The Labour of Prayer

I recently heard an Orthodox priest tell the following story:

One of my parishioners, a businessman, husband and father of 4, came to me and said, "Father, I need your counsel about my prayer life. I keep all the Divine Offices - Lauds before I leave for work, Third, Sixth and Ninth Hours during the day, I pray Vespers with my wife and children in the evening and I get up at 2am to pray the Night Office - what should I do?" I said to him, Pray...for...me.

A cute story of how we priests and monastics who are supposed to be dedicated to prayer can be trumped by exceptionally devout Christian laypeople. Praise God for them!

What this reveals, however, is the stark reality that many of us who fancy to call ourselves monastics, who stroll around in our Habits and secretly can't help but like those subtle nods of the head and smiles from others whom we think are acknowledging our 'holiness'; who are supposed to be not only devoted to prayer but actively disciplined in it as the preeminent labour of our lives, fall very short of the Apostle's injunction to Pray without ceasing.

As Monastics we are not just expected to be people who pray a lot but are supposed to be people who actually know how to pray without ceasing.

But do we?

St. Augustine gives us great insight into this un-ceasing prayer:

The Apostle Paul had a purpose in saying, ‘Pray without ceasing’. Are we then ceaselessly to bend out knees, to lie prostrate, or to lift up our hands? Is this what is meant in saying, ‘Pray without ceasing’? Even if we admit that we pray in this fashion, I do not believe that we can do so all the time.

Yet there is another, interior kind of prayer without ceasing, namely, the desire of the heart. Whatever else you may be doing, if you but fix your desire on God’s Sabbath rest, your prayer will be ceaseless. Therefore, if you wish to pray without ceasing, do not cease to desire. The constancy of your desire will itself be the ceaseless voice of your prayer. And that voice of your prayer will be silent only when your love ceases.

For the desire of your heart is itself your prayer. And if the desire is constant, so is your prayer.

What then does it mean to fix our desire on God’s Sabbath rest?

The Blessed Augustine gives us a further insight:

You have made us for Yourself, O God, and our souls will never rest until they rest in You.

God Himself is our rest. He Himself is the One upon Whom we must fix our desire.

The world we live in is such that it tempts us to desire many things – some good, some bad. And it is always a relatively easy thing to justify our desires by classifying them as ‘needs’. We often say we ‘need’ this or that or the other. But how often, I wonder, do we openly acknowledge to ourselves and to others our need for God? There is an old hymn that goes:

I need Thee, O I need Thee;

Every hour I need Thee.

O Bless me now, my Saviour,

I come to Thee.

This should be the un-ceasing hymn sung from our heart’s desire.

But if our desires are identified as needs and our attention fixed solely on earning a living to pay for our housing, our food, our clothing and all the other things that go along with that, we risk making God the source of our prosperity rather than our Rest. I do not mean to diminish the importance of food, housing, clothing and honest work nor our responsibility in relation to that. We cannot sit in front of our icons, chanting psalms to the exclusion of all else. But we must realize – fully realize – that everything we use, possess and consume is given to us freely by God without our having earned it. Once we come to the fullness of this realization our response should be to offer to God that which is most valuable and pleasing to Him, namely, a sacrifice of thanksgiving of our selves and our time.

The character of Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings trilogy at one point says to Frodo, “It is for us to decide what to do with the time that has been given to us.” Indeed, the usage of time is often one of the most difficult aspects of the spiritual life, especially for those who are by necessity engaged in worldly obligations. Demands on our time can lead to frustration and anxiety when we want to dedicate time to prayer but know we cannot neglect our husband/wife, family, job, etc. But if we make an honest assessment of how we use our time, God will show us where we can find some for Him. And even in the midst of our occupations and obligations, if our hearts and minds are unified in their constant awareness of and desire for His Presence, we will be in a state of prayer.

The end of the Christian life in general and the monastic life in particular is to be transformed, or deified; to become a person of communion, as we were created to be. But transformation cannot take place without a willingness to change. We did not get to the messed up and spiritually dysfunctional state we are in today overnight and we will not be transformed overnight. God works in our lives only in so much as we submit to Him and allow Him to. As C.S. Lewis put it, “He can never ravish, but only woo.” Sometimes, especially when we are at prayer, we are seeking after the ravishment (or in theological terms, the consolation of the Spirit) but we have been oblivious to the Lord’s wooing all day long.

The complete awareness that God is everywhere Present and filling all things must become the constant of our thinking before we can develop the ceaseless voice of prayer, which is a Grace given in proportion to how much we are willing to change our habits and devote time spent in solitary at the foot of the Cross. Devotion without neglect of our duties is the delicate but essential balance of the spiritual life. But those who seek diligently will find their hiding place in the Lord (Ps. 32).

Toward such an end, St. Theofan the Recluse offers some helpful advice on entering the praying state of mind.

Being a soul’s breath, a prayer is most important in the life of a Christian. The presence of prayer in someone’s life means that the person is spiritually alive, without a prayer a person is dead. Standing in front of icons and bowing is not yet a prayer itself, those are just attributes of prayer. The same can be said about reading a prayer, whether recited by memory or read from a book, it would not be a prayer itself, but merely a means to start it. The main thing in praying is invocation of feelings of reverence to God: devotedness to the Father, gratitude, submission to the Will of God, an aspiration to glorify Him and similar feelings. That is why while praying we should make those feelings permeate ourselves so that our hearts would not be dry. It is only when our hearts appeal to God that our reading prayers (evening or morning praying) becomes a true prayer, otherwise it is not yet a prayer. A prayer, which is an appeal of our heart to God, should be invoked and strengthened; a spirit of intercession should be brought up within us.

The first way to do it is to pray through reading or listening to prayers written in prayer books [this means a book containing prayers composed by the saints, not the proper services of worship]. Read the prayer book or listen to it very attentively and you will certainly incite and strengthen your heart in its ascension to God, which means you would enter the prayerful spirit. In the prayers of holy fathers (printed in prayer books and other church books), a great prayer power is in motion. Who is diligently attending them will through the force of interaction enjoy that power, as the state of mind of a praying person comes closer to the essence of those prayers. In order to turn your intercessions into an effective way of nourishing a prayer, one must do it so that both your mind and heart would perceive the content of the prayers being read.

Here are the three simplest ways to achieve it:

·        Do not start a prayer without preparing yourself to it properly.

·        Say prayers with feeling and attention but not casually.

·        After completing your prayer do not hasten to go back to your everyday cares.

Preparation to Praying:

Before you start a prayer, no matter where it is taking place, stand or sit for a short time and try to sober your mind, relieving it of all irrelevant work and cares. Then give thought to Who is the One you are turning to in prayer and who you are in praying to Him; invoke the appropriate attitude of humility and reverential awe to God. That is the beginning of a prayer and a good beginning is half the success.

The Praying Itself:

Having prepared yourself, stand in front of the icons, make the Sign of the Cross, bow and begin the usual praying. Say the prayer without haste, discerning every word and taking it close to your heart. In other words, you should understand what you are reading and feel what you understood. Make signs of the Cross and bows while praying. This is the essence of reading prayers that are fruitful and God-pleasing. “Thy Will be done” commends your destiny to the Lord completely and wholeheartedly, with readiness to accept gladly whatever He sends you. While reading “And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors,” your soul should forgive everyone of has offended you.

First, set a certain praying rule for yourself; it should not be too lengthy, so you can fulfill it without haste amongst all your daily routine.

Second, in your spare time read through the prayers of your set of prayer (prayer rule) attentively, understanding and perceiving every word so that you can prepare yourself beforehand and learn what feelings and thoughts you need to evoke in your soul to understand and perceive everything easily during your prayers.

Third, if your volatile thoughts would get distracted by other things during your prayer, exert yourself to focus your attention, keeping your mind concentrated on the subject of your prayer. Bring your mind back to it every time it wanders away. Read the prayer again and again until every word of the prayer is said with awareness and feeling. That will rule out your absent-mindedness during prayers.

Fourth, if some word in the prayer touches your soul in a special way, do not proceed with the prayer, but focus on that word or phrase, nourishing your soul with the attention, feeling and thoughts evoked by the word; stick to that state of mind until it fades away. This is a sign of the prayerful spirit beginning to enter you. That state of mind and soul is the most reliable way to cherish and strengthen the prayerful spirit in a person.

What to Do After the Prayer

After finishing your prayer do not hasten to take up your usual chores, but slow down and think at least for a little while about what you felt and to what it obliges you. Try to keep in your mind what impressed you most of all. The nature of the prayer itself is such that after a really good prayer one would not want to switch over to one’s usual things, as those who relished in something sweet do not want anything bitter. Enjoying the sweetness of the praying is in fact the goal of saying prayers, which brings up the prayerful spirit.

Following those simple rules will soon bring results. Any prayerful invocation makes a good impact on the soul, if you stick to those rules, and it deepens the impact, and patience in praying will generate the prayerful mood.

Those are the first steps in bringing up a prayerful spirit in oneself. It is for this purpose that the praying practice is set. Yet, it is not the aim in itself, but just the beginning of gaining mastery in prayer. We have to go on.

Yes, indeed we have to go on. To the point where the Jesus Prayer is as natural to us as breathing. To the point where we perceive that praying is the most natural labour we do and all else is un-natural.

Only a very few pray perfectly, and those who do will, in their humility, ascribe nothing to themselves and everything to God because they have gone past believing to knowing – knowing their need of God.

Someone has suggested that the Beatitude “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God” can be understood as “Blessed are those who know their need of God.”

Blessed are we indeed who pray knowing our need of God, ceaselessly desiring His Presence and delighting to be His labourer.

+++

Heaven and Hell In The Afterlife

I would like to draw attention to this wonderful essay:

Heaven and Hell in the Afterlife 

Fr. Gregory Blevins of VagantePriest shared this and I for one am profoundly thankful that he did.

This piece rightly stands on its own but is at the same time a worthy companion to The River of Fire (which can be found in the 'Gateway to Other Realms' column of links on this blog).

It is a bit lengthy but most definitely worth the investment of time. It is consistent Orthodox teaching which I heartily reccommend for all who wish to understand the crucial theological (not merely superficial) differences between Orthodox Christianity, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.

I hope from this it may be seen why this Order has embraced Orthodoxy.

+ + +   

Daybreakers and the Dawn From On High

In the tender compassion of our God, the dawn from on high shall break upon us, to shine on those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death, and to guide our feet into the way of peace (Luke 1:78-79).

The Benedictus, or Canticle of Zechariah, is well known to those of us who pray the Divine Offices; it is the Gospel Canticle of Morning Prayer.

This portion of the Canticle comes to mind in light of two things I have recently witnessed.

The first was a television news piece about Anne Rice, the author of the famous Vampire Chronicles series of books. In the interview Ms. Rice spoke of her conversion to Roman Catholicism and that she has recently left the Church because of its position on homosexuality; she disclosed that her son was homosexual and she could not be part of a religious institution that taught that her son’s condition was “disordered”. She went on to say that she would miss most the Liturgy, the ritual, but implied that the Church’s position on this issue was tantamount to persecution.

The second was the movie Daybreakers, which turned out to be not at all the usual kind of vampire movie. This was a futuristic world in which all but about 20% of the population were infected with vampirism. The entire governmental and corporate structure of society had been altered to accommodate the special needs of vampires: cars with built-in instant window tinting to block out sunlight; if the car door is opened during daylight, instead of the usual beeps that remind you the keys are still in the ignition or the headlights are on, there’s a computerized voice saying, “UV Warning!” All business and work is done at night and there are public service announcements broadcasted all over to remind everyone how many hours until daylight. The remaining human population is hunted and farmed for blood supply. This naturally is pretty big business. The only problem is the humans are becoming extinct. Blood rationing begins and the breakdown of society follows. Starving vampires begin feeding on each other, which poisons them and turns them into “subsiders” – nasferatu-like creatures, beastly and quite insane. They are shunned and feared and when captured are disposed of by dragging them out in chains into the sunlight – execution by spontaneous combustion. The government and corporations begin research into creating a blood substitute vampires can subsist on, giving the humans time to reproduce. Some vampires are sympathetic to the human condition and want the blood substitute so that humans and vampires can co-exist. This is the position of the main character who wants a real cure and not just a fix. He finds that the cure has indeed been discovered by a group of refugee humans led by a former vampire who has been cured. The cure turns out to be controlled exposure to sunlight in an oxygen-deprived atmospheric chamber, which permits the intensity of the sunlight but reduces the devastating combustive effect. The main character himself is cured and further discovers that when vampires feed on a cured vampire they too are cured, but more than a few have to give their lives in order for the cure to spread.

The real complication to all this, however, is that some of the vampires do not want to be cured. They do not want to become human again and be subject to disease and eventual death. They believed there was nothing wrong with them, there was no way back and it was better to simply solve the food supply problem.

Now what do these two things have in common besides vampires?

The storyline of this movie, in some respects, I believe, can serve as an analogy of sorts to the homosexual condition in our society. That there are people afflicted with a pathological mental disorder, unable to recognize that there is something wrong and therefore do not want to be cured. Instead, they make their illness a social issue of “equality” and “rights” when it is in fact neither. They seek to make a destructive behaviour socially acceptable through means of legal coercion. They are dwelling in the shadow of death, unknowingly.

In the case of Ann Rice, the Dawn from on High has definitely shown upon her but she apparently made the choice of approving her son’s condition (equating that approval with love) over accepting the Truth of the Gospel as taught by the Church (as if there is an absence of love in Truth).

The Church cannot change its teaching in this regard. If it does it ceases to be the Church and becomes instead an apostate to the Christian Faith. The very idea that churches calling themselves Christian can alter a fundamental and salvifically essential moral teaching on the premise that it “discriminates” and/or “persecutes” a specific group of people is outrageously arrogant and a pitiable delusion.

But at the same time we Christians must acknowledge the worthiness of every human person to be loved, and no less those who are infirm of mind or body.

Would it not have been more loving of Ann Rice to tell her son that though he suffers from an illness that he is no less a beautiful person? And offer him the same healing faith that she herself had found?

Would it have been loving on the part of prominent mathematician and Nobel Laureate John Nash’s wife to allow him to continue in his state of schizophrenia, rather than telling him the truth, helping him to realize his sickness and allowing A Beautiful Mind to be healed?

Why do we often show revulsion and hostility to these people (thereby earning the label of “homophobe”) or take the politically correct road of relativism instead of loving them enough to tell them the truth and helping them to see their need of a cure?

There is indeed specific spiritual psychotherapy for the homosexual affliction. And indeed, there will always be some whose minds are so thoroughly overthrown that they will never accept it. But for our part, as Christians, let us learn how to offer consolation instead of condemnation, compassion without giving in to compromise.

Homosexual people are not vampires though some of them have willingly chosen to dwell in darkness. Some who are not so afflicted also dwell in darkness. Even a few who have been enlightened by Faith walk a fine line between darkness and the Light. In every case that line runs directly through the human heart. It can never be entirely removed (at least not in this life) but it can be influenced to go one way or the other; the Way of Light and the way of darkness is always a choice.

Interesting that Our Lord has said His disciples are to be “salt” and “light” – two specific things that are traditionally repulsive to vampires and other such critters. The true meaning of this, of course, is that Christians are to be reflections of the Divine Light and preservers of God’s Covenant in the world.

Perhaps it is possible to think of this in imaginative terms like ‘Daybreakers from on High’?

However we may tend to think of it, we simply must choose to love, that those who are dwelling in their particular kind of darkness may have enough Light to find their way back. There is always a way back: it is Christ.

+++

The Keening of Mary

Today we Orthodox celebrate the Dormition (Falling Asleep) of the Most Blessed, Ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of God (Theotokos).

Our Roman Catholic brethren celebrate this day as The Assumption, the taking up into heaven of the Blessed Mother.

Either way one prefers to look at it, most of us will assuredly fall asleep one day, but we have the hope of being transitioned, taken up to be with Our Lord. What the Blessed Virgin Mary has become, we also have the hope to become: a Perfected Human Person in Perfect Communion with the Fullness of the Presence of God. Alleluia!

For this occasion, I share here a beautiful poem from the ancient Celtic Christian Tradition:

The Keening of Mary

Mary:   O Peter,

                O Apostle,

                  has thou seen

                  my bright love?

Peter:   I saw Him
               even now,

                 in the midst

                 of His foemen.

Mary:   Come hither,

               ye two Marys,

               and my

               bright love be

                         keening.

The

Two

Marys:   If His body be not with us,

                    sure our keene

                    had little meaning.

Mary:   Who is yonder stately Man

                  on the Tree

                  His Passion showing?

Christ:   O Mother, thine own son,

                   can it be
                   thou art not knowing?

Mary:   And is that the little son

                 whom nine months

                             I was bearing?

              And is that the little son

                 in the stall

                 I was a' caring?

              And is that the little son

                 this Mary's breast

                         was draining?

Christ:  Hush thee,

                hush thee, Mother,

                 and be not
                 so complaining.

Mary:   And is this the very hammer
                 that struck the sharp nails
                                            thro' thee?

              And this the very spear

                 that thy white side pierced

                                      and slew thee?

              And is that the crown of thorns

                 that thy beauteous head

                                             is caging?

Christ:  Hush, Mother,

                 for my sake
                 thy sorrow be assuaging.

              For thy own love's sake

                 thy cruel sorrow smother!

             The women of my keening

                are unborn yet,

                       little Mother!

             O woman, why weepest thou

                 my death that leads to pardon?

             Happy hundreds,

                today,

                shall stray through Paradise Garden.

             Hush, O Mother,

                and be not sorrowful.


                       +++

Identity Crisis

From time to time it seems prudent to articulate as clearly as possible who we are, what the Order of Celtic Benedictines is, what we are not, what we are trying to become and what our mission is in the world.

It can sometimes be a frustrating and confusing task to identify ourselves to others when we live in a culture in which the average understanding does not comprehend anything that does not fit into accepted stereotypical boxes. In other words, if one does not identify oneself as “Catholic”, “Anglican/Episcopalian”, “Greek/Russian Orthodox”, “Baptist”, “Lutheran”, “Presbyterian”, “Non-Denominational”, etc, then it is very difficult for people to form a concept of exactly what kind of Christian we are claiming to be and how we “fit” into the larger scheme of things.

Of course we want people to be able to understand who we are, we try to fulfill St. Paul’s exhortation to “be all things to all people” that we may save some of them, but this does not mean we alter our charism to conform to someone else’s perception or to be accepted or recognized as “valid” or “legitimate” by any other group or organization. This in itself can be problematic and requires more than a little skill in the field of apologetics, because no matter how much we want to keep things simple, sometimes there is just no simple way of explaining things to the un-initiated. Most times it takes an ongoing conversation and always a continuous example to re-orient the cultural thinking pattern. Coming from the Protestant background that I do I am aware of the difficulty involved in overcoming this obstacle. Therefore, with this in mind, I will attempt to answer the questions I posed above as directly as possible, for the benefit of our members as well as those who may be led by the Spirit to join themselves to us.

Who We Are:

We are Christian Monastics.

What does this mean?

This means we are disciples of Jesus Christ, seeking union – Theosis - with Him by conforming our lives to the example He set and the example of early Christians who rejected the vanity of the world and preferred nothing whatsoever to Christ.

What We Are – What We Are Not:

We are individuals who agree on both common and specific means of achieving this union with Christ and have formed an extended community in order to live out a common devout life in unity.

This means we are a Religious Order not a church.

We are part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, built on the foundation of the Apostles and their Successors, in union with essential Universal and Right-Believing traditions, doctrines and canons. We govern ourselves because we have our own bishop, but for the sake of unity and because we believe that women can be called by the Holy Spirit to serve in sacramental ordained ministry, we are affiliated with the Anglican Communion but are not theologically aligned with it nor canonically dependent upon it.

These are the common means we agree on.

The specific means we agree on for achieving union with Christ our Lord are found in our embracing of the unique cultural heritage of the ancient Celtic Christians and their way of seeing the world around them. For them there was no separation between the spiritual and material realms: “The earth is the Lord’s and all its fullness, the world and all who dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1) and “Am I a God near at hand, says the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can anyone hide himself in secret places, so I shall not see him? Says the Lord; Do I not fill heaven and earth? Says the Lord.” (Jer. 23:23-24).

This way of seeing the nature of things is profoundly apparent in the traditions of the Anam Cara and the Peregrinatio.

To have an anam cara or “soul friend” was to have a personal spiritual guide that was loved, respected and trusted implicitly and was the means of spiritual mentorship and apprenticeship.

The character and understanding of the peregrinatio is the ideal of the interior journey, the seeking to perceive the Kingdom of God within us and the image of Christ sealed upon the soul; the impulse to “follow the Lamb wherever He goes”.

The Celtic way of the anam cara shapes our relationships; peregrinatio is the framework of our contemplation.

Realizing that union with Christ is at the same time union with the Most Holy Trinity, we know from the example of both Scripture and Tradition that the path of Theosis favours ascetics and solitaries but even these were connected to an ordered community and guided by a rule of spiritual discipline. We choose to follow the example of order set forth by St. Benedict of Nursia. His Rule for monastic life is altogether oriented toward achieving union with Christ and so we identify with that age-old Benedictine tradition.

All that has been set forth above as common and specific means of union with Christ – Catholic, Celtic, Benedictine – are like separate streams of water flowing into one river; this river is Orthodoxy.

While the streams represent a universal yet distinct heritage and tradition, they all find their source and ultimate identity in the ancient Orthodox Christian Faith. All of these elements relate to and inform each other so perfectly it is as if several styles of Icons had been written by the hand of a single iconographer.

And what we are trying to become is that singular Icon of Christ written by the loving hand of the Holy Spirit upon our hearts.

Our Mission in the World:

Our mission is, first and foremost, to pray – communally, privately and liturgically - for all people - believers and unbelievers that all may be saved.

Secondly, our mission is to worship – liturgically; and no matter the richness or poverty of the setting, to help others experience and embrace the Fullness of the ancient Faith and the richness of the Mysteries of God’s Grace.

Lastly, our mission is to be “Windows to Holiness” that others may see what the love of God and complete devotion to Him looks like and to teach by word and example the transforming power of the Gospel and living Orthodoxy.

+++

Cultivating Happiness

This from our friend, The Desert Pilgrim:

The Undying Flame (from "The Battle for Life")

p. 9---

"It is the testimony of an unfailing life, an undying life, an all-sufficient life; the testimony of a life which is not an abstract, which is not something stored up, but something which is coming all the time from an inexhaustible stream; a mighty, glorious life. As the light burns, it is a constant declaration of victory, and that a victory over death, death which would seek to quench the light, quench the flame, smother it. It burns in the mist of surrounding death, a continuous declaration that death has no power to quench it."

This is very timely and speaks to me in a deep way.

Throughout our (almost) 15 year marriage, my husband and his mother frequently say and tell others that I am "one of the happy people".

Since both of them suffer with certain mild forms of depression, I usually make a little joke about it by saying that God had to make "happy people" in order to keep the depressed people from killing themselves!

They think it is an exceptional quality and I can appreciate and be grateful for their sentiment but I try to explain to them that whatever it is they perceive in me, it is not my own doing. I have simply always been aware of a disposition within myself that tends to always see the positive and the good and the potential for positive good.

I count it as a gift from God. But as is the case with many of God's Gifts, it is not a gift that does not require cultivation.

Hence, over the years, my husband and mother-in-law have come to, not just tolerate, but respect what I have to do to cultivate that gift.

Perhaps they don't fully understand but they do know that it effects them and they seem to benefit from the effect.

So this speaks to me now, the "necessity" and "continual need for oil."

Because without it, there can be no "constant declaration of victory."

And for me, in my situation, that means I cannot continue to meet every challenge, every problem that lack of money gives rise to, every temptation to feel offended by a passing word spoken out of aggravation, frustration or pain.

I cannot meet that with only the strength of my 'natural' disposition, however powerful it may indeed be of itself.

I need the continual flow of oil from the Word, from keeping the Commandments, from keeping the Sabbath, from keeping the Divine Office, from serving the Divine Liturgy, from watchfulness and the constant remembrance of the Holy Name.

I think this just constitutes a "Eucharistic awareness", the Sacramental Principle in application. In short, the Orthodox Way of life, or as the Protestants might say, "Walking in the Spirit."

But this way of life will also bring a type of alienation from those who do not or are not willing to understand. And that is a cross to bear, because it facilitates a certain isolation. The isolation that comes from the sudden and un chosen realization that there are moments within and brought on by events that one deeply feels the need to share with another who has similar understanding but there is no one to be found save Christ our Lord Himself.

This is a burden of the Interior Life.

But He is Sufficient and the burden is light as long as the oil is continual and fresh.

+++

Strange Notions - Or Not!

There are some really strange notions and ideas to found on the net. Some are so strange they actually make a bit of sense.

For the record, I will state that I am not an anarchist nor am I a Libertarian (though I happen to agree with a few points of their platform, but by no means all). I simply found this to be rather intriguing.

The following is taken from a 2001 lecture by Roderick T. Long, a teacher of Philosophy at Auburn University.

Given the vast inequality in authority between the state apparatus and its subjects — given, for that matter, the vast socioeconomic inequality between them — how is it that so many who think of themselves as dedicated above all to human equality so readily become apologists for the state?

... how those who appear so sensitive to constraints on choice, and to differences in bargaining power, when these derive from market factors, become so amazingly oblivious to the constraint on choice, and differential bargaining power, represented by the armed might of the state, empowered to enforce its demands by legalized violence.

The fifth-century B.C. Chinese philosopher Mo-tzu once remarked that if someone can recognize an act of unjust aggression when it is perpetrated by one individual against another, but not when the same act is perpetrated by an organized group of individuals, such a person must be confused about right and wrong.

Socioeconomic egalitarians, then, must likewise be under some sort of confusion. But what, and why?

A cynic might respond that socioeconomic egalitarians are not confused at all; their supposed devotion to equality is simply a disguise for powerlust, and they exempt the state from their criticisms because they plan to wield its reins, or at least to get in good with those who do. This strikes me as a fair analysis of some, but only some, socioeconomic egalitarians. Most of the socioeconomic egalitarians I know personally are sincere in their egalitarianism and well-meaning in their statism.

I don't mean by this that they are entirely innocent; after all, an innocent statist would have to be one who says: "I recognize—as who could not?—that the coercive subordination of individuals to the state by the means of systematic legalized violence and the threat thereof is a great evil. But this evil is, unfortunately, necessary in order to prevent evils still greater." A statist who took this point of view could not be cheerful about her statism, but on the contrary would have to conduct herself with the tragic solemnity of Agamemenon sacrificing his daughter to save the fleet.

The innocent statist, too, could hardly permit herself to reach this grim conclusion without first investigating possible alternatives—which, for a statist in the academy, would have to involve carefully researching and trying to refute (and desperately hoping to be unable to refute) the wealth of libertarian literature arguing that most of the other evils she cites can be prevented through nonstatist means. By these criteria, few statists qualify as innocent. To seek for alternatives to inequality in authority would be to acknowledge that statism involves such inequality before ascertaining that alternatives are available, and this would force upon the statist an unpleasant choice she prefers to avoid. Hence I regard statism as being, at least in most cases, a moral vice, rather than a mere cognitive mistake, in much the same way that racism and sexism are moral vices, not mere cognitive mistakes.

But, again like racism and sexism, statism is the kind of moral vice that tends to enter the soul through self-deception, semi-conscious osmosis, and a kind of Arendtian banality, rather than through a forthright embrace; it is a form of spiritual blindness that can, and does, infect even those who are largely sincere and well-meaning.

+++

Eternal Memory or Eternal Life

Having just seen the movie Avatar (I rarely see movies at the cinema house anymore), I have to say it is one of the most amazing films I have ever seen. Visually stunning, thrilling and a timeless story: an indigenous, holistic, technologically primitive people rising up to defend and preserve their way of life against a technologically advanced aggressor. That would be us, by the way (humankind, that is). This is what we have been doing to ourselves since the Fall. One person or a community of persons who are not able to defend what they have will have it taken from them by the stronger. This is a simple and unavoidable fact. It may not be right but it nevertheless happens.

The most fascinating thing here, however, is the concept of transference of human consciousness into a genetically compatible alternate body. This is an age-old concept that has been presented in many varieties of science fiction, from the old TV series The Twilight Zone to Star Trek and many others. It is a very exciting and attractive concept, considering that many of us (who are willing to admit it) are not very happy with the bodies we have been given; we would much prefer to be some one or some thing – other. Hence we have movies, video games, the Society for Creative Anachronism, etc, all of which are avatars of a sort that provides temporary means of escape from reality.

I understand the desire for this all too well. I have never had much liking for my own reality. I would much prefer to live in the Shire with the Hobbits, with the Elves in Rivendell or on one of the Jedi worlds. Not because I consider these to be utopian worlds but because life there would have a different character, based on a different dynamic, or so I imagine. So while we fantasaical-minded folks have to live in this reality, we ignore as much of it as possible, allowing our fantasies to translate our lives into a manner of perceiving that views this reality as highly abstract. In other words, we don’t belong here.

Of course this reality and our fantasy world both share a common element that is inescapable and cannot be ignored no matter how much we want to: the reality that all things die. Death is the hardest and most frightening reality we face and we either face it with hope or we face it with dread. But our technology is advancing so much (along with our immorality and arrogance) that the idea of a constructed immortality is no longer confined to the realm of science-fiction fantasy. To wit:

An Introduction to Transhumanism

Attempting to Make a New Type of Person

By E. Christian Brugger

WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 21, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The ideas of the young international movement known as "transhumanism" are beginning to characterize the thinking of an increasing number of clinicians and bioethicists. I thought therefore that our readers might profit from a brief introduction to them.

Transhumanism is really a set of ideas that has developed in response to the rapid advance of biotechnology in the past 20 years (that is, technology capable of and aimed at manipulating the physical, mental and emotional condition of human beings). Conventional medicine has traditionally aimed at overcoming disorders that afflict the human condition; it has prescribed leeching, cauterizing, amputating, medicating, operating and relocating to dryer climates, all in order to facilitate health and militate against disease and degeneration; in other words, the purpose has been to heal (i.e., has been broadly therapeutic).

Technology is now making possible interventions that in addition to a therapeutic aim are intended to augment healthy human capacities. There is a gradual but steady enlargement-taking place in medical ideals from simply healing to healing and enhancement. We are all too familiar with "performance enhancing drugs" in professional sports. But biotechnology promises to make possible forms of enhancement that go far beyond muscle augmentation.

Germ-line gene therapy, for example, still in its infancy, aims to genetically modify human "germ cells" (i.e., sperm and eggs) in order to introduce desirable intellectual, physical and emotional characteristics and exclude undesirable ones. Since the modifications are made to cells in the "germ line," the traits would be heritable and passed on to subsequent generations. Drugs to improve mental function such as Ritalin and Adderall are increasingly being used by the healthy in order to enhance cognitive abilities. One study has shown that close to 7% of students at U.S. universities have used prescription stimulants for enhancement purposes. [1] That number appears only to be increasing.

Research is rapidly progressing on advanced technologies such as direct brain-computer interfacing (BCI), micro mechanical implants, nanotechnologies, retinal, neuromuscular and cortical prostheses, and so-called "telepathy chips." While it is true that each of these technologies may play a role in transforming the lives of disabled patients to enable them better to communicate, manipulate computers, see, walk, move their limbs and recover from degenerative diseases; transhumanism sees them as potential instruments for transforming human nature. The 2002 version of the Transhumanist Declaration states: "Humanity will be radically changed by technology in the future. We foresee the feasibility of redesigning the human condition, including such parameters as the inevitability of aging, limitations on human and artificial intellects, unchosen psychology, suffering, and our confinement to the planet earth."[2]

Their most radical proposal is to overcome death. Although the aim sounds fanciful, there are influential scientists and philosophers committed to it. The prominent transhumanist scientist and inventor, Dr. Ray Kurzweil, argues that for most of human history death was tolerated because there was nothing we could do about it. But a time is rapidly approaching where we will be able to isolate the genes and proteins that cause our cells to degenerate and reprogram them. The assumption of death's inevitability is no longer credible and ought to be retired [3]. Michael West, the CEO of one of the largest biotech companies in the U.S., Advanced Cell Technology, agrees. He argues that "love and compassion for our fellow human being will ultimately lead us to the conclusion that we have to do everything we can to eliminate aging and death."[4]

Although I think the majority of people in the Western world do not yet share transhumanism's more radical ideas, the assumption concerning human autonomy that underlies the transhumanist philosophy is practically universal in secular medicine and bioethics today. Living wills enshrining people's right to refuse life-sustaining treatment for practically any reason, even if they are not dying, are becoming as routine in our hospitals as informed consent forms. Oregon, Washington and Montana have legalized physician assisted suicide each using as a rhetorical bludgeon the argument that autonomy guarantees a person's right to exercise self-determination not only over his life but also over his death. If autonomy extends to these things, then surely it guarantees the liberty to enhance my capacities.

I fear that the only thing presently preventing wide-scale affirmation of the transhumanist imperative is an emotional "yuck" factor, which we can be sure will gradually subside under the gentle and inexorable prodding of secular opinion. When it does, our rationality insulated by this extreme notion of autonomy will find itself helpless against the technological imperative which says: if we can design our perfect child [5], if we can be smarter, stronger, and more beautiful [6], if we can extend human life indefinitely [7], then we should do it. If embryos are sacrificed through the experimental process required to perfect this technology, or if inequalities are introduced to the advantage of some and disadvantage of others; these are the costs of progress!

The 2008 Vatican Instruction on bioethics, "Dignitas Personae," addressing the use of biotechnology "to introduce alterations with the presumed aim of improving and strengthening the gene pool," strongly cautions against the "eugenic mentality" that such manipulation would promote. The mentality likely would stigmatize features of hereditary imperfection generating unfair biases against people who possess them and privileging those who possess putatively desirable qualities.

The instruction concludes saying: "It must also be noted that in the attempt to create a new type of human being one can recognize an ideological element in which man tries to take the place of his Creator" (No. 27).

Endeavoring to manipulate human nature in this way "would end […] by harming the common good" (No. 27).

This is nothing short of a new manifestation of The Great Lie first told in the Garden of Eden – ‘You don’t need God; you can become a god without God.’

Or at least, you can become immortal.

The quest for immortality has been active since we lost it in the Garden. We comfort ourselves in this quest for the unobtainable with the idea that we live on in the memories of those who love us. In other words, no one ever really dies as long as someone remembers him or her. This idea is not necessarily and entirely false. Our remembering surely does count for something. But keeping someone alive in our memory is not the same thing as actual eternal life.

God’s remembering causes existence.

Our remembering does not.

We want to be immortal but we are not, so modern man has put his faith in science and technology to achieve this ‘pearl of great price’. We desperately want eternal life but we want it on our terms and under our control, not according to God’s conditions. We reject God’s conditions not because they are harsh or beyond our capacity but because they require an absolute answer to the question: Who do you say I am? Many have turned to science simply because it does not ask this question and accepts all answers.

Seeking the answer to that question will always lead one into a confrontation with Religion (usually within the meaning of institution not of virtue). That confrontation produces more questions: Which one is right? And which sect within which one is right? Some grow weary of trying to figure it out and opt to create their own. Others let the answer be relative to each one’s perception. Both cases allow us to imagine ourselves as masters of our own destinies and agents of our own change, enabled by the attitude, which says, “I refuse to be led around by the nose by dogma!” I wonder if they realize they are indeed being led around by the nose – by the arrogance of their own opinion, which they value more than truth (and we know who’s holding the stick with the carrot).

The character of Dr. Walter Bishop on the TV series Fringe said, “All destinies lead to the same destination.” In a certain sense that could actually be true but that is not to say that free will is an illusion. We are all destined to stand before the Judgment Seat of Jesus Christ but the willful choices we make on that journey determines if it will be a judgment of condemnation or of absolution; a resurrection to eternal endurance or of enduring Communion.

This is our ultimate destination. Whether we be in the Shire, in Rivendell or on Pandora; whether we be a Jedi or in the body of our avatar, and we had best be ready to give an answer to Him who is Uncreated Reality.

+++