A Wild and Crazy Wisdom Kinda Guy

There are many explanations as to why profits throughout the ages behave in mysterious ways, not least among them is the idea they have been divinely inspired and are attempting to convey a truth that resides outside our normal paradigm of understanding.

In some traditions, this unusual behavior is called “crazy wisdom.”  One Buddhist master, Chogyam Trungpa,  tried to describe crazy wisdom this way: “So that nonhesitating light reflects choicelessly all the time; it shines brilliantly and constantly on things. Craziness means not discriminating and being without cowardice and paranoia. "Should I shine on this object, even though this other object is facing towards me?"—not at all.”

The description by author Tom Robbins  is a little easier to follow. He described crazy wisdom as the “deliberate opposite of conventional wisdom.” Robbins, a student of Zen Buddhism, went on to say, “[C]razy wisdom is a philosophical worldview that recommends swimming against the tide, cheerfully seizing the short end of the stick, embracing insecurity, honoring paradox, courting the unexpected, celebrating the unfamiliar, shunning each and every orthodoxy, volunteering for those tasks nobody else wants or dares to do, and perhaps above all else, breaking taboos in order to destroy their power.” (ShamBhala Sun, 2008).

We learn that Ezekiel ate the scroll upon which the words of God were written, he slept on his side for many moons, went about naked, refused to mourn is dead wife, remained silent until God spoke to him, gave himself a bad haircut, and on and on. Some of these acts are told in chapters 3, 4 and 5.

As with many messengers, Ezekiel’s words from God may have been adjusted for his audience. As such, he may have been employing his own form of crazy wisdom in an attempt to impart more vociferously the points he was trying to make.

Ezekiel 23 is particularly full of salacious language that both shocks and stirs the conscience. I particularly like this passage from 39:17-20: “As for you, mortal, thus says the Lord God: Speak to the birds of every kind and to all the wild animals: Assemble and come, gather from all around to the sacrificial feast that I am preparing for you, a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel, and you shall eat flesh and drink blood. You shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth--of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bulls, all of them fatlings of Bashan. You shall eat fat until you are filled, and drink blood until you are drunk, at the sacrificial feast that I am preparing for you. And you shall be filled at my table with horses and charioteers,g with warriors and all kinds of soldiers, says the Lord God.”

The overall goal of crazy wisdom is transformation and transcendence -- to break the spirit free and enlarge the soul so that it may contain a greater truth. Crazy wisdom teachers try to shock people into spontaneous enlightenment. In the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, crazy wisdom is another way of saying “skillful means.”

Some examples drawn from Tibetan siddhas include eating dung, drinking from skulls, sleeping naked in the snow, and engaging in lewd public sex. Tibetan Buddhist hero Milarapa famously lived many years without clothes. One of the most famous examples is the Zen Master who hits his meditating student with a stick, thereby triggering instant enlightenment.

One story from Sufism holds that a teacher told a long-suffering student that God was a carrot, then laughed. When the man returned many years later for clarification, the teacher said God was not a carrot but a raddish, then laughed again. One day it occurred to the student what the teacher was trying to say: God cannot be defined.  The beauty of this teaching strategy is that enlightened thinking radiates from within rather than being imposed from the outside.

So, as unstable as some of the profits, most notably Ezekiel, appear to be, they belong to a long tradition of crazy wisdom that is both reveared and misunderstood worldwide.

The Case for God by Karen Armstrong

I'm just starting The Case for God by Karen Armstrong. This is a brand new book (released Sept 22 in multiple formats) that is receiving quite a bit of attention. Although only a few pages into it, the author appears to have done a great job capturing many of the fascinating historic and contemporary dynamics behind spirituality in general and monotheism in particular. Much of her conversation regards notions of God during the periods we are studying in class, that is the God of the Hebrew Bible. She seems to be particularly interested in finding "meaning" through spirituality.

Although a scholar, she does express her unique perspective on theological history. As such, there is a risk her ideas will stand in opposition to things we learn in class. That said, I'm willing to chance it. At 432 pages, it's a tomb. I've opted for the audio version in the author's own voice. Good bedtime "reading."

Here is a link to a great interview with Armstrong by the inimitable Terry Gross of Fresh Air fame: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112968197

The Case for God

Oh, Treacherous Men

I am fascinated by the way the way the Hebrew Bible correlates the relationship between God and the Jews with the relationship between a man and a woman. Setting aside the fact God often exhibits female qualities, it usually is depicted as a stern but loving father figure. At the same time, the Jews often are depicted as the subordinate females who only get it right half the time and often are beaten up by God for no apparently good reason. Even the “strong” women in the Hebrew Bible find themselves as second-class citizens, as in Ruth.

On the positive side there is Song of Solomon, which, if it is indeed about the relationship between God and his people, makes the relationship sound salaciously attractive.

The male-female relationship in Hosea curiously parallels the relationship between God and the Jews in Isaiah in that the masculine character suddenly turns from abusive to forgiving in a seemingly capricious manner.

Isaiah starts by lambasting Judah with statements like:

Instead of perfume there will be a stench;

and instead of a sash, a rope;

and instead of well-set hair, baldness;

and instead of a rich robe, a binding of sackcloth;

instead of beauty, shame.

Then, Chapter 4 starts with one very brief request that God take away the disgrace he, himself, had heaped upon them:

Seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying,

"We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes;

just let us be called by your name;

take away our disgrace.”

And the reply is immediately affirmative:

On that day the branch of the LORD shall be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land shall be the pride and glory of the survivors of Israel.

In Hosea, which ostensibly is about the relationship between a man and a woman, there is this odd and transition between Verses 13 and 14 in Chapter 2. Between these two verses the man moves from disdaining his whore of a wife to being forgiving and loving:

I will punish her for the festival days of the Baals,

when she offered incense to them

and decked herself with her ring and jewelry,

and went after her lovers,

and forgot me, says the LORD.

Therefore, I will now allure her,

and bring her into the wilderness,

and speak tenderly to her.

The fact he can be a cruel disciplinarian one moment and a lover the next is disconcerting. He doesn’t sound like good husband material to me.

Daniel in Many Parts

Perhaps it is just me, but the last time I saw anything like the visions described in Daniel starting in Chapter 7, I was on hallucinogens.  [Ah, yes, back in the day.]  Perhaps the extreme and seemingly disjointed nature of these images can be ascribed to the influence of devine prophecy as opposed to REM or LSD. In the movie Donnie Darko (2001), similarly extreme visions appear before the protagonist as part of his ability to foresee the future.

I was disappointed in the way Bible Knowledge Commentary (BKC) by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck handled the book of Daniel. As a product of Dallas Seminary Faculty, I hoped to find a healthy and academic alternative to Coogan as a vehicle for bringing alternative perspectives to our classroom discussion on the Old Testament. Unfortunately, judging from the conclusions this book draws regarding Daniel, I don't believe I can use it as a resource. My take-away message from this experience was: Many people to whom we look for guidance (ministers, parents, teachers) are willing to spin facts to meet their own pre-conceived notions, and that their authoritative and beautiful words pose a genuine threat to true understanding.

In particular, BKC argues that the entire book of Daniel was written by one person, namely Daniel himself. It also argues that the book was written in the sixth century, around the time of some events in Daniel, as opposed to the second century, when other events in Daniel are addressed in the form of prophecy.

BKC accurately observes that the book of Daniel was originally written in two languages, Hebrew and Aramaic. This fact alone does not substantiate the notion Daniel was written by multiple authors. Many people living in this part of the world spoke both Hebrew and Aramaic throughout the time the book of Daniel may have been written. Occasional words in Greek and Latin can be attributed to the influence of commerce in the sixth century, BKC says. BKC contends the author, Daniel, used different languages to target different audiences: the part dealing with God's prophecy for the Gentiles in Aramaic and the part dealing with the effect of the Gentiles on Israel in Hebrew.

BKC also accurately observes that, regarding literary style, part of Daniel involves aspects of his life while another part deals with his revelations. The fact two literary styles are employed does not in itself argue for multiple authors, BKC contends. They note that the book of Job was written in two entirely different styles: prose and poetry. This observation ignores the fact part is written in first person and part in third person.

Stepping a bit out on a limb, BKC argues that both halves of Daniel contain extremely similar references to the same items, including references to dreams and visions, God's eternal kingdom, God's eternal dominion and God as the most high. The fact is, similar turns of phrase are found throughout the Bible in both new and old Testaments, and yet we do not suppose the entire Bible was written by one person.

The arguments put forth in BKC really break down when the authors say Daniel must have been written in the sixth century BCE as opposed to the third century BCE. BKC notes that Daniel is referred to many times as the recipient of God's revelation and that he, himself, participated in many of the historical events recorded in the book. Unfortunately, BKC references the book of Matthew from the New Testament to substantiate Daniel's credentials. As we know, the New Testament was written several centuries later and I do not believe can be used as a reliable reference regarding the Old Testament. BKC contends that Daniel's familiarity with the individuals spoken of in the book, and with the historical events and customs mentioned, necessitates sixth century date for the book. The “minute details included in the book could hardly have been retained accurately by oral tradition for some 400 years, as suggested by those who postulate a late date for the book,” BKC says. The fact is, many of the sixth century "facts" referenced in Daniel are inaccurate. Some of these inaccuracies include who was king of Judah during the fall of Jerusalem, when did Jerusalem fall to Nebuchadnezzar, how many kings reigned in Babylon during the Exile, who was the last king of Babylon, and who conquered Babylon. (Daniel in the Debunker's Den" by Frank R. Zindler.

BKC goes on to make an interesting variety of other arguments regarding the date and authorship of the book of Daniel but their compilation of evidence simply doesn’t hold up against facts to the contrary.

Only Children and The Bible

[I find Bible stories routinely reflected in my own life. The following entry attempts to find synergy between Old Testament attitudes toward only children and some contemporary psychological perspectives on the issue. This is not a term paper, just a blog, so please don't beat me up too badly if the whole thing doesn't hold together all that well.]

I wanted to write today on what it is to ask the "right questions” when studying passages in the Hebrew Bible. When I woke up this morning, however, I was preoccupied with the question of what it is to be an only child.
The fact is, the status of being an only child can be difficult. This reality is reflected in the Bible. For example, in the Hebrew Bible, being an only child is considered somewhat of a curse. In Jeremiah 6:26 the Bible says: “O my poor people, but on sackcloth, and roll in ashes; making morning as for an only child, most bitter lamentation: for suddenly the destroyer will come upon us.” In Zachariah 12:10: “And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that, when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.” Similarly, in Amo 8:10 the Bible says: “I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; I will bring sackcloth on all loins, and baldness on every head; I will make it like the morning for an only son, and the end of it like a bitter day.”
The status of being unique and dear to one’s parents also makes one likely to die. In Judges 11:34 the Bible says: “Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with Tim browse and with dancing. She was his only child; he who had no son or daughter accept her.” She soon became fodder for a sacrifice. Likewise in Genesis 22:2 the Bible says: “He said, ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’”
From these passages we can divine that in the context of ancient Israeli society, both having only child is a curse. [It is not clear whether being an only child also was considered a punishment.] Apparently the only thing worse than having one child is to not have any. Sad passages about barren women are found in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Judges, and Samuel, Psalms, Proverbs, Hosea, and Isaiah.
There are many historic reasons to wish for multiple children—a high mortality rate and the need for children as labor come to mind. In addition to biological and economic concerns, moral, social and even psychological issues influence the desire by parents to have multiple children, or for children to have brothers and sisters. The Bible is full of admonitions to “multiply,” as seen in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Chronicles, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Nahum.
In so-called advanced societies, historic imperatives to be “fruitful” hold increasingly less sway. In their absence, some have taken up psycho-social dynamics to find reasons that having only one child is bad.
Turn-of-the-century American psychologist G. Stanley Hall, for example, said, “Being an only child is a disease in itself.” Even more recent attitudes are not any more friendly. The following list of stereotypic qualities of only children was adapted from Parent Education Leader’s Manual (1978) by Don Dinkmeyer, Gary D. McKay and Don Dinkmeyer Jr.: pampered and spoiled; feel incompetent because adults are more capable; center of attention; self-centered; relies on service from others rather than own efforts; feels unfairly treated when doesn't get own way; may refuse to cooperate; plays "divide and conquer" to get own way; pleases others only when wants to; may have striving characteristics of oldest and inadequacy feelings and demands of youngest.
Austrian psychiatrist Alfred Adler, also speaking from almost a century ago, said that because only children do not need to compete for the attention of their parents, they are more prone to develop interpersonal difficulties.
Almost as an after-thought, researchers toss in moderately approving qualities such as: relates better with adults than peers; solve problems by themselves; and likely to be responsible.
Fortunately, not all researchers have such marginally qualified opinions of only children. For example, Fancis Galton, a polymath and cousin of Charles Darwin, published English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture in 1874. In this book he revealed that 48 percent of the Fellows of the Royal Society members who responded to his survey were either first born or only sons, making them by far the largest block. The implication here was that first born and only sons are typically more intelligent than your average bear, so to speak.
In Parenting an Only Child (2001), Susan Newman says many of the negative characteristics ascribed to only children are not true. "People articulate that only children are spoiled, they're aggressive, they're bossy, they're lonely, they're maladjusted,” she says. In fact, “[H]undreds and hundreds of research studies that show that only children are no different from their peers." (“The Only Child Myth,” Juju Chang and Sara Holmberg, ABC News, 2007).
Likewise, a 1987 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Marriage and the Family by D.F. Polit and T. Falbo, determined that out of 141 surveys, only children were found to be substantively comparable to children with brothers and sisters. One notable finding was that only children appeared to have greater motivation to succeed. A 1988 survey by the same researchers (“The Intellectual Achievement of Only Children, Journal of Biosocial Science), showed that only children along with first-born children enjoy elevated intelligence.
Newman, referencing the Resource Dilution Model, said one-to-one parental attention may contribute to this elevated IQ. Such a theory also is posited in a 2001 article by D.B. Downey titled “Number of Siblings and Intellectual Development: The Resource Dilution Explanation” and published in American Psychologist.
Interestingly, the Confluence Model, as articulated in 1975 in “Birth Order and Intellectual Development” by R.B. Zajonc and published in Psychological Review, contends that only children do not enjoy an IQ advantage because they do not benefit from having to care for siblings.
The ambiguity over what are and what are not typical personality characteristics of only children is exemplified my life. I exhibit many of the stereotypic qualities ascribed to eldest children, youngest children, middle children, and only children.
I recognize and honor the historic biological, economic and religious value of large families. I also admit there may be some truth behind the “typical” negative personality characteristics of only children. I do not, however, believe they merit more than hypothetical conjecture when it comes to analyzing the personal and social dynamics of a particular individual. I, for one, count myself as unique and subtly resent attempts to classify my personality prior to examination. Most importantly, I do not want anyone “mourning” over me.

Enjoyable Paper Assignment for ISP 417 [not blog assignment]

[This is not a current Blog posting for the Literature of Ancient Israel (ISP 417). Rather, this is a posting of the first class assignment titled "Enjoyable Paper."]

Enjoyable Paper
by
David Bottorff
IPS 417: The Literature of Ancient Israel

“Look, there, in your own shadow. See the glint? That, my friend, is gold. Go ahead, reach down and take it. It’s yours.”

By bending to his knee as told the young man allowed the sun to shine where seconds before there was darkness. And now, in the light he could see not just gold but a universe of treasure.

“Be open to the miracle, my friend. Let the light shine where you fear to go. Let the light shine where you think there is nothing. Lift away the heavy rock of your daily life and claim the riches to which you are heir.”

We are born into a wave of expectations and lessons administered by family, teachers, media, lovers, and friends. Then, one day, many of us wake up in a cold sweat, hard-pressed to find a single aspect of our lives – the car and house, the spouse and drinking buddies, the job and respect, the 2.5 kids – that creates little more than additional stress. Is it too much to get a little SERENITY NOW! [1]

Many great ideas have been put forth to help us understand the way we view life. Carl Jung leveraged the power of archetype. In the male psyche we often recognize the Lover, Magician, King, and Warrior.[2] Mankind Project – the modern face of the Men’s Movement started roughly 30 years ago by Robert Bly[3] and others – leverages the illusionary powers of archetypes to help men find purpose in the world. This program changed me forever.

If fictions like the King archetype can be used to put me on a new path, what about such larger-than-life historical figures as Buddha or Mohammad? I feel the Warrior spirit when I stand for my values, the Rabbit spirit when I flee danger, and the spirit of the Bear when I fight. If I open my mind, maybe I can feel the spirit of Jesus as Christ when I exercise compassion or even God her self when I manifest creativity and love.

Dubious at first, maybe I can learn from the Bible’s cast of colorful characters.

---

[1] Seinfeld (10-9-1997). The Serenity Now. New York, NY: NBC

[2] Robert Moore, Douglas Gillette (1991). King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

[3] Robert Bly (1990). Iron John: A Book About Men. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.

Orientation, Disorientation, Reorientation: Life’s Recurrent Theme in the Psalms

Walter Brueggeman in The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary identified a pattern of orientation, disorientation and reorientation in the Psalms. These three seasons of faith reflect the geography of mankind’s search for meaning in life. “[O]ur life of faith consists in moving with God in terms of being securely oriented, (b) being painfully disoriented, and (c) being surprisingly reoriented,” Brueggeman said.

Dennis Ford argues in The Search for Meaning: A Short History that humans are part animal and part symbol. While our animal instincts are moderated through biology and environment, our symbolic aspect is moderated by either culture’s symbols and rituals, or by an internal sense of “meaning.” When the cultural supports begin to crumble, as may be the case with birth, death or the Holocaust, we are forced to ask the child-like yet monumental question “Why?” The answer is often entails metaphysical and/or transpersonal answers.

Often, the first answer to whether there is purpose or meaning to life, i.e., “Why do bad things happen to good people?” is that life is inherently meaningless. The following statement by Richard Tarnas, a cultural historian and professor of philosophy and psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies, as quoted by Ford, is both relevant and hilarious:

Our psychological and spiritual predispositions are absurdly at variance with the world revealed by our scientific method. We seem to receive two messages from our existential situation: on the one hand, strive, give oneself to the quest for meaning and spiritual fulfillment; but, on the other hand, know that the universe, of whose substance we are derived, is entirely indifferent to that quest, soulless in character, and nullifying in its effects. We are at once aroused and crushed. For inexplicably, absurdly, the cosmos is inhuman, yet we are not. The situation is profoundly unintelligible.

The answer of “meaninglessness” is unacceptable, Ford argues. Even Leonid Tolstoy, deeply troubled by the question of meaning, came to believe in a “Truth behind the truth of meaninglessness,” Ford said. Once the question of why is asked, one cannot return to quiet denial, he says. A solution, or at least a search, must follow. In time, whose who seek meaning will either find answers or reach a comforting realization that the question is enigmatic and will remain part of the great mystery of life.

The so-called “mid-life crisis” provides an interesting example of the orientation, disorientation and reorientation pattern as it pertains to the search for meaning. From childhood through adulthood, many people allow themselves to be guided by culture’s rituals and symbols. This guidance can come from many sources, including the church and entertainment media. As was the case with Tolstoy, many of us wake up one day with the dread realization that very little in our lives has “meaning.”

The inevitable search for an answer to the question “Why?” ensues, and we either struggle with the question until our dying day or we find comfort in one or another philosophical or religious system.

One “ultimately futile” answer is to return to our primary instincts, because if meaninglessness is not the problem, perhaps self-consciousness is, Ford says. The following statement by Ford is particularly salient:

Alcoholism, drug addiction, sexual obsessions, and adventurousness – in which meaning remains, but only while engaged in extreme and risky activities, including violence – have all been attributed to misguided and finally self-destructive attempts to suppress the question of meaning by drowning in instinctual behavior.

The Psalms can be examined from several perspectives – style and form, meaning and intent, etc. – but the orientation, disorientation and reorientation pattern provides a convenient, though inexact, overlay. Some Psalms recognize and give thanks when life is going well. Others express abject dismay when things go bad. Yet another category re-establishes a positive relationship with God. (Whether that re-established relationship can contain the same level of trust as existed before the crisis would be the subject of another essay.)

Psalms grouped as “hymns” serve to praise God and express trust (8, 19, 29, 33, 65, 67, 68, 96, 98, 100, 103, 104, 105, 111, 113, 114, 117, 135, 136, 139, and 145 through 150). They seem to say, “Life is good and getting better. Thank you God!”

The individual and communal lament Psalms (3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 17, 22, 25, 26, 27:7-14, 28, 31, 35, 38, 39, 42-43, 54-57, 59, 61, 63, 64, 69, 70, 71, 86, 88, 102, 109, 120, 130, 140, 141, 142, 143, and 44, 74, 79, 80, and 83, etc.), which are most numerous, express the disorientation the people of ancient Israel felt at various times in their history. They seem ask, “God, why aren’t you around to save us from this crisis?”

The communal and individual thanksgiving and praise Pslams (18, 30, 32, 34, 41, 67, 92, 116, 118, 124, 129, 138, etc.) express reorientation toward God once the crisis is resolved. "Faith was in question but we're cool now," they imply.

Brueggeman’s writings, including The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary (1984), find synergy with the writings of Herman Gunkel, particularly The Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction (1967) and Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel (1998).

Summary of Preface and Introduction to "The Search for Meaning" by Dennis Ford

Summary of Preface and Introduction to
The Search for Meaning: A Short History
by Dennis Ford
(University of California Press, 2008. ISBN 0520257936, 9780520257931)

PREFACE

Biography

Dr. Dennis Ford, author of The Search for Meaning: A Short History, earned his Ph.D. through Syracuse University after graduating from Macalester College and the Iliff School of Theology. He studied with religious studies scholar Huston Cummings Smith, author of the popular book The World’s Religions (1990), and psychologist James Hillman, credited with pioneering Archetypal Psychology.[1]

Definition

In the preface to Meaning, Ford argues it is human nature to ask the question “Why?” Although child-like in its simplicity, the question “Why?” generates profound ramifications, especially when applied to finding Meaning. He takes care to note the difference between asking “Why?” as in, “Why am I alive?” as opposed to “How,” as in, “How should I live my life.” Motivation – the answer to the question of “Why?” – is crucial to the value of our actions, he says.[2]

Meaning is the answer to the question of “why.” When we understand the meaning behind something, we understand why it is or why we do it. In some sense, “meaning” is similar to the word “purpose.” Why do we raise children? To perpetuate the race. Meaning is found in the fulfillment of that purpose.

Audience

Ford says Meaning is targeted at both academics and individual searchers alike. The search for Meaning, or the answer to the great “Why” of our lives, entails subjectivity. Because the search is inherently subjective, Ford believes his book can address both individual searchers and so-called “objective” academics.[3]

Nettles

The search for meaning is riddled with hazards, many of which are as mundane as what others think of us when we ask such questions as, “What is the meaning of life?” Although the search for Meaning is common to the human condition, our friends often will look upon us with derision should we announce our search in public, Ford says. By asking the question we appear to be rejecting all the lessons about Meaning that church and family taught us as children. By asking we imply we operate without any purpose and are therefore on the edge of suicide. Those who admit to seeking Meaning in life can be considered haughty and grandiose.

Many consider the question of Meaning unanswerable and therefore a waste of time to pursue, Ford says. Considering the enigma Meaning presents, many live lives of quiet denial, Ford observes.

Assumptions

Ford’s introduction to the subject of Meaning rests on two assumptions: modern culture, including such ancient wisdom resources as the church, no longer provides adequate answers; and, life without Meaning is “unacceptable.”

In summarizing the need to explore Meaning, Ford says, “Without an answer to the why questions we may continue to exist, but we will fail to thrive.”

INTRODUCTION

Crisis

Ford uses Leo Tolstoy’s mid-life crisis as a template for exploring how simply asking the question “Why?” represents a step back from mundanity. Despite being fat and happy, Tolstoy dared to ask. “Those who seek the truth deserve the penalty of finding it,” Tolstoy quipped.

Having opened Pandora’s Box, Tolstoy realized he could not return to the innocence of “intoxication.” The fact he asked the question at a high point in his life, unchallenged by such burdens as poverty or ill health, demonstrates the inquiry is innate to the human condition, Ford argues.

Tolstoy’s first revelation was that the symbols and rituals of church and culture protect us from the Truth, which is that life is Meaningless. This was an unacceptable reality for Tolstoy, who came to believe there must be a Truth behind the truth of meaninglessness, Ford says.

Instinct

Pointing to his cat, Gypsy, Ford notes that operating on a purely instinctual level does not beg the question of Meaning. But, humans are part animal and part symbol, Ford contends.

For humans, the “surreality of culture” assumes the role of instincts in matters beyond animal nature, Ford says. This can be seen in both “primitive” and “advanced” cultures where symbols and rituals protect us from having to ask the question of “Why?” When these systems fail to supply unambiguous answers as to what to believe and what to do, as may be the case with death, birth or the Holocaust, no action or belief seems justifiable,” Ford says. Without answers to the question of “Why?” the landscape becomes flat, with no high or low points. “Choices are instrumental acts to achieve meaningful ends, but when those ends lack justification, choice is arbitrary and meaningless,” Ford says. “In a world without meaning, choice is a futile gesture.”

Ford points to Michael Novak as observing that the experience of “nothingness” is not neutral. Rather, it drives us to insanity.

Our inability to find concrete answers to the question of Meaning creates angst, or as Paul Tillich calls it, “ontological anxiety.” Ford poses a chicken-and-egg conundrum: Does angst cause depression or vise versa?

The following statement by Richard Tarnas, a cultural historian and professor of philosophy and psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies, as quoted by Ford, is both relevant and hilarious:

Our psychological and spiritual predispositions are absurdly at variance with the world revealed by our scientific method. We seem to receive two messages from our existential situation: on the one hand, strive, give oneself to the quest for meaning and spiritual fulfillment; but, on the other hand, know that the universe, of whose substance we are derived, is entirely indifferent to that quest, soulless in character, and nullifying in its effects. We are at once aroused and crushed. For inexplicably, absurdly, the cosmos is inhuman, yet we are not. The situation is profoundly unintelligible.

Solutions

If answers to the question of Meaning does not have answers in either our biological instincts or the secondary instincts of our postmodern culture, Ford asks, “What to do?”

One “ultimately futile” answer is to return to our primary instincts, because if meaninglessness is not the problem, perhaps self-consciousness is. I find the following statement by Ford to be particularly salient to my life:[4]

Alcoholism, drug addiction, sexual obsessions, and adventurousness – in which meaning remains, but only while engaged in extreme and risky activities, including violence – have all been attributed to misguided and finally self-destructive attempts to suppress the question of meaning by drowning in instinctual behavior.

Another untenable solution is, having struggled to find freedom from tyranny only to discover there are no choices worth making, we may revert to the authority of others, including spiritual gurus, celebrities or political leaders.

The Moment

Having presented the reader with a series of bewildering observations regarding how to find Meaning in life, Ford quotes Lionel Trilling:

If we are in a balloon over an abyss, let us at least value the balloon. If night is all around, then what light we have is precious. If there is no life to be seen in the great emptiness, our companions are to be cherished; so are we ourselves.

Conclusion

This book, in only its first few pages, rocked my world. In my statement of purpose for admission to IPS’s Pastoral Counseling Program I wrote:

Humans naturally are driven to understand and explain the world around them. When phenomena is inexplicable, as in why a person would act against their own best interests, humans gravitate toward metaphysical answers. The psychological genesis of spiritual pursuits may be explained at least in part by this theory.

This book is written for searchers, or those wishing to study, Meaning. It appears to not include those who already have established views on Meaning and/or are not willing to examine the many idiosyncrasies behind the subject. In this sense, left out of the conversation are those who defend cultural symbols and rituals, including those of organized religion, believing they provide timeless and unalterable answers.[5]

Meaning is particularly valuable because it challenges us to re-evaluate our own answers, or lack there of, to questions around Meaning.[6] As Pastoral Counselors it is valuable as a resource for understanding the importance of each client’s search for Meaning and for appreciating the great breadth of possibilities behind the question.[7]

The following is a summary of the book from its publishers:

In The Search for Meaning: A Short History, Dennis Ford explores eight approaches human beings have pursued over time to invest life with meaning and to infuse order into a seemingly chaotic universe. These include myth, philosophy, science, postmodernism, pragmatism, archetypal psychology, metaphysics, and naturalism. In engaging, companionable prose, Ford boils down these systems to their bare essentials, showing the difference between viewing the world from a religious point of view and that of a naturalist, and comparing a scientific worldview to a philosophical one. Ford investigates the contributions of the Greeks, Kant, and William James, and brings the discussion up to date with contemporary thinkers. He proffers the refreshing idea that in today's world, the answers provided by traditional religions to increasingly difficult questions have lost their currency for many and that the reductive or rationalist answers provided by science and postmodernism are themselves rife with unexamined assumptions.

The following are some quotes regarding the book:

“Touching on a wide range of philosophical, religious, and scientific approaches to the search for meaning throughout history, Ford sheds light on our relationship to these questions today, illuminating many of our most unconscious beliefs and unexamined assumptions in the process.”—What Is Enlightenment

“The Search for Meaning reads like an adventure novel of the mind. Supremely researched and also deeply personal, Dennis Ford has succeeded in rescuing experience from meaninglessness. The book's range is unusually wide, from the classical Greeks through Kierkegaard to contemporary thinkers like Huston Smith, James Hillman, and Joseph Campbell, combining a tough yet often impassioned look at the quest for greater truth. The reader will welcome this approach, realizing that there are far more strategies 'under the sun,' than classical philosophy in the perennial search for meaning in one's life.”—Phil Cousineau, author of The Art of Pilgrimage and Once and Future Myths

“Around its centerpiece—meaning—this book weaves a tapestry so encompassing, so intriguingly beautiful, I am stunned by its accomplishment. Ford approaches this centerpiece from many angles, touching on a broad range of historical, spiritual and philosophical themes. Written in a manner that is both passionate and accessible, his book shows how people throughout history have struggled with life's greatest question: Why are we here? Although the eight paths explored in this book are quite different in their assumptions and conclusions, each offers the possibility of achieving what we all desire most—a sense of meaning in our lives. The author compares and reflects on the similarities and differences between the paths, masterfully reflecting on what each school of thought can offer us today.”—Huston Smith, author of The World's Religions

“Ford deserves to be congratulated for addressing a terribly important message so eloquently. I found myself coming back to the book in order to revisit its honesty and questions.”—Jeffrey J. Kripal, author of Esalen: America and the Religion of No Religion

---

[1] Q: What is the author’s professional background and social context? (‘Google’ your author and see what you can find: profession, geographic location)

[2] Q: What is the central topic of conversation in this text?

[3] Q: To what audience is the text addressed?

[4] Q: What ideas do you find most personal connection with? Why?

[5] Q: Who might be missing from this conversation?

[6] Q: How might classmates find this text valuable?

[7] Q: What might this conversation have to say to us as pastoral counselors?

Pursuant to a conversation in class, here is a link to an article on the revised NIV:

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/09/breaking_transl.html

Also, here is a link to the discovery of a 3,700-year-old fortress once occupied by the Canaanits:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/02/AR2009090201346.html

Sooo Many Questions

The Bible often is read for the moral and behavioral guidance it provides.

Several questions arise as to what modern man should do with this guidance. Many directives can be interpreted in various ways. The Commandments “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:2) and “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain” (Exodus 20:7) appear to represent simple instruction on how to honor God. Yet they also can be read as helping to establish a power base from which religious leaders could control the masses. After all, why would an omnipotent and omnipotent God also be a “jealous God?” (Exodus 20:5). What would the creator of all things have to be jealous about?

If guidance has the ulterior motive of advancing one party’s political or economic agenda, should the advise be dismissed wholesale? What should we do if the interpretation is ambiguous: err on the side of following the advice as written?

What if the guidance acts to preserve social harmony, which in an indirect way can be interpreted as serving God’s greater will for mankind, as in taking a day off work for the Sabbath or honoring our parents or not stealing? When the guidance addresses social norms, many even ardent believers feel more than comfortable bending the rules, as in implementation of the capital punishment, which appears on its face to be in direct contradiction of the “You shall not murder” admonition (Exodus 20:13).

One of my favorite Commandments reads: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

This commandment seems value the house above all other possessions. It also appears to consider the wife as property along with the field animals.

Particularly interesting is the direction to not covet the “male” or “female” servants. In this Commandment, does “covet” mean “desire to own” or could it also refer to sex? By explicitly referring to the sex of the servants, does this Commandment contain some message about homosexuality? Are the “servants” slaves and, if so, does this passage condone slavery?

It’s amazing how much controversy can be generated from such a small part of the Bible. The solution to these and many similar questions be reside in a thorough academic examination, or they may be unanswerable.