get very angry at you. Then you have to detach yourself from their anger, which distances you from them. This is a very lonely state. Not lonely in the emotional sense, but alone in the absence of the comfortable, what-is-expected-in-relationships sense. Another void. I am exploring the idea that these voids are necessary in order to be filled with something more authentic (pardon the word).

I have had “feelings” when in the presence of certain Orthodox people and objects which I believe exude grace. It is different than feelings of being in love or enjoyment in relationships with people, but not opposite. They are both very pleasurable, but in different ways. It is in the region of my physical heart, where I think the other is more in the area of the head where emotions lay. Being in love can promote a sort of delirium and distraction. Feeling grace can have a focusing element.

But one cannot be motivated by trying to attain even the feeling of grace, though I think it is a gift. Love is being willing to give up one’s gifts. Choosing to pray and go to Church consistently has to be motivated by a desire for correctness rather than for a feeling. I am so convinced of this method of attaining correctness, that I don’t believe in politics and even “normal” human relationships anymore. I probably don’t understand “normal” human relationships. One can be used to relationships being needs-based. I wont go into all the instances of needing help from friends and family, emotionally and physically. This works both ways of course. With that comes the points system, sort of I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine, or the duty system in caring for children,etc. Fallen as we are, this is better than nothing. I have in the last number of years needed however to distance myself from this. It can become like spinning a number of plates in the air. I became exhausted and have removed a number of my plates and spinning poles from the communal queue. I still hear the pleas for help spinning the communal plates, and it is built in us to respond to them, but I’ve had to learn to say no. Back to the void. Since I have six dependent (to different degrees) children and a husband, I still have plenty of plates to juggle, but something in me doesn’t want to promise that when they are self-spinning I will be available to spin other people’s plates again. But what if George and I lose the ability to spin each other’s (he probably spins mine more than vice versa)? Right now I want to have faith that I will be ok without trying to purchase some sort of relationship insurance policy in advance. I want to be at home and at Church with no strings attached. I want to be relied on to stay here and show up there. That is about all I want to muster right now. This is why I like the idea of freedom of will. When you start adding all these necessities and “if you don’t”, I get obstinate. I guess freedom is what I care about. I don’t know if it’s enough, but I’m pretty stubborn about it right now, justifiably or not.

So if I remove the element of need in certain relationships, what can take its place? Hopefully genuine love. I wonder what that is like. Being “in love” is more selfish, I imagine. True love doesn’t have as much to do with personal preference.

the heart of darkness

by Andrea Elizabeth

The coalescence of divine and human activities is thus, for Maximus, a way in which man is deified and God makes Himself present to the world. The root of this exchange is charity, and it is in charity that Maximus finds the real meaning of the Dionysian ascent into darkness. In his Epistle 2 (On Charity) Maximus infers the importance of charity from the principle that “like is known by like.” Much like Gregory of Nyssa, he uses the principle that like is known by like to insist that to know God requires becoming godlike. The divine characteristic he has in mind is, in the first place, freedom from the passions that fragment the psyche; this in turn is acquired only through the kind of love that “joins inclination to nature,” returning the soul to its natural and unified condition. It is precisely such love that manifests God to the world. (Aristotle East and West, p. 199)