Showing posts with label ravaj rumination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ravaj rumination. Show all posts
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Perils of Facebook
It's been a while, I know. My three regular readers have either given up, e-mailed me to check I still have all my fingers, or followed me to Facebook. What can I say? I was seduced by the chance to see pictures of the grown-up children of people I had not seen since Junior (Middle) School. Am I sated? Not quite, I think. Shots of weddings of friends of my sister still have a bit of a hold on me, although I no longer play any word games with annoying strangers who score so many points you'd like to think they are cheating but really you are just ticked off that you aren't getting any better. Anyway, just wanted to pop in and wish you all a happy secular new year!
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Latest from London
One of my average 12 readers recently told me that he had been enjoying this blog, even though the last post was not as witty as a previous one. The ravaj will try not to let the pressure crush her. Meanwhile, there has been little posting because for ten days she has been away from her computer having a life. Easter is approaching, so normal service should be resumed asap.
This is a difficult time of year, with many religionists thinking a lot about suffering and hoping for renewal and redemption. I am dealing with it by going to Berlin and getting a hug from the niece of ravaj. I can think of nothing more healing, and wish for you all to find something that works for you.
This is a difficult time of year, with many religionists thinking a lot about suffering and hoping for renewal and redemption. I am dealing with it by going to Berlin and getting a hug from the niece of ravaj. I can think of nothing more healing, and wish for you all to find something that works for you.
Friday, April 18, 2008
bad carma
look at this. this was a car parked in a brandeis lot this morning. parking is at a premium, and look what s/he did.my question is - howcome i was the one to get a parking ticket?
Sunday, November 11, 2007
social participation
have been writing for class on the skills and opportunities for the social participation of children in the classroom. and then it occurred to me to consider my social participation beyond the classroom. there has been little opportunity and less time and energy for the ravaj to rampage through the social whirl of waltham. there was one first date in brooklyn which ended in disaster as my car was locked into the parking lot for the night (it closed at 10 pm. in new york city. !!!) and i ended up sleeping the night on the couch of said date. needless to say we are no longer in contact with each other. then there was the friend of a friend who invited me to a holocaust survivors' lunch to set me up with a friend. that was just scary. let us hope for third time lucky. let us hope for a third time. meanwhile, back to discussion of good ways to encourage students to make eye contact when greeting each other.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
pre-birthday mini-thoughts
o how i hate birthdays and how i love them. i am too old to get excited and yet on the day itself i want everyone to be nice to me because it is my birthday. the way i deal with this is that the week right before the day i mostly actually manage to forget about it, and if it comes to mind i quickly change the subject of my thoughts. so i just had a look at my friend geoff's blog about jewish mysticism (link on the right in the second group). it is really interesting. from that my thoughts turned to gematria and thence came the idea to check out the gematria for my new age. nu - i managed almost 5 minutes of other thoughts. i'm sure i'll get better with practice :-)
anyway, according to the mysticalnet web gematria server, one of the words i get is באלזבב. hmmmmm. time to go to bed i think!
nb bet, aleph, lamed, zayin, bet, bet spell the hebrew word 'ba'al-z'vuv' aka lord of the fly, or beelzebub
Monday, April 30, 2007
when do candidates tell the truth?
how naive is it of me to think that candidates for election should tell the truth and keep their promises? ok, very naive. then where does one draw the boundary with regard to how much spin we will accept? and how do we enforce such choices?
theoretically the third question is the easiest to answer, if you believe that voting can make a difference.
why am i going on about this just now? i found an article in the sunday times online about carl bernstein's new unauthorised 640-page biography, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
complete article here.
when i was about 11 bernstein was one of my heroes. we spent the summer of 1973 in the usa, and our friend bonnie who worked for the epa took us around dc. the first place we went was to a howard johnson's opposite an office building, and from our seat by the window bonnie pointed out the windows of the rooms where the watergate break-in had taken place. i got totally into politics for the first time in my life. *pause while i rummage in my room*
not a good pic but one of the buttons i bought at the time. o, and i also asked for the hardback "the final days" for my big chanukah present.
scroll forward 33 years. the sunday times anticipates bernstein's latest perspective:
"For years Bernstein suffered from writer’s block, but Knopf is promoting his biography as a triumphant return to form. Publisher Sonny Mehta said his portrait would “show us, for the first time, the true trajectory of Hillary Clinton’s life and career”. It will be published simultaneously in Britain by Hutchinson.
According to the publishers, it will cover everything from Clinton’s “complex relationship with her disciplinarian father” to “her courtship with Bill Clinton and the amazing dynamic of their marriage, during the most trying of circumstances”."
i think i feel sorry for hillary. i am, however, no longer sure for whom i wish to vote. it's like the game show 'the weakest link'. it often does not matter who the strongest link actually is. the people vote according to their perception, and for tactical reasons. how much spin will i accept?
before i had heard of richard nixon, i lived in a world where the president or the prime minister was a good man. we trusted him to lead our government honestly and to the best of his abilities. i also was taught to find a policeman if i was in trouble, and to make sure that i paid the bus conductor even if he forgot to ask me for a fare. that was obviously over the rainbow, yet i still hope for some of those attitudes to turn the tide today. *sigh*
theoretically the third question is the easiest to answer, if you believe that voting can make a difference.
why am i going on about this just now? i found an article in the sunday times online about carl bernstein's new unauthorised 640-page biography, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
complete article here.
when i was about 11 bernstein was one of my heroes. we spent the summer of 1973 in the usa, and our friend bonnie who worked for the epa took us around dc. the first place we went was to a howard johnson's opposite an office building, and from our seat by the window bonnie pointed out the windows of the rooms where the watergate break-in had taken place. i got totally into politics for the first time in my life. *pause while i rummage in my room*
not a good pic but one of the buttons i bought at the time. o, and i also asked for the hardback "the final days" for my big chanukah present.
scroll forward 33 years. the sunday times anticipates bernstein's latest perspective:
"For years Bernstein suffered from writer’s block, but Knopf is promoting his biography as a triumphant return to form. Publisher Sonny Mehta said his portrait would “show us, for the first time, the true trajectory of Hillary Clinton’s life and career”. It will be published simultaneously in Britain by Hutchinson.
According to the publishers, it will cover everything from Clinton’s “complex relationship with her disciplinarian father” to “her courtship with Bill Clinton and the amazing dynamic of their marriage, during the most trying of circumstances”."
i think i feel sorry for hillary. i am, however, no longer sure for whom i wish to vote. it's like the game show 'the weakest link'. it often does not matter who the strongest link actually is. the people vote according to their perception, and for tactical reasons. how much spin will i accept?
before i had heard of richard nixon, i lived in a world where the president or the prime minister was a good man. we trusted him to lead our government honestly and to the best of his abilities. i also was taught to find a policeman if i was in trouble, and to make sure that i paid the bus conductor even if he forgot to ask me for a fare. that was obviously over the rainbow, yet i still hope for some of those attitudes to turn the tide today. *sigh*
Sunday, December 17, 2006
whose fault is it anyway?
a story from d's buddha book (an excellent little thing to keep in the bathroom fyi)
"There's another story that you may have read that has to do with what we call heaven and hell, life and death, good and bad. It's a story about how those things don't really exist except as a creation of our own minds. It goes like this: A big burly samurai comes to the wise man and says, 'Tell me the nature of heaven and hell.' And the roshi looks him in the face and says: 'Why should I tell a scruffy, disgusting, miserable slob like you?' The samurai starts to get purple in the face, his hair starts to stand up, but the roshi won't stop, he keeps saying, 'A miserable worm like you, do you think I should tell you anything?' Consumed by rage, the samurai draws his sword, and he's just about to cut off the head of the roshi. Then the roshi says, 'That's hell.' The samurai, who is in fact a sensitive person, instantly gets it, that he just created his own hell; he was deep in hell. It was black and hot, filled with hatred, self-protection, anger and resentment, so much so that he was going to kill this man. Tears fill his eyes and he starts to cry and he puts his palms together and the roshi says, 'That's heaven.'
from "Awakening Loving-Kindness" by Pema Chodron pp 65-6
you don't have power over anyone else, well you should not. perhaps it works better to say you do not have power over anyone else's heart, only over your own. there is no way to avoid pain, but perhaps there are ways to heal. am i brave enough to try any of them out?
"There's another story that you may have read that has to do with what we call heaven and hell, life and death, good and bad. It's a story about how those things don't really exist except as a creation of our own minds. It goes like this: A big burly samurai comes to the wise man and says, 'Tell me the nature of heaven and hell.' And the roshi looks him in the face and says: 'Why should I tell a scruffy, disgusting, miserable slob like you?' The samurai starts to get purple in the face, his hair starts to stand up, but the roshi won't stop, he keeps saying, 'A miserable worm like you, do you think I should tell you anything?' Consumed by rage, the samurai draws his sword, and he's just about to cut off the head of the roshi. Then the roshi says, 'That's hell.' The samurai, who is in fact a sensitive person, instantly gets it, that he just created his own hell; he was deep in hell. It was black and hot, filled with hatred, self-protection, anger and resentment, so much so that he was going to kill this man. Tears fill his eyes and he starts to cry and he puts his palms together and the roshi says, 'That's heaven.'
from "Awakening Loving-Kindness" by Pema Chodron pp 65-6
you don't have power over anyone else, well you should not. perhaps it works better to say you do not have power over anyone else's heart, only over your own. there is no way to avoid pain, but perhaps there are ways to heal. am i brave enough to try any of them out?
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
from madeleine l'engle's commonplace book
i just learned about commonplace books from lemony snicket, and it turns out i have had one for a long time ... the notebook in which i gather words and poems that i like. My poetry book includes stevie smith, dorothy parker, william blake, brian patten, a a milne, dylan thomas, jenny joseph, wilfred owen, ogden nash and sylvia plath. o, and gerard manley hopkins, she added. of course, like thousands of brits, my favourite poem has to be 'jabberwocky'.
anyway, i was reading 'walking on water' by madeleine l'engle. why? because i had finished the artemis fowl book from the library, i'd already read both patricia cornwells, and i wasn't in the mood for 'the star of redemption'. i like to have someone to talk to when i eat, and this book was on the top of the pile on my kitchen table. however, i got no further than the following quote from francis of assisi (p 25):
"In pictures of God and the blessed Virgin painted on wood, God and the blessed Virgin are held in mind, yet the wood and the painting ascribe nothing to themselves, because they are just wood and paint; so the servant of God is a kind of painting, that is, a creature of God in which God is honoured for the sake of his benefits. But he ought to ascribe nothing to himself, just like the wood or the painting, but should render honour and glory to God alone."
l'engle was talking about the symbolism of icons, but since i come from a tradition that proscribes the creation of images of the divine, that did not grab me. at first glance, it seemed to be simply about humility, that each human body is not actually divine, but rather a medium for the expression of the divine. and we should not get confused and start to believe our own press, i.e., that we deserve the kudos for being as wonderful as we are. then i started to think about, well actually the next thought was the picture of dorian gray. you know - the effect the decay of the soul has on the physical body. we do have some power over this creation - is it only the power to destroy?
what is the difference between humility and submission? perhaps humility is having no desire for kudos, and submission is either forced or voluntary acceptance of a power greater than one's self. while traditional jews are required to submit to the yoke of the commandments, they are free to choose so not to do. are the commandments the act of painting? and since we are in a covenantal relationship we have to take part in that act? or am i pushing this too far? hmmmmm.
anyway, i was reading 'walking on water' by madeleine l'engle. why? because i had finished the artemis fowl book from the library, i'd already read both patricia cornwells, and i wasn't in the mood for 'the star of redemption'. i like to have someone to talk to when i eat, and this book was on the top of the pile on my kitchen table. however, i got no further than the following quote from francis of assisi (p 25):
"In pictures of God and the blessed Virgin painted on wood, God and the blessed Virgin are held in mind, yet the wood and the painting ascribe nothing to themselves, because they are just wood and paint; so the servant of God is a kind of painting, that is, a creature of God in which God is honoured for the sake of his benefits. But he ought to ascribe nothing to himself, just like the wood or the painting, but should render honour and glory to God alone."
l'engle was talking about the symbolism of icons, but since i come from a tradition that proscribes the creation of images of the divine, that did not grab me. at first glance, it seemed to be simply about humility, that each human body is not actually divine, but rather a medium for the expression of the divine. and we should not get confused and start to believe our own press, i.e., that we deserve the kudos for being as wonderful as we are. then i started to think about, well actually the next thought was the picture of dorian gray. you know - the effect the decay of the soul has on the physical body. we do have some power over this creation - is it only the power to destroy?
what is the difference between humility and submission? perhaps humility is having no desire for kudos, and submission is either forced or voluntary acceptance of a power greater than one's self. while traditional jews are required to submit to the yoke of the commandments, they are free to choose so not to do. are the commandments the act of painting? and since we are in a covenantal relationship we have to take part in that act? or am i pushing this too far? hmmmmm.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
the face of god
i seem to remember a passage in the torah where moses begs to see the face of god, who tells him he cannot for it would be too much and kill him. god's compromise is to let moses sit in the cleft of the rock and see god's back after god has passed by. (exodus 32:18-23)
in any case, while i understand that all our visions and understanding of god are limited by our human experience; and my tradition tells us we were made in the image of god ... i still worry that we tend to reverse this and make god to be in our image.
what do i mean by this? it has something to do with the difficulty of accepting there are some things we cannot get our heads round. for example, why do bad things happen to good people? if god lets that happen, why should one have anything to do with such a god? we assume that this entity we have defined as a supreme deity works within the rules that we understand. of course we can only understand within our own dimension. yet there seems little space for a god that does not fit our needs.
perhaps we need to start reading the book of job again. god tells it like it is to job:
god speaks out of the whirlwind and says, "who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"
god continues, "where wast thou when i laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast the understanding. who determined the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who stretched the line upon it? whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the cornerstone thereof ...?" (job 38)
you go god!
meanwhile, today's times runs the following story:
America is revealed as one nation under four faces of God
By Tim Reid
A survey shows that the way Americans see the Almighty is closely linked to their political beliefs
NINE in ten Americans believe in God but how they vote, or regard the Iraq war, depends on the very different views they have about His personality, according to a detailed survey of religion in the US.
It found that Americans hold four different images of God — Authoritarian, Benevolent, Critical or Distant — and these views are far more powerful indicators about their political, social and moral attitudes than any of the traditional categories such as Protestant, Catholic or Evangelical.
The study also suggests that America is more religious than previously thought, with only 5.2 per cent of respondents calling themselves atheist and 91.8 per cent saying that they believed in God.
In Britain, by contrast, 20 per cent say that they hold no belief in a higher power and only 38 per cent claim to believe in a traditional God, according to a 2005 survey.
The American survey, conducted by Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion in Texas, broke new ground in asking respondents how they viewed God’s personality.
Researchers found that Americans hold four distinct views, and these “Four Gods” are remarkably accurate diviners of how an American thinks about everything from politics, abortion, taxation and marriage. “You learn more about people’s moral and political behaviour if you know their image of God than almost any other measure,” said Christopher Bader, one of the researchers."
you can read the rest of the article here.
what i have gleaned from it is basically the more authoritarian god is, the more conservative one is; and the more distant god is, the less connected one is to one's tradition of origin.
what worries me most, is this quote:
"“This is a very powerful tool to understand core differences in the United States,” said Paul Froese, a professor at Baylor. “If I know your image of God, I can tell all kind of things about you. It’s a central part of your world view.”"
sounds like a bit of a marketing tool if you ask me.
in any case, while i understand that all our visions and understanding of god are limited by our human experience; and my tradition tells us we were made in the image of god ... i still worry that we tend to reverse this and make god to be in our image.
what do i mean by this? it has something to do with the difficulty of accepting there are some things we cannot get our heads round. for example, why do bad things happen to good people? if god lets that happen, why should one have anything to do with such a god? we assume that this entity we have defined as a supreme deity works within the rules that we understand. of course we can only understand within our own dimension. yet there seems little space for a god that does not fit our needs.
perhaps we need to start reading the book of job again. god tells it like it is to job:
god speaks out of the whirlwind and says, "who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"
god continues, "where wast thou when i laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast the understanding. who determined the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who stretched the line upon it? whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the cornerstone thereof ...?" (job 38)
you go god!
meanwhile, today's times runs the following story:
America is revealed as one nation under four faces of God
By Tim Reid
A survey shows that the way Americans see the Almighty is closely linked to their political beliefs
NINE in ten Americans believe in God but how they vote, or regard the Iraq war, depends on the very different views they have about His personality, according to a detailed survey of religion in the US.
It found that Americans hold four different images of God — Authoritarian, Benevolent, Critical or Distant — and these views are far more powerful indicators about their political, social and moral attitudes than any of the traditional categories such as Protestant, Catholic or Evangelical.
The study also suggests that America is more religious than previously thought, with only 5.2 per cent of respondents calling themselves atheist and 91.8 per cent saying that they believed in God.
In Britain, by contrast, 20 per cent say that they hold no belief in a higher power and only 38 per cent claim to believe in a traditional God, according to a 2005 survey.
The American survey, conducted by Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion in Texas, broke new ground in asking respondents how they viewed God’s personality.
Researchers found that Americans hold four distinct views, and these “Four Gods” are remarkably accurate diviners of how an American thinks about everything from politics, abortion, taxation and marriage. “You learn more about people’s moral and political behaviour if you know their image of God than almost any other measure,” said Christopher Bader, one of the researchers."
you can read the rest of the article here.
what i have gleaned from it is basically the more authoritarian god is, the more conservative one is; and the more distant god is, the less connected one is to one's tradition of origin.
what worries me most, is this quote:
"“This is a very powerful tool to understand core differences in the United States,” said Paul Froese, a professor at Baylor. “If I know your image of God, I can tell all kind of things about you. It’s a central part of your world view.”"
sounds like a bit of a marketing tool if you ask me.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
selichot
one of my favourite parts of the torah is in the book of numbers, at the beginning of chapter 14. the children of israel are complaining again, wishing they were dead, or back in egypt; and contemplating returning to egypt. a few chapters earlier i love the bit where they remember the melons and cucumbers and leeks they used to eat in the good old days! anyway, despite the pleas of moses and his guys, the congregation threatens to get nasty and are about to stone them when god shows up in the tabernacle. god is utterly fed up, and suggests that god will destroy them all and start all over again with moses. this could be a big opportunity for moses - to be the founder of a whole new, and hopefully better, people! so what does moses say? listen god - i think this is really bad p.r. for you. if you kill the children of israel now, the egyptians and the others won't be saying o well they were really whiny and totally deserved all they got. no, god, these guys will be saying that you are all mouth and no trousers. you made big promises, but you just couldn't follow through. don't you think it would be a better move to forgive the children of israel and give them another chance? and god responds: good point, moses. i shall do as you say.
WHAT WAS THAT?!
the holy sacred torah has a passage in it where moses argues with god, and not only is not struck down, but also changes god's mind?
indeed it is so. and it is not the only place in the torah where god's mind is changed after a discussion with a human.
this is such an important moment - i don't understand why it is not one of the most famous parts of all the torah. moses' words requesting pardon are part of our atonement services. the previous verses, however, where he dares to argue with god, are not highlighted.
i have so much to say about this, and no idea where to start.
first of all i'll go with brit, which i choose to translate as covenant. by this i mean a relationship, that i often describe on the one hand as a deal, i.e., god gets this and we get that; and on the other hand as a partnership, where we agree to work together towards a particular goal.
try and forget about all the power stuff with superman god smiting us according to his will and punishing us with his absence.
try and think about being in a relationship with someone that you think you could like if you got to know them better.
what kind of things might you do to develop this relationship in a positive way?
perhaps most organised religions started out as a way of gathering together the things they thought would help to develop this relationship.
the problem for me is that over time many people forgot that their records, their sacred scriptures, and the rituals that they had developed over the years, that these things were supposed to help them, rather than oppress them. by this i do not mean to say that if something is too difficult then it is ok to just bin it. i am trying to talk more about how the forms themselves become sacred over time, and the content within them, the thoughts and feelings that engendered them, start to melt into the faraway corners of memory.
trying to get back to the point here ... why am i so excited about the above passage of torah? because god listens. and god is flexible. and god is flexible enough to hear something difficult, and not let pride stop god from changing god's response. even the greatest power that the human mind can posit is able to turn and say hmmmmm maybe there is another way to do things. not only that, but god also is the one to begin the conversation.
whether you believe in god or not, is not the question. whether you believe in relationship, or not - that is the question! if so, what follows logically for me is how do i figure out how to be in relationship with anyone and anything? and that's where selichot comes in! selichot is a time put aside every year as we start to prepare for the new year. the summer is ending (unless you are in the southern hemisphere of course. apologies for my northerncentric perspective). it is a time when we can check in on our relationships, when we can turn to each other and ask, "are you ok?" and then, i hope, i can listen to the answer.
WHAT WAS THAT?!
the holy sacred torah has a passage in it where moses argues with god, and not only is not struck down, but also changes god's mind?
indeed it is so. and it is not the only place in the torah where god's mind is changed after a discussion with a human.
this is such an important moment - i don't understand why it is not one of the most famous parts of all the torah. moses' words requesting pardon are part of our atonement services. the previous verses, however, where he dares to argue with god, are not highlighted.
i have so much to say about this, and no idea where to start.
first of all i'll go with brit, which i choose to translate as covenant. by this i mean a relationship, that i often describe on the one hand as a deal, i.e., god gets this and we get that; and on the other hand as a partnership, where we agree to work together towards a particular goal.
try and forget about all the power stuff with superman god smiting us according to his will and punishing us with his absence.
try and think about being in a relationship with someone that you think you could like if you got to know them better.
what kind of things might you do to develop this relationship in a positive way?
perhaps most organised religions started out as a way of gathering together the things they thought would help to develop this relationship.
the problem for me is that over time many people forgot that their records, their sacred scriptures, and the rituals that they had developed over the years, that these things were supposed to help them, rather than oppress them. by this i do not mean to say that if something is too difficult then it is ok to just bin it. i am trying to talk more about how the forms themselves become sacred over time, and the content within them, the thoughts and feelings that engendered them, start to melt into the faraway corners of memory.
trying to get back to the point here ... why am i so excited about the above passage of torah? because god listens. and god is flexible. and god is flexible enough to hear something difficult, and not let pride stop god from changing god's response. even the greatest power that the human mind can posit is able to turn and say hmmmmm maybe there is another way to do things. not only that, but god also is the one to begin the conversation.
whether you believe in god or not, is not the question. whether you believe in relationship, or not - that is the question! if so, what follows logically for me is how do i figure out how to be in relationship with anyone and anything? and that's where selichot comes in! selichot is a time put aside every year as we start to prepare for the new year. the summer is ending (unless you are in the southern hemisphere of course. apologies for my northerncentric perspective). it is a time when we can check in on our relationships, when we can turn to each other and ask, "are you ok?" and then, i hope, i can listen to the answer.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
joy comes in the morning
just finished reading this book by jonathan rosen. auntie d. left it for me at pesach, and i just opened it yesterday. inside was a post-it note written in her handwriting: "a folk saying based on a saying in the talmud. a rabbi whose congregation does not (want) to drive him/her out of town, isn't a rabbi; and a rabbi they drive out of town isn't a man(woman)!"
well, i'm still here.
meanwhile, on p. 142, i read the following:
"... he realized how rudimentary his religious thoughts and feelings were; he had ignored them for so long. He had once written an article about art therapy for the elderly and one of the therapists had explained that you only draw as well as the last time you drew. For most people, this was in childhood, so most adults draw like ten-year-olds. Perhaps his religious life was like that, undeveloped and childish."
is it so for many people? that the last time they really believed in god it was the god they were shown as children: a white old man with a beard on a big throne up in the sky who knows if you've been bad or good and responds accordingly?
then you grow up and realise there is no santa, no tooth fairy and your parents screwed you and the whole world up so there is nothing left in which to believe except what you can hold in your own two hands.
has my religious life grown and matured since i was ten years old? at first i think that i had more faith then, because i believed in happy endings. on the other hand, having some small knowledge of how the world is, and all the evil and horror in it today, perhaps it is a greater sign of faith to remain within it, rather than to run screaming into the dark cloud. my father believed in the thread of gold that is the harbinger of the dawn to come. and he experienced the dawn, surviving the nazi peril and continuing to become a husband, parent and teacher. i'm still waiting.
well, i'm still here.
meanwhile, on p. 142, i read the following:
"... he realized how rudimentary his religious thoughts and feelings were; he had ignored them for so long. He had once written an article about art therapy for the elderly and one of the therapists had explained that you only draw as well as the last time you drew. For most people, this was in childhood, so most adults draw like ten-year-olds. Perhaps his religious life was like that, undeveloped and childish."
is it so for many people? that the last time they really believed in god it was the god they were shown as children: a white old man with a beard on a big throne up in the sky who knows if you've been bad or good and responds accordingly?
then you grow up and realise there is no santa, no tooth fairy and your parents screwed you and the whole world up so there is nothing left in which to believe except what you can hold in your own two hands.
has my religious life grown and matured since i was ten years old? at first i think that i had more faith then, because i believed in happy endings. on the other hand, having some small knowledge of how the world is, and all the evil and horror in it today, perhaps it is a greater sign of faith to remain within it, rather than to run screaming into the dark cloud. my father believed in the thread of gold that is the harbinger of the dawn to come. and he experienced the dawn, surviving the nazi peril and continuing to become a husband, parent and teacher. i'm still waiting.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
treppenwitz today
a snippet of a long expression of his beliefs and feelings:
"The world is making a horrible mistake by imposing a cease-fire on Israel in its war on Hezbollah. This shameful document grants a terrorist organization legal status and standing in the international arena and fails to punish the states who sponsor it (Syria and Iran)... or hold accountable the country (Lebanon) that allows it to dominate its political life and government.
This cease fire denies Israel (and every other civilized country) the right to defend internationally recognized borders, and in fact calls into question the very concept of internationally recognized borders!!! Quite simply, this cease fire resolution codifies in black and white that aggression is the new diplomacy and everything is ultimately negotiable."
is asking 'how can we be safe and not kill anyone to stay safe?' such a naive question?
there are no rockets coursing through the sky on a trajectory that will bring them near or to my home - it is easy for me to cry out for peace. have no doubt about it, that is what i wish for. please, however, show me the alternative to standing firm at the last line drawn after line after line has been stepped over.
the other day, i went to buy munchies before getting on the train to penn station. there was a handwritten sign on the counter saying 'back in a few minutes'. as i went back out of the waiting room i looked to my left, and saw the guy behind the counter on his knees on a prayer mat. i admired him for his devotion. i don't hate him, and presume he does not hate me. i figure he is just like my father, coming to the usa to make a better life and to live in religious freedom.
meanwhile, i need to buy a transatlantic plane ticket, and am excrement-scared of being blown up in the air. d. says she won't be surprised if suicide bombers start on restaurants and other public places in nyc like they do in tel aviv, etc. is this the price a liberal must pay for believing peace is possible? is it better to die than fight back? i just don't know ...
"The world is making a horrible mistake by imposing a cease-fire on Israel in its war on Hezbollah. This shameful document grants a terrorist organization legal status and standing in the international arena and fails to punish the states who sponsor it (Syria and Iran)... or hold accountable the country (Lebanon) that allows it to dominate its political life and government.
This cease fire denies Israel (and every other civilized country) the right to defend internationally recognized borders, and in fact calls into question the very concept of internationally recognized borders!!! Quite simply, this cease fire resolution codifies in black and white that aggression is the new diplomacy and everything is ultimately negotiable."
is asking 'how can we be safe and not kill anyone to stay safe?' such a naive question?
there are no rockets coursing through the sky on a trajectory that will bring them near or to my home - it is easy for me to cry out for peace. have no doubt about it, that is what i wish for. please, however, show me the alternative to standing firm at the last line drawn after line after line has been stepped over.
the other day, i went to buy munchies before getting on the train to penn station. there was a handwritten sign on the counter saying 'back in a few minutes'. as i went back out of the waiting room i looked to my left, and saw the guy behind the counter on his knees on a prayer mat. i admired him for his devotion. i don't hate him, and presume he does not hate me. i figure he is just like my father, coming to the usa to make a better life and to live in religious freedom.
meanwhile, i need to buy a transatlantic plane ticket, and am excrement-scared of being blown up in the air. d. says she won't be surprised if suicide bombers start on restaurants and other public places in nyc like they do in tel aviv, etc. is this the price a liberal must pay for believing peace is possible? is it better to die than fight back? i just don't know ...
Monday, August 14, 2006
fear & loathing in port woebegone
a stream-of consciousness moment or two for you all!
so many of us are afraid. afraid of failing. afraid of being hurt. afraid of the unknown. we would rather stay exactly where we are right now, because at least we have a handle on this, at least we can cope. the potentially negative effect of change makes it not a viable option.
how do we deal with our fears? we make boundaries around ourselves so they cannot get in. how do we deal with the unknown? we make boundaries around it so it cannot get out. naming is a powerful example of this, e.g., "gender". there is a fluid spectrum between the polar opposites of male and female. however, at birth we are firmly placed at one end or the other. the lines are drawn around us so we cannot get out. the rest of the spectrum is named as perverted, weird, wrong; and thus separated out.
d. told me about boundaries in painting yesterday. how colours blend across the borders in both directions. and how scary it can be to let them go.
a permanent status quo equals stagnation. yet the very existence of life suggests process, suggests change. how then are we to deal with it?
if it is not healthy to stay at one point all the time, then perhaps an understanding of balance may help. if one is aware of the nature of one's relationships, one might be able to act to restore the balance when things get wobbly. balance and awareness - for me the key to making the most out of my life.
and this, for me, is the purpose of religion: a basic structure upon which to lean at times when i need to; and at the same time a set of teachings that help me develop my ability to relate to my self, other beings, and the world around me. it, and i need to be flexible, able to blend without fearing loss of self.
it's ok to name things, to put them in a box and limit them ... sometimes it has to be done just so i can get my head around it. "god" for example :-) just as long as i remember that just because i named it does not define it either universally or permanently. that would be pretty bloody arrogant. as a working title, however, it can be quite useful.
i think that's where the problem with a fundamentalist perspective lies. things get set in stone forever. it may feel safer, because you don't ever have to deal with change. but that's not how the world works, so automatically there is conflict.
have to go to the office now. more another time, i hope!
so many of us are afraid. afraid of failing. afraid of being hurt. afraid of the unknown. we would rather stay exactly where we are right now, because at least we have a handle on this, at least we can cope. the potentially negative effect of change makes it not a viable option.
how do we deal with our fears? we make boundaries around ourselves so they cannot get in. how do we deal with the unknown? we make boundaries around it so it cannot get out. naming is a powerful example of this, e.g., "gender". there is a fluid spectrum between the polar opposites of male and female. however, at birth we are firmly placed at one end or the other. the lines are drawn around us so we cannot get out. the rest of the spectrum is named as perverted, weird, wrong; and thus separated out.
d. told me about boundaries in painting yesterday. how colours blend across the borders in both directions. and how scary it can be to let them go.
a permanent status quo equals stagnation. yet the very existence of life suggests process, suggests change. how then are we to deal with it?
if it is not healthy to stay at one point all the time, then perhaps an understanding of balance may help. if one is aware of the nature of one's relationships, one might be able to act to restore the balance when things get wobbly. balance and awareness - for me the key to making the most out of my life.
and this, for me, is the purpose of religion: a basic structure upon which to lean at times when i need to; and at the same time a set of teachings that help me develop my ability to relate to my self, other beings, and the world around me. it, and i need to be flexible, able to blend without fearing loss of self.
it's ok to name things, to put them in a box and limit them ... sometimes it has to be done just so i can get my head around it. "god" for example :-) just as long as i remember that just because i named it does not define it either universally or permanently. that would be pretty bloody arrogant. as a working title, however, it can be quite useful.
i think that's where the problem with a fundamentalist perspective lies. things get set in stone forever. it may feel safer, because you don't ever have to deal with change. but that's not how the world works, so automatically there is conflict.
have to go to the office now. more another time, i hope!
Sunday, July 16, 2006
octavia e. butler
d. lent me this book to read a couple of days ago, and i just sat down with it this afternoon. would not have stopped to write here, except i am trying to savour the last few chapters and not finish too greedily.
"A lot of people seem to believe in a big-daddy-God or a big-cop-God or a big-king-God. They believe in a kind of super-person. A few believe God is another word for nature. And nature turns out to mean just about anything they happen not to understand or feel in control of.
Some say God is a spirit, a force, an ultimate reality. Ask seven people what all of that means and you'll get seven different answers. So what is God? Just another name for whatever makes you feel special and protected?" Parable of the Sower pp 13-14
and if it helps, and does not hurt anyone else, what is the problem with that?
she also writes a few pages later:
"God is Power -
Infinite,
Irresistible,
Inexorable,
Indifferent.
And yet, God is Pliable -
Trickster,
Teacher,
Chaos,
Clay.
God exists to be shaped.
God is Change.
This is the literal truth.
God can't be resisted or stopped, but can be shaped and focused. This means God is not to be prayed to. Prayers only help the person doing the praying, and then, only if they strengthen and focus that person's resolve. If they're used that way, they can help us in our only real relationship with God. They help us to shape God and to accept and work with the shapes that God imposes on us. God is power, and in the end, God prevails.
But we can rig the game in our own favor if we understand that God exists to be shaped, and will be shaped, with or without our forethought, with or without our intent." ibid p 24
kind of alongside the buddhist idea that all our suffering derives from attachment to material things ... as if having stuff makes us real, because we own it, have power over it ... what i hear her saying this evening is we should shed the illusion that god is a deity that may indulge our whims upon supplication. god has god's own plan. our choice is to accept that and deal with the hands we are given, or not. if we do not, shit still happens. if we do, things may be different. or not. but at least we take part in our own destiny.
off to play ping-pong. small objects that may be struck with great force and yet suffer no damage nor cause it to other persons and objects. excellent.
"A lot of people seem to believe in a big-daddy-God or a big-cop-God or a big-king-God. They believe in a kind of super-person. A few believe God is another word for nature. And nature turns out to mean just about anything they happen not to understand or feel in control of.
Some say God is a spirit, a force, an ultimate reality. Ask seven people what all of that means and you'll get seven different answers. So what is God? Just another name for whatever makes you feel special and protected?" Parable of the Sower pp 13-14
and if it helps, and does not hurt anyone else, what is the problem with that?
she also writes a few pages later:
"God is Power -
Infinite,
Irresistible,
Inexorable,
Indifferent.
And yet, God is Pliable -
Trickster,
Teacher,
Chaos,
Clay.
God exists to be shaped.
God is Change.
This is the literal truth.
God can't be resisted or stopped, but can be shaped and focused. This means God is not to be prayed to. Prayers only help the person doing the praying, and then, only if they strengthen and focus that person's resolve. If they're used that way, they can help us in our only real relationship with God. They help us to shape God and to accept and work with the shapes that God imposes on us. God is power, and in the end, God prevails.
But we can rig the game in our own favor if we understand that God exists to be shaped, and will be shaped, with or without our forethought, with or without our intent." ibid p 24
kind of alongside the buddhist idea that all our suffering derives from attachment to material things ... as if having stuff makes us real, because we own it, have power over it ... what i hear her saying this evening is we should shed the illusion that god is a deity that may indulge our whims upon supplication. god has god's own plan. our choice is to accept that and deal with the hands we are given, or not. if we do not, shit still happens. if we do, things may be different. or not. but at least we take part in our own destiny.
off to play ping-pong. small objects that may be struck with great force and yet suffer no damage nor cause it to other persons and objects. excellent.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
where have all my cousins gone?
i have a little time on my hands for the next few days, and so i have decided to declare officially that my dabbling in researching my family tree is now my hobby. i haven't had a hobby for a long time. this is something from which not only do i derive great pleasure, but also it has no calories whatsoever.
a couple of years ago i did quite well with the hoschander family from my father's mother's side (except for one guy in london who probably thinks i am stalking him but all i want is to see if we have any shared past).
now i am looking at my mother's father's family. it takes time, but i find it so exciting when i get a lead.
i was wondering why i am so drawn to this?
first of all, i think the detective work is appealing ... and the idea that with a methodical approach one may build the picture. there is no fantasy here, except perhaps that coming from such a small family i am somehow building it up if only on paper.
o, that was the second thing! the relatives that were cut down by nazi evil, and those that therefore never got to exist ... i want to know who they were, or at least where they were born and lived.
i know that birth families are not necessarily the most nurturing kind, and that we may create our own. there is a lot that i know, and of course much more that i do not. this has more, however, to do with feelings, i think :-)
since i am unlikely ever to become a parent, (i know i know but time marches on etc.) and am currently denied access to my niece, i wonder who will remember me in the following generations. egotistical perhaps, but i feel sad about it. nu - maybe part of the finding family members is so i can remember them and thus also have a little hope that i may one day be remembered also even if only for being a girl with a boy's name.
a couple of years ago i did quite well with the hoschander family from my father's mother's side (except for one guy in london who probably thinks i am stalking him but all i want is to see if we have any shared past).
now i am looking at my mother's father's family. it takes time, but i find it so exciting when i get a lead.
i was wondering why i am so drawn to this?
first of all, i think the detective work is appealing ... and the idea that with a methodical approach one may build the picture. there is no fantasy here, except perhaps that coming from such a small family i am somehow building it up if only on paper.
o, that was the second thing! the relatives that were cut down by nazi evil, and those that therefore never got to exist ... i want to know who they were, or at least where they were born and lived.
i know that birth families are not necessarily the most nurturing kind, and that we may create our own. there is a lot that i know, and of course much more that i do not. this has more, however, to do with feelings, i think :-)
since i am unlikely ever to become a parent, (i know i know but time marches on etc.) and am currently denied access to my niece, i wonder who will remember me in the following generations. egotistical perhaps, but i feel sad about it. nu - maybe part of the finding family members is so i can remember them and thus also have a little hope that i may one day be remembered also even if only for being a girl with a boy's name.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
reading psalms
r. steve said if you cannot sleep try reading tehillim. it just so happened that for some reason yesterday i brought home a handy paperback selection of psalms sent to me by the ny board of rabbis.
i said to steve that i didn't think a bunch of poems talking about how god would save me if i trust in him could be much help to me at the moment. steve said if one didn't work try the next.
i'd finished my free copies of go ny & the advocate. i'd read every handout and flyer that made it home with me from pride weekend. i was too tired to do sudoku and couldn't remember where to find a fresh ink cartridge for my favourite pen to do ny sunday times crosswords. i didn't want to get out of bed because there are carbs in the kitchen and it was the wrong time in every time zone to call anyone. so i just read a bit in the handy paperback. and wrote. this is what i wrote:
first up under "help when struggling with loss, depression and general woe" is psalm 27.
"when evil men assail me to devour my flesh -
it is they, my foes and my enemies, who stumble and fall."
no, this is not one for tonight - nobody has stumbled or fallen yet and i'm not in the mood just now to wait any longer.
next is psalm 42. verse 4 is promising:
"my tears have been my food day and night;
i am ever taunted with, 'where is your god?'"
but then the psalmist tells himself to:
"have hope in god;
i will yet praise him for his saving presence." (v. 6)
and i am not yet ready to stop being angry. neither is the psalmist, who asks god:
"why have you forgotten me,
why must i walk in gloom, oppressed by my enemy?" (v. 10)
but s/he has to end up with the glass half full, repeating verse 6. i decide this section is not helping my depression and inner woe. i look at the other sections - not into repentance tonight, nor joy & praise, nor yahrzeit reflections. the nearest i can get is "seeking hope and inner strength".
first option - psalm 3. i like verse 8:
"arise, o lord, deliver me, o my god
for you slap all my enemies in the face,
you break the teeth of the wicked."
i'd like to ask for that but
a. i don't think that's how it works, otherwise there would be a whole lot more spontaneous combustions and dentists
b. i am extremely conflicted between my initial emotional demand for revenge, i.e., causing pain to those who hurt me, so they will know what they have done to me and how it feels ... and my follow-up rational response that wants to preserve my sense of my integrity by not entering the fray and perpetuating the violence. my sister told me once that sometimes it just makes you feel better to be mean back. i might be able to do it, except i cannot handle the guilt!
next offering - psalm 15 - a fine description of an ideal world, which just serves to remind me how far we are from that. psalm 34, verse 12:
"come, my children, listen to me;
i will teach you what it is to fear the lord."
i wish i could believe this, i do i do i do i do i do (cue cowardly lion). on the other hand, how do i know that i have not already been offered this teaching - it's just that i cannot yet hear it?
getting fed up with all this, i resolve to try for one more. psalm 142.
"5. look at my right and see -
i have no friend;
there is nowhere i can flee,
no one cares about me
6. so i cry to you, o lord;
i say, 'you are my refuge,
all i have in the land of the living.'
7. listen to my cry, for i have been brought very low;
save me from my pursuers,
for they are too strong for me."
certainly sounds like how i feel.
last week, a student asked me if i call on god when i am in distress. i told her that, like a child, when my parents were sick i lay in bed and said aloud, "please god don't let her/him die." god's average is currently 50%.
last night steve asked me what my relationship with god was like. i told him i thought it was in a very early stage. i also said that the strength i've found in these last sleepless stressful sugar-high days had to come from somewhere and i would not necessarily argue that god would not be an explanation for that.
but i am embarrassed to say that. especially after my glbtq-pride infusion of the past few days. it it possible for me to have faith and still be a realist? is it possible for me to accept a god that, if god does intervene in human affairs, does so randomly? what role is there in my life for a god that may be with me when i despair; but does not, cannot make it better? i tell people all the time that for a child god is like a parent who *can* kiss and make it better. pediatric theology. when we grow up we realise there are many things our parents cannot fix. hopefully, we forgive them, and continue to love them. why don't we do the same for god? superman and his ilk are wishful thinking.
so what might an adult view of god look like? after the shoah, my father told me many times that god sits and weeps with us. this is what our friends do - stay with us when the pursuers are too strong for us. their love helps us get stronger. how may i learn to see god as a friend like that?
a lesbian independent catholic minister sat at our table at the gotham comedy club on saturday night (we went to see judy gold. we really needed to laugh). we saw her again at a booth at pride, and there was a sign proclaiming mychal judge as a saint. i asked about praying to saints and the minister said that one makes specific requests and the saints intercede with god on one's behalf. i didn't want to be rude and ask what happens if you don't get an answer. still, i sometimes wish i could believe that completely.
starting to get light outside - will try and sleep now.
i said to steve that i didn't think a bunch of poems talking about how god would save me if i trust in him could be much help to me at the moment. steve said if one didn't work try the next.
i'd finished my free copies of go ny & the advocate. i'd read every handout and flyer that made it home with me from pride weekend. i was too tired to do sudoku and couldn't remember where to find a fresh ink cartridge for my favourite pen to do ny sunday times crosswords. i didn't want to get out of bed because there are carbs in the kitchen and it was the wrong time in every time zone to call anyone. so i just read a bit in the handy paperback. and wrote. this is what i wrote:
first up under "help when struggling with loss, depression and general woe" is psalm 27.
"when evil men assail me to devour my flesh -
it is they, my foes and my enemies, who stumble and fall."
no, this is not one for tonight - nobody has stumbled or fallen yet and i'm not in the mood just now to wait any longer.
next is psalm 42. verse 4 is promising:
"my tears have been my food day and night;
i am ever taunted with, 'where is your god?'"
but then the psalmist tells himself to:
"have hope in god;
i will yet praise him for his saving presence." (v. 6)
and i am not yet ready to stop being angry. neither is the psalmist, who asks god:
"why have you forgotten me,
why must i walk in gloom, oppressed by my enemy?" (v. 10)
but s/he has to end up with the glass half full, repeating verse 6. i decide this section is not helping my depression and inner woe. i look at the other sections - not into repentance tonight, nor joy & praise, nor yahrzeit reflections. the nearest i can get is "seeking hope and inner strength".
first option - psalm 3. i like verse 8:
"arise, o lord, deliver me, o my god
for you slap all my enemies in the face,
you break the teeth of the wicked."
i'd like to ask for that but
a. i don't think that's how it works, otherwise there would be a whole lot more spontaneous combustions and dentists
b. i am extremely conflicted between my initial emotional demand for revenge, i.e., causing pain to those who hurt me, so they will know what they have done to me and how it feels ... and my follow-up rational response that wants to preserve my sense of my integrity by not entering the fray and perpetuating the violence. my sister told me once that sometimes it just makes you feel better to be mean back. i might be able to do it, except i cannot handle the guilt!
next offering - psalm 15 - a fine description of an ideal world, which just serves to remind me how far we are from that. psalm 34, verse 12:
"come, my children, listen to me;
i will teach you what it is to fear the lord."
i wish i could believe this, i do i do i do i do i do (cue cowardly lion). on the other hand, how do i know that i have not already been offered this teaching - it's just that i cannot yet hear it?
getting fed up with all this, i resolve to try for one more. psalm 142.
"5. look at my right and see -
i have no friend;
there is nowhere i can flee,
no one cares about me
6. so i cry to you, o lord;
i say, 'you are my refuge,
all i have in the land of the living.'
7. listen to my cry, for i have been brought very low;
save me from my pursuers,
for they are too strong for me."
certainly sounds like how i feel.
last week, a student asked me if i call on god when i am in distress. i told her that, like a child, when my parents were sick i lay in bed and said aloud, "please god don't let her/him die." god's average is currently 50%.
last night steve asked me what my relationship with god was like. i told him i thought it was in a very early stage. i also said that the strength i've found in these last sleepless stressful sugar-high days had to come from somewhere and i would not necessarily argue that god would not be an explanation for that.
but i am embarrassed to say that. especially after my glbtq-pride infusion of the past few days. it it possible for me to have faith and still be a realist? is it possible for me to accept a god that, if god does intervene in human affairs, does so randomly? what role is there in my life for a god that may be with me when i despair; but does not, cannot make it better? i tell people all the time that for a child god is like a parent who *can* kiss and make it better. pediatric theology. when we grow up we realise there are many things our parents cannot fix. hopefully, we forgive them, and continue to love them. why don't we do the same for god? superman and his ilk are wishful thinking.
so what might an adult view of god look like? after the shoah, my father told me many times that god sits and weeps with us. this is what our friends do - stay with us when the pursuers are too strong for us. their love helps us get stronger. how may i learn to see god as a friend like that?
a lesbian independent catholic minister sat at our table at the gotham comedy club on saturday night (we went to see judy gold. we really needed to laugh). we saw her again at a booth at pride, and there was a sign proclaiming mychal judge as a saint. i asked about praying to saints and the minister said that one makes specific requests and the saints intercede with god on one's behalf. i didn't want to be rude and ask what happens if you don't get an answer. still, i sometimes wish i could believe that completely.
starting to get light outside - will try and sleep now.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
feminism & heroism
just found a new site called the f word that i have added to my bloglist on the right. once again cannot sleep so composed a reply to the article the link is for. here are some snippets from the end that got me writing to them:
"For what it's worth though, I am compelled to come up with a quick show of my female idols as antidotes to FHM's Sexiest Woman list that is a product of our unavoidably gender-divided and gender-obsessed society. My own list encompasses many fields from the usual feminist suspects: musicians Tori Amos, Kate Bush, PJ Harvey and Ani DiFranco and some riot grrl pioneers, to Mariella Frostrup, Alison Goldfrapp, comedienne Margaret Cho, actresses Rachel Stirling (star of Tipping The Velvet: about as down-to-earth as you can be when your mother's Dame Diana Rigg) Miranda Richardson, Emma Fielding, Helen Grace and socialist-feminist Saffron Burrows. This is of course, a very personal and non-exhaustive list but you get the idea, and there's bound to be something for everyone in there.
Some I celebrate for their eccentricity and their expressed which to deviate from "the norm", some I celebrate because they can live out bland everyday existences whilst still maintaining a presence or charm that separates them from everyone else in their situation. The list isn't age-restricted (for God's sake, if we're going to celebrate women as a distinctive category, let's not exclude those over 25). Most importantly, it doesn't look at the scale of their impact in terms of how many column inches they occupy in magazines or how many people buy what they produce - but the scale of the impact they've had on the individuals who are touched by their work, in whatever way, however many or few that may be. Perhaps this, better than anything, answers the question: what makes a woman a heroine? I may have mellowed since my days of reading press cuttings in the bath, but it's still a question that matters to me, and probably to many young women and girls trapped in suburbia grasping for any scrap of inspiration they can get their hands on..."
responding to fhm & female heroines
not having come out to myself until i was nearly 30, i didn't quite get that my adoration of beautiful women (ingrid bergman, lauren bacall, katharine hepburn through to michelle pfeiffer, candice bergen et al) might have been a message to myself :-)
from my perspective as a teacher of religion, i believe that so many of the people with whom i have worked have an innate yearning for a hero/ine & model. since organised religion outside its most orthodox forms is rarely seen as the source of ethical behaviour - religion is blamed by so many as the cause of most of the ills in our world - there is a vacuum now where once religion stood firm. what is attempting to fill it? capitalism, materialism, consumerism - call it what you will. and its heroes are the pretty young things.
maybe i'm just an angry old bourgeois-socialist bleeding-heart liberal dyke who should return to my andrea dworkin shrine and ask my panda spirit guide for serenity. i'll try and quench my fears for michael owen's acl, and stop reading through 'people' magazine before buying it for my mother. i do, however, have hope that we can learn to be kinder and also be entertained by those with gifts for acting, etc..
meanwhile, here are some of my heroines:
my mother - for making a new life after the death of my father 2 years ago.
my father - one of my favourite feminists & g/l/b/t/q advocates
laura flanders - who, beginning in school and ever since, has sought her truth and reported it in a variety of media.
sarah waters
katherine hepburn
maya angelou, audre lord, alice walker
rabbi sheila shulman
jury still out on angelina jolie ...
honorary mention for the 1970's rodney marsh because i have always been a fanatical qpr supporter
"For what it's worth though, I am compelled to come up with a quick show of my female idols as antidotes to FHM's Sexiest Woman list that is a product of our unavoidably gender-divided and gender-obsessed society. My own list encompasses many fields from the usual feminist suspects: musicians Tori Amos, Kate Bush, PJ Harvey and Ani DiFranco and some riot grrl pioneers, to Mariella Frostrup, Alison Goldfrapp, comedienne Margaret Cho, actresses Rachel Stirling (star of Tipping The Velvet: about as down-to-earth as you can be when your mother's Dame Diana Rigg) Miranda Richardson, Emma Fielding, Helen Grace and socialist-feminist Saffron Burrows. This is of course, a very personal and non-exhaustive list but you get the idea, and there's bound to be something for everyone in there.
Some I celebrate for their eccentricity and their expressed which to deviate from "the norm", some I celebrate because they can live out bland everyday existences whilst still maintaining a presence or charm that separates them from everyone else in their situation. The list isn't age-restricted (for God's sake, if we're going to celebrate women as a distinctive category, let's not exclude those over 25). Most importantly, it doesn't look at the scale of their impact in terms of how many column inches they occupy in magazines or how many people buy what they produce - but the scale of the impact they've had on the individuals who are touched by their work, in whatever way, however many or few that may be. Perhaps this, better than anything, answers the question: what makes a woman a heroine? I may have mellowed since my days of reading press cuttings in the bath, but it's still a question that matters to me, and probably to many young women and girls trapped in suburbia grasping for any scrap of inspiration they can get their hands on..."
responding to fhm & female heroines
not having come out to myself until i was nearly 30, i didn't quite get that my adoration of beautiful women (ingrid bergman, lauren bacall, katharine hepburn through to michelle pfeiffer, candice bergen et al) might have been a message to myself :-)
from my perspective as a teacher of religion, i believe that so many of the people with whom i have worked have an innate yearning for a hero/ine & model. since organised religion outside its most orthodox forms is rarely seen as the source of ethical behaviour - religion is blamed by so many as the cause of most of the ills in our world - there is a vacuum now where once religion stood firm. what is attempting to fill it? capitalism, materialism, consumerism - call it what you will. and its heroes are the pretty young things.
maybe i'm just an angry old bourgeois-socialist bleeding-heart liberal dyke who should return to my andrea dworkin shrine and ask my panda spirit guide for serenity. i'll try and quench my fears for michael owen's acl, and stop reading through 'people' magazine before buying it for my mother. i do, however, have hope that we can learn to be kinder and also be entertained by those with gifts for acting, etc..
meanwhile, here are some of my heroines:
my mother - for making a new life after the death of my father 2 years ago.
my father - one of my favourite feminists & g/l/b/t/q advocates
laura flanders - who, beginning in school and ever since, has sought her truth and reported it in a variety of media.
sarah waters
katherine hepburn
maya angelou, audre lord, alice walker
rabbi sheila shulman
jury still out on angelina jolie ...
honorary mention for the 1970's rodney marsh because i have always been a fanatical qpr supporter
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
and you shall love
in the book of deuteronomy, chapter 6, verse 5, the torah says:
"v'ahavta et adonai elohecha
and you shall love adonai your god"
in our liturgy, these words follow the shema, and continue with a description of practical ways to work on one's relationship with adonai. i have been thinking about this verse quite a lot recently, especially the first word.
when i work with bar & batmitzvah students, it is important to me that we discuss the meaning of the prayers as well as perfect the reading of them. of course they don't have to agree with or believe in anything i or the prayerbook say. i do, however, insist that we talk about the whys and why nots. a parrot could read the prayers. i do not want my students to be parrots.
nu - i ask my student: "what does it mean - and you shall love?" they usually answer very properly: "you're supposed to love god." or something like that. "so *do* you love god?" "well, er, yeah, i dunno, i suppose, whatever ..." etc.
here's the thing ... when i think about love in my life - the people i love and who love me - it doesn't just happen overnight. when i was born, all i knew was waaaah hungry waaaaah wet waaaaah poohy waaaaah tired. i had to learn about trust and caring and kindness; and whence they came. as i got older i had to learn how to be trustworthy and kind myself. in any relationship we may have an initial attraction/connection, but what makes it healthy and lasting is working on it and developing it. why should it be any different with god or the divine or whatever your name is for the energy that i choose to refer to as god?
so i talk with the kids about their parents and how their relationship has developed over the last few years. and then i ask - why should it be any different with god? i say that in my experience many people assume that "v'ahavta - you shall love" is a command ordering you to do this. but love can't be commanded. respect may be commanded, but not love. so what might this word mean?
when you look at the hebrew (apologies to my dikdook klassi teacher yossi that i no longer remember the correct grammatical phrases) the verb 'to love' is the second person singular past tense, but the vav in front of it turns it into a future tense. what's the big deal? you *shall* love, i.e, in the future, i.e., as the relationship develops. it is the beginning of a process, and the rest of the passage lists a number of practical actions one may do to that end.
when the students realise that, rather than being a demand to do something that currently makes no sense to them, this is actually a suggestion that may guide them to find some meaning in their religious tradition, they think it's pretty cool. i do too.
"v'ahavta et adonai elohecha
and you shall love adonai your god"
in our liturgy, these words follow the shema, and continue with a description of practical ways to work on one's relationship with adonai. i have been thinking about this verse quite a lot recently, especially the first word.
when i work with bar & batmitzvah students, it is important to me that we discuss the meaning of the prayers as well as perfect the reading of them. of course they don't have to agree with or believe in anything i or the prayerbook say. i do, however, insist that we talk about the whys and why nots. a parrot could read the prayers. i do not want my students to be parrots.
nu - i ask my student: "what does it mean - and you shall love?" they usually answer very properly: "you're supposed to love god." or something like that. "so *do* you love god?" "well, er, yeah, i dunno, i suppose, whatever ..." etc.
here's the thing ... when i think about love in my life - the people i love and who love me - it doesn't just happen overnight. when i was born, all i knew was waaaah hungry waaaaah wet waaaaah poohy waaaaah tired. i had to learn about trust and caring and kindness; and whence they came. as i got older i had to learn how to be trustworthy and kind myself. in any relationship we may have an initial attraction/connection, but what makes it healthy and lasting is working on it and developing it. why should it be any different with god or the divine or whatever your name is for the energy that i choose to refer to as god?
so i talk with the kids about their parents and how their relationship has developed over the last few years. and then i ask - why should it be any different with god? i say that in my experience many people assume that "v'ahavta - you shall love" is a command ordering you to do this. but love can't be commanded. respect may be commanded, but not love. so what might this word mean?
when you look at the hebrew (apologies to my dikdook klassi teacher yossi that i no longer remember the correct grammatical phrases) the verb 'to love' is the second person singular past tense, but the vav in front of it turns it into a future tense. what's the big deal? you *shall* love, i.e, in the future, i.e., as the relationship develops. it is the beginning of a process, and the rest of the passage lists a number of practical actions one may do to that end.
when the students realise that, rather than being a demand to do something that currently makes no sense to them, this is actually a suggestion that may guide them to find some meaning in their religious tradition, they think it's pretty cool. i do too.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
impossible question
a friend taking a melton class told me they just did the unit on why do people suffer. since it was a judaism class, it centred mostly on the torah interpretation, i.e., punishment for non-compliance with commandments, human minds not able to encompass the bigger picture.
knee-jerk response ... i think it splits into 2 areas - the suffering humans cause directly and indirectly, e.g., lack of care and concern for each other in our daily relationships, plus a similar lack for the consequences of our actions. and then there is that suffering that we cannot explain, e.g., natural disasters, and incurable diseases.
i see religion as a system developed and organised by humans to help engender ethical behaviour and to give explanations and meanings to our lives. i believe that it needs a contemporary context - to connect with the teachings in our scripture (for me - using the torah as my example) it helps to make them relevant to the current community. my liberal jewish way of doing this is to try and extract the essence of the text, and apply it to today.
NEVERTHELESS this is all human beings working with their human minds and hearts in their human experience. i hope i do the best i can. i also believe and feel that i must accept there are things beyond my ken that make no sense to me and do not feel fair.
so what do i do with that?
i can blame god. i can say that a god who lets these things happen is not a very good god. i can damn religion and refuse to take part in it.
i can be angry. i can be angry with god. and the world. and myself. and people. i can be sad. i can be miserable. i can be depressed. i can be cynical.
interestingly enough, however, all these things are all about me. ME. that does not mean that i am not stricken on behalf of someone i love who is going through chemo, or sick at the news from darfur. i am not a bad person.
the thing is - maybe i need to switch the focus. instead of feeling powerless - is there something i may do to make a difference?
the first choice is to try and fix the situation at hand. that may not be possible. i cannot cure my friend's cancer. i cannot stop wars and corruption on the other side of the world.
what then can i do? NUMBER ONE IS TO HAVE HOPE. it ain't over 'til it's over
number two is to do something. there is no quick fix for the ills of the world. it took a long time for us to mess it up like this, and it will take a long time to make it better. perhaps, if we were not so attached to the need to see the results of our actions, we would find it easier to act. yet we harvest and eat fruit planted by those who never enjoyed that fruit themselves. so why do we balk at following their example?
that's all very well and noble, you may say, but what about my sick friend? what about the evil and corruption in the world far and near?
my answer is that we do the best we can. we love and comfort and care for our dear ones. we live the values to which we aspire. we work to improve the world by speaking up for those values, by being active within the forces for change.
if you believe in a god or divine presence, then perhaps you may draw some of the strength you need from this faith. if you do not, then it is up to you. the point is, the power is in our own hands to do something. it is a cop-out to blame anything or anyone else. if you don't like it - do something about it! it may take baby steps at first, but if you don't start, you'll not get anywhere.
ps yanks 9 runs down tonight after one and a half innings and the radio guy saying this is embarrassing. guess what - they just won in the bottom of the 9th with 2 out. they didn't give up :-)
knee-jerk response ... i think it splits into 2 areas - the suffering humans cause directly and indirectly, e.g., lack of care and concern for each other in our daily relationships, plus a similar lack for the consequences of our actions. and then there is that suffering that we cannot explain, e.g., natural disasters, and incurable diseases.
i see religion as a system developed and organised by humans to help engender ethical behaviour and to give explanations and meanings to our lives. i believe that it needs a contemporary context - to connect with the teachings in our scripture (for me - using the torah as my example) it helps to make them relevant to the current community. my liberal jewish way of doing this is to try and extract the essence of the text, and apply it to today.
NEVERTHELESS this is all human beings working with their human minds and hearts in their human experience. i hope i do the best i can. i also believe and feel that i must accept there are things beyond my ken that make no sense to me and do not feel fair.
so what do i do with that?
i can blame god. i can say that a god who lets these things happen is not a very good god. i can damn religion and refuse to take part in it.
i can be angry. i can be angry with god. and the world. and myself. and people. i can be sad. i can be miserable. i can be depressed. i can be cynical.
interestingly enough, however, all these things are all about me. ME. that does not mean that i am not stricken on behalf of someone i love who is going through chemo, or sick at the news from darfur. i am not a bad person.
the thing is - maybe i need to switch the focus. instead of feeling powerless - is there something i may do to make a difference?
the first choice is to try and fix the situation at hand. that may not be possible. i cannot cure my friend's cancer. i cannot stop wars and corruption on the other side of the world.
what then can i do? NUMBER ONE IS TO HAVE HOPE. it ain't over 'til it's over
number two is to do something. there is no quick fix for the ills of the world. it took a long time for us to mess it up like this, and it will take a long time to make it better. perhaps, if we were not so attached to the need to see the results of our actions, we would find it easier to act. yet we harvest and eat fruit planted by those who never enjoyed that fruit themselves. so why do we balk at following their example?
that's all very well and noble, you may say, but what about my sick friend? what about the evil and corruption in the world far and near?
my answer is that we do the best we can. we love and comfort and care for our dear ones. we live the values to which we aspire. we work to improve the world by speaking up for those values, by being active within the forces for change.
if you believe in a god or divine presence, then perhaps you may draw some of the strength you need from this faith. if you do not, then it is up to you. the point is, the power is in our own hands to do something. it is a cop-out to blame anything or anyone else. if you don't like it - do something about it! it may take baby steps at first, but if you don't start, you'll not get anywhere.
ps yanks 9 runs down tonight after one and a half innings and the radio guy saying this is embarrassing. guess what - they just won in the bottom of the 9th with 2 out. they didn't give up :-)
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
keeping the plates spinning
when i was little, i used to watch a tv show called 'blue peter'. it had everything on it from collecting milk bottle tops in order to get a guide dog for the blind, to visiting ceylon with hrh princess anne on behalf of save the children fund. it showed you how to make a gift out of egg-cartons, paint and some tissue paper; and lit an advent crown each week before xmas. nice and english all that. i mention it because i remember seeing them present the world record attempt for the greatest number of plates that could be kept spinning simultaneously on a stick. the guy had to keep running around and touching up the ones that were slowing down, otherwise they would fall off and smash.
nu - in which order do you decide which plates to attend to?
work, and different issues within it?
personal health & fitness?
relationships near and far?
this week it has become clear to me (for this week at least) that the most important thing upon which i should concentrate is how to let nasty behaviour to me by others affect me like water off a duck's back (thank you labensons).
the problem is that, while my brain knows this, the reality gap between it and my feelings is wide.
w i d e
end of musing - have to get back to work
nu - in which order do you decide which plates to attend to?
work, and different issues within it?
personal health & fitness?
relationships near and far?
this week it has become clear to me (for this week at least) that the most important thing upon which i should concentrate is how to let nasty behaviour to me by others affect me like water off a duck's back (thank you labensons).
the problem is that, while my brain knows this, the reality gap between it and my feelings is wide.
w i d e
end of musing - have to get back to work
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)