Stepping over lines all around

I was in a professional development session today. Out of about 50 people attending, I was one of 3 males. The presenter was female. She was supposed to have been presenting ideas on how to be an academic coach when helping with teachers in need of assistance. I was taken back at what was said at a professional development. It just goes to show what happens when people are not truly educated as to what information they are holding in their hands.

The female presenter first stereotyped males as wanting to give advice when asked a question. I have heard this said before by people outside the counseling profession, but scholars in the communication field know that relying on context rules out stereotyping. So, if a professional counselor or communication scholar were to make the same statement, it would not be generalized information, but specific information to a client or scholarly audience. But, I kept listening instead of tuning out immediately on the stereotyping comment.

Then, the presenter wanted to go into embedding phrases in statements that change how people perceive what is being said. It was pure manipulation doctrine. While it is true that how something is said can make a difference, rerouting a person's thinking to a reduced list of phrases to say a different way misses the point. Then, unbelievably, she crossed the line. She started saying how embedding certain phrasing was getting her husband to act a certain way and that sometimes her husband didn't respond to her pet embedded phrases. She crossed two lines, actually. She brought something personal into a professional setting. That alone is so-o-o unethical.

But then, she crossed into an area she apparently had very little knowledge of (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing [Alexander Pope]). She went from giving tips for communication in a quasi-counseling session to applying those tips to private and casual, even intimate, conversation. That is over the line, over the top, out of bounds, taboo, and otherwise academically sloppy. What is good for counseling sessions should never be applied to natural, casual conversation. The analyses of natural conversation is the subject of a whole body of scholarly work. She probably doesn't know that. But, too late. I was gone.

I left the session and did not return. At my age I don't have to attend a professional development session presented by someone who doesn't even know the tip of the iceberg about ethics or her subject matter. I guess I could chalk this up to a gender difference. But, that is a whole other matter with a body of literature all its own.

Looking for what fits best

There is no better book than Ecclesiastes to show how conservatism works in the interpretation of ancient philosophical books. The following is the text for chapter 4.1-3 of Ecclesiastes.

Then I looked again at all the injustice that goes on in this world. The oppressed were crying, and no one would help them. No one would help them, because their oppressors had power on their side. I envy those who are dead and gone; they are better off than those who are still alive. But better off than either are those who have never been born, who have never seen the injustice that goes on in this world.

Conservatism requires one to take the surface meaning if at all possible. On the surface of the above passage, one is bound to see the pessimism or futility of living. "A person can't fight city hall" is the underlying message of the passage. In the second part of the passage, the dead and unborn are in better states than the living are. Have humans really stooped to such depths of depression as a group. The book is purported to have been written by a renowned philosopher. The first several verses of chapter 1 point this out. Does that mean that the prevailing philosophy of the time was one of bleakness, darkness, and futility? Even if the people didn't feel the way that the philosopher felt, the book that people of the generation wanted to pass on to posterity was filled with pessimism. That does say something about the people.

But there is another way of looking at the book and passages like the one cited so that it makes more sense that people would be proud to pass down such a book for the next generation. But, to do so, one has to throw the surface value out the window. One has to drop conservatism and take a more liberated approach. One needs to assume that literature was not being born as this philosopher was writing. The Iliad and the Odyssey were being written in a different part of the world about this time. The Indus Valley in India was experiencing some of its enlightenment and keeping records during this period. The Sumerians had recorded all kinds of stories a millenium and a half before Ecclesaistes came to the mind of the philosopher. So, people were fully aware of literary devices used in writing. Figurative language had been extant in languages of all kinds of people. Likely, the people of Israel were no different from their neighbors in understanding the elements of writing.

In every known society, injustices have existed. By bringing up the subject, the philosopher is not saying it is new or even overlooked. He makes a "life goes on statement" at the very least or he makes a broad generalization to denote a problem by stereotyping. Authors still do this in the modern era. It's a way get people to identify with a general set of characteristics so that they will stay interested in the book. He simply wanted people to say, "I have felt like this before" so that they would read what came next.

Another way to look at the passage is to capsulize it as an ancient document that reflected the philosophy of an era. Ideas from the book are bound by a context. Only if the ideas represent the universals of history should they be delivered to a future or applied to a past civilization. So, even if it was true that the philosopher was commenting about the harshness of life for most people, to say that he envied unborn or dead people presupposes that there is no afterlife. After the time of Jesus, the largest religion in the world values the afterlife. Thus, the reading is not to be taken univerally.

Yet a third way to look at the passage is to say that the philosopher is using the literary technique of hyperbole—exaggeration for an effect. He overstates the case so that people will see that the point of the passage is actually the opposite of what is being said. People should not feel so hopeless although circumstances could dictate that they do so. But who really wants to envy the dead or the unborn?

Even at the very end of chapter (vs. 16), the philosopher wants to make a point about leaving an imprint on the world.

There may be no limit to the number of people a king rules; when he is gone, no one will be grateful for what he has done. It is useless. It is like chasing the wind.

At face value, the passage is still very negative. Who can hope to be more than a mere speck in the sands of time? Give it up. No one is anybody. Percy Shelley said about the same thing in the beautifully written poem of the early 1800s, Ozymandias. If the great people cannot hope to be remembered, why would the ordinary person think he or she could? The second way takes the above cited verse and says that it has limited effect. The Jews in a little later time period came to understand that their way to be remembered was through their children. Their way to leave an imprint on the world was to perpetuate it through their lifestyle which lived on through their children, their children's children, etc. So, the passage is not universal but reflects only beliefs of a certain time period. The third way to understand the passage allows for one to say the philosopher is making an overstatement. He wants everyone to leave an imprint, but he knows that they will have to work hard to do so.

So, conservatism doesn't always work in interpreting ancient books. Sometimes the message of a book is like looking out at a certain terrain and finding features that don't fit the rest of the landscape. A person knows that there is an explanation for the anomaly of pointed rocks in a desert plain, but one has to go to the trouble of finding the explanation. Tolerance is the watchword I am trying to point to. Interpretation matters because it drives one's belief system. But, allowing for various supported conclusions takes maturity, education, or both.

The after-life place

At the heart of Christianity is the life after this one that is offered by the Teacher who said that he was from this after-life place. There is a monolog of Hamlet from the Shakespearean play by that name that expresses well what thoughts cross the minds of Christians about this after-life place. Hamlet refers to this place as "the undiscovered country," and hints that we would be worse people if this place did not keep us in check.

"For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of disprized love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose bourne
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?"
(Act 3, scene 2)

Hamlet is also thinking that life is so harsh that he would take his own life if he knew that he would not end up in a worse place in "the undiscovered country."

I think both of the aspects reflected in the thinking of Hamlet are true, but there's more to it when thinking of this after-life place. The Great Teacher told one of his twelve followers that he had clearly taught his followers in knowing how to get to this place. But, still people view this part of their belief as if they were a traveler looking at the ostensible parts of Christianity without knowing what is behind the viewable facade. It's as if a traveler were to look at a colorful shelter built in a paradise setting, wondering what the inside looks like. The outside is so inviting that surely the inside is at least as attractive. But no one knows for sure, so it makes the traveler a bit tentative.

It certainly gives us an occasion to reflect when someone close to us goes through the door of the beautiful house where we cannot follow. Our imaginations run wild. Our longings to be with them drive our pensive thoughts. What's on the inside? But, really, the journey is ultimately a solitary one. We have many cheerleaders in our lives, but we still choose for ourselves what to believe in life and how to act on that belief.

So, we arrive at the paradise island house alone with our deeds on our back. In the few moments before opening the door to the inviting house, my mind is going to be spinning, but I hope that I will be saying, "Think of a brilliant, white room. Think of a golden crown..."

Measured Words

Today gave pause to a really rare commodity—honesty. Many conversations don't have that quality or they scratch only the surface of a topic so that honesty comes easily. But, the conversation today was hard in some ways. So much of the time, I have to measure what is said because people anticipate what is going to be said. They think you said something you didn't. Or, people will take what you said and decide they don't like it. Then, they think you shouldn't have said what you did even if it was honest.

So, I look at nature and take a lesson in honesty from nature. Most of the time, what you see is what you get. I guess jungles might be an exception. Of course, if you understand the jungle, it doesn't really hide anything. If nature is rugged, it has a beauty. If nature is soft, hilly, or liquid, it is also beautiful because you can trust what you see. The beauty is a straighforward beauty.

So, I toast those rare moments of complete honesty—words that don't have to be measured.

At the intersection of learning

I had a chance to talk about what makes children learn today. It's really not good teaching although a good teacher can enhance learning. It's not really presenting information in a way that makes someone want to learn the information. It's what has been true since day one. People just like to put masks on learning. And learners are not to blame for being lazy. If someone is exposed to an idea, then it's a matter of how 5 factors combine. Those factors? Opportunity to proceed, personality of learner and teacher, interest in subject, intrinsic motivation to continue, extrinsic motivation to continue. If the combination of factors is negative, learning is minimal. If the combination is positive, learning is maximal. It's that simple no matter how many programs are sold or how many veterans learn their craft well.

Break it down for yourself. Why are you in the profession you are in? Did extrinsic motivation put you where you are? What factors combined for you to learn what you have learned? Interest in the subject? If you could learn in a field that you felt you were good in but that you felt you were cheated out of, then what factors would have to combine? Intrinsic motivation and opportunity to proceed?

So, it's true, no matter what the current wisdom of the professional educators is.

Looking back with no regrets?

I don't know about regrets. The word was coined because people have a tendency to look back on events and say that they wished that things had happened differently or that they wished that they could have said something more, or less, or not at all. Oedipus Rex has a scene at the very end of it where the chorus wants to give a moralistic lesson to the play. The last lines are to the effect that a person should conisder himself or herself fortunate if he or she can look back at the end of his or her life and find no regrets.

We've all had those moments in which we wish we could take something back. But, we all make choices as we go through life. We, most of the time, know what we are saying or doing at the time. But, to have regrets? I know a woman who has made it her goal to live life without regret. Her idea is that you make your decision at the time in the best manner you know how. If a mistake is made, you just ask forgiveness and go on. No regrets.

Maybe it's that simple. But, some tiny, little voice in my head tells me different. Life is challenging at best. In the case of Oedipus, destiny caused his demise. I sure don't believe that. But, is there a middle ground between destiny and always asking forgiveness and going on? I guess that middle line would be remembering what happened wrong and evaluating it so that it doesn't happen again or so that damage can be minimized or both. Self-evaluation is a human trait. Even though evaluation cannot stop something from happening again, it can help in minimizing the chances of something happening to the magnitude it did, again.

So once again, I am in the middle on this one. Maybe that's good, but it is a pattern - stiking the middle ground. Well, it limits regrets.

Believe it

"I can't believe what I just saw."

Such were the words of a colleague of mine today. Of course, it grabbed my attention. I had to ask what it was she saw. After she related the story, I couldn't believe my ears either.
"It's unbelievable." That was a favorite song of mine a few years back. I'm beginning to see a pattern form here. And then, there's the refrain in my mind I am reminded of whenever I decide to write something. A professor once wrote on my paper, "Incomprehensible." I really couldn't believe that comment since I was taking her for graduate credit. Amazing how I had made it that far in school and made other writing of mine comprehensible for other professors.

But most everything we experience goes in one of two categories—believable/unbelievable. The trouble is that the game is a guessing game, a game of perception, a game of illusion. Do I believe an experience because I want to or because something truly happened. Sometimes I look at my own, very real history and shake my head and comment inaudibly, "I can't believe that happened." So, to all who happen onto this blog, once you leave, tell yourself you had an unbelievable experience.

Into perpetuity

Easter is all about breaking the chains of death and seeing how God can tamper with the laws of nature He has set in motion. Easter is a perpetual reminder that the Son of Man visited but has gone ahead of us to prepare a place. Easter takes the symbol of the Great Teacher and lets it stand on coffins letting the world know not to seek the living with the dead.

I want my voice to join the millions of people worldwide both in this era and the great number of past eras in announcing our faith in the words of the apostle Thomas upon realizing that Jesus actually did go through crucifixion and resurrection, "My Lord and my God!" I want my eyes to look beyond this limited life to the world that remains an enigma and peer into Jesus' eyes like Thomas', when he said he didn't know how to get to where Jesus was going, and see Jesus say, "You have been with me; you know the way."

Yes, today is Easter and has been for 2000 years. It's the day that tells the world that the forces of evil will not win in the end. Someone is more powerful than the Controlling One from the Dark Side. The original apostles stared at Jesus' ascension with sheer amazement and wonder as he left the earth. They were silent with the inspirational awe that drives a life through its course come what may. Into perpetuity I will remember the last supper in which Jesus said, "In a little while the world will see me no more, but you will see me; and because I live, you also will live."

Hallelujah!

(The words of Jesus and Thomas have been taken from John 14 and 20).

Touchstone

The word "touchstone" derives from the year 1481 in written records. It was coined to show why silver and gold were so precious. If silver and gold touch a stone (a black silliceous stone such as quartz) the color of the streak left on the black stone would determine the piece's quality. The figurative use of the word was not far behind its coining. In 1533, the idea that something is a standard for everything else to be compared by surfaced. So the meaning still is today.

When it comes to the teachings of the Great Teacher, I think there is one characteristic that pervades his teachings. It is best exemplified in the story from Luke that starts, "There was once a man who was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho when robbers attacked him, stripped him, and beat him up, leaving him half dead." The whole story is in Luke 10.25-37. In the story, a despicable human being helps another human being who badly needed his help. The humans who had status in society saw the same situation, but did not step in to help.

The idea of helping someone whose path has intersected with our own is the touchstone of Christian teaching. The color of the streaks of other characteristics do not have the same quality as acting for those who are in our path and need help. Christianity is but a religion if it exists without the streak that shows the high quality of rendering help. The saying is true, "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." That's not in the Master's teachings, but it is a modern paraphrase of the story found in Luke. I hope my next 30 years reflect the touchstone of the Teacher's words.

Living in the third world

I go to work everyday in a very different environment from the man pictured. This is his shop in a Micronesian island. A few trappings of the modern world are there—car, plastic basket, roof of aluminum, swim trunks, glasses. He is a wood carver. He is holding a boat that he has made for the occasional tourist that drops by. He does other carpentry work because carpentry is his main trade.

Even though this man lives in a third world country, he has a little smattering of a civilization from beyond him. I tend to look on him with a certain amount of pity because of his third world status. But, he seems satisfied enough.

This gets me thinking about being trapped in this dimension of my life's time continuum. I'm relatively satisfied. I know there is another world beyond me, but it's beyond me. I know that others have preceded me there. But, I still practice my daily rituals in the world in which I live even though I see some of the trappings of the next world around me now. I don't have a great longing to leave any more than the man above is longing to leave. I just understand that one day, I will be forced to leave my third world and go to a grander civilization.

Ocean inspiration

There is something about staring at the ocean. It just goes on forever with a land break every now and then. It represents the timeless continuum humans are caught up in. Human species go back 3 million years. Our own species seem to have been around at least half of that time.

That being true, one has to consider that language also has to have been around that long. Communication had to have happened in order for the species to stay alive. So, when archaeologists find cave paintings dating back 35,000 years, those paintings are believable and instructive. When archaeologists find cuneiform tablets with writing dating to 3000-3500 BCE, then we also know that those tablets represent years and years and years for the writing to have developmentally reached that point. Humans have been around a really long time, as has human writing.

Staring at an ocean can enhance one's comprehension of the distant past because it too stretches on forever, inspiring one to think of what has happened on its watery surface for eons. The ocean makes one curious.

And from this curiosity, I allow myself to think of the world's origins and human origins. It makes me know that the first 11 chapters of Genesis is something recent. Although traces from human origins are in the text, the whole story is not—most of the story is not. It seems to have been condensed. Thousands and thousands and thousands of years of human activity have been made into story form. I choose to think the story is in allegorical form rather than literal form because too many years passed before the story was perpetuated in writing.

A little view of the ocean inspires such thoughts and much, much more. I keep my ocean pictures around for just such moments.