Seas of Troubles

…

I'm confused.

How can such immorality lead to so much comfort?

Shakespeare really said it well in 'to be or not to be...' This land is indeed the land of outrageous fortune, and I do indeed exist in the land of a sea of troubles.

Yet shall I lay down with the immorality that exists to sustain that fortune, or is that the inherent nature of fortune?

Mayhap I would believe the latter to be the case, as how can one amass wealth if but through the exploitation of others? In the modern world, wealth is acquired at the expense of someone else.

So what of my life? I am fortunate enough to be able to contemplate these things... Yet I still struggle, and my life is the result of my force of self in sustaining it, nothing further. Everything that's resulted from it is exampled within my life, by that I have taken arms against my sea of troubles, for how is it possible to live in comfort and wealth without exploitation?

My dignity intact, yet indeed I do still suffer. It is less of a suffering than if I were to enjoy the luxurious life. Can I bear to live in a world where I am exploited, or I am the exploiter?

I don't think I could bear to live as an exploiter, so that really only gives me one path that I will follow, but I do have the choice, and I guess that choice is where character comes in.

So my character is indeed to stand against that sea of troubles, against injustice, against harm, against cruelty, against negligence. I keep fighting it, even as I live within it.

- Jason

Ranting Madness to Retain Sanity

So, I'm here, in West Palm Beach, waiting for pickup from my ex. What a horrible situation to be in... I feel like a slave. In a lot of ways I am, the state legitimized my indeturement to my ex, so I am a slave, or at least an indentured servant.

Oh not in any traditional way, the only actual exchange in this formal arrangement is money, but still, how does one get money? Through job. Through work. Ergo, indentured servitude/slavery.

Forget what society is doing, why did she do this? It still befuddles me, was she truly so weak of a person that she only cares for easement in her life? This was the most convenient way to exploit me, to be sure. She has the resources of three people at her disposal. One by choice, one by action, and one (me) by coercion and deception.

That's a mark that will bear on her soul for all time, and that makes me feel relieved, that justice will, somehow, be served. My astute sense of social justice screams outrage in this situation. My whole being isn't justice, and I cannot taint myself in the name of justice to force a balance. It's a horrible situation, but here I am...

So, what do I do going forward? Hamlet said it best... 'To be or not to be. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles.' I have indeed found my sea of troubles.

Yet is my situation indicative of problems beyond me? My problems aren't just me, but they are shared with everyone I come in contact with. Not only that, but as a part of the social mechanism, it can't, by its very nature, be just me. So, my problem is the world's problem. But more than that, everyone else s problem is mine. This I have no objection to, that is the way of social systems. That is the price of unity (-:

I accept responsibility for my brothers and sisters, for my animal and plant friends, for the rocks, the clouds, the ocean, for the moon, and the stars, and all other things in the universe.

I guess that's why this happens, my awareness of these things is what builds them to the climactic penultimate: taking arms against a sea of troubles. Troubles from all angles, within and without. My own psyche is eating me away, slowly. I just hope that I can contribute to the world in some meaningful way before it breaks down completely.

- Jason

Holding Compassion and Justice Together?

I find myself in a strange place in regards to my divorce, holding both compassion and justice together, side by side. They bicker with each other occasionally, as they often encourage contrasting courses of action. It's a weird sense though. I feel like I'm in some kind of irreconcilable conflict with myself.

In trying to make sense of it I keep going back to the Kabbalistic shattered vessel, in that my divorce shattered my reality, and my self-identity, into disparate parts, justice, compassion, and others (though justice and compassion have the strongest voices). I wonder if my desire to re-boot my life through graduate school isn't really just my attempt to re-build those disparate parts into something new, and hopefully better.

It's funny, that seems selfish and frivolous in some ways, as if I'm doing this just for myself. And that wouldn't be an unfair assessment either, yet one of my goals from graduate school is to build my knowledge and skills to advocate for my community, which is laudable, in a more typical moralistic context.

Again, another contrast to hold. If one's goals are sub-consciously directed by self-interest, but consciously directed by benefiting others, what's the root here? Or is it within this balance, of self-interest and helping others, that harmony is found? Perhaps to be truly capable this contrast must be hold together?

Then, what of, in a larger sense, is my moral nature? My morals are built on the conscious idea that their precepts and dictates are of the benefit of others, not me, yet I selfishly hold strict to them. Many would see this is as an unhealthy balance, that I should have both my conscious and sub-conscious mind in harmony, yet the Kabbalistic tree of life speaks differently.

The tree of life is a balance of opposite forces, of passivity and activity, of femininity and masculinity, of harmony and chaos. Why cannot I find my path through these balancing extremes? Isn't that inherent in the Kabbalistic natural world?

Or maybe I'm just finding religious precepts to cling to in order to justify myself.

Food for thought...

- Jason

Justice: Linking Old with New

In looking over my older posts I see I've taken a divergence since incorporating Sacred Therapy into the mix. I've defaulted to the traditional notion of justice. This is most prominent in my previous post (7/31/11), so I've decided to try and address this issue somewhat.

Getting back to my earliest posts, justice can be punitive or compensation. these are it's primary modes of expression, either affecting the affector (punitive) or the affected (compensatory). Justice includes judgement, discernment and balance. Justice is an equalizing force, creating equivalence. Yet what of the connection between justice and determinism? Doesn't determinism have all of the same characteristics of justice in this case? Determinisim, as best described (again here) by Newton's third law of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Determinism requires discernment - what was the actor and the acted on - and both punitive and compensatory expression - what is the affect of this action on the actor (punitive) and the acted on (compensatory). The only difference I can see is that justice strives to return acted on objects to a non-acted space, Newtonian physics is about acting as change.

Strangely enough, traditional justice is much more like pre-Newtonian physics, where the assumption was that all objects default to a state of rest unless acted on by outside force.

Taking this a step further, if justice were to truly parallel Newtonian physics, then justice's objective would be to determine the new path after the affect, not to return the affector/affected to a stationary position.

Let's take this a step further (or several) though. Let's look at quantum physics. Now we have multiple probabilistic outcomes based on the observer. Let's, for the same of argument, think of justice as the observer here. Justice is still here to determine the effect of affector and affectee interaction, but instead the interaction is predicated on how justice manifests the quantum probabilities. Justice plays an active role in determining the outcome.

What happens when justice is based on probability instead of determinism?

Now, here's the major mind-warp. What happens when God, as justice (probability-based) runs up against the compassionate human?

I think my metaphor brain just melted...

- Jason

Viewing the Good With the Bad: A Quasi-Religious Perspective

Author's Notice: I apologize in advance for any religious or scientific fundamentalists I will probably alienate with this post. I'm going to be using a rather liberal metaphorical interpretation of God in this post.

So... I finished reading Sacred Therapy, and the part that's stuck with me the most is in asking God for forgiveness to sinners. Effectively advocating for those that have done wrong. This is a phenomenally contradictory concept, especially for my social justice oriented self. I'm a proponent of balance and justice, yet I also hold that compassion is a vital component to these. Compassion seems to be out-of-balance from these concepts. Yet from another perspective it's compassion that balances out justice.

Using biblical reference, there's many cases where God has unleashed his holy retribution by wiping out, maiming, messing with, or otherwise making human life miserable. There's other situations where prophetic humans have stayed God's wrath through compassionate advocacy. It begs the question how the bible would end if there was no compassion in God... Not well I imagine.

Yet the source of compassion isn't really seen as in God, but in human power. As we stand between justice and those deserving reciprocity, is that not an act of faith on some level? Another human being has shown their evil, harm and destructive capacity on the world and we, in our complete faith in them, stand between them and God to advocate for compassion.

Now, the bible consists of stories where this compassion is returned by reformation and atonement on the part of those we show compassion to. The real world isn't quite as forgiving. However, I would argue that these stories aren't about the world around us, but about the world within us. Let's spend some time in the metaphorical world of our inner landscape, where all beings are aspects of ourselves. God, in this case, is the judgement and justice, our sense of fairness. The 'harmful' person, the victim of our judgement, is ultimately ourself in vulnerability and weakness, for being hurt in the way we were.Our judgement is condemning ourself for being weak and allowing such harm to be inflicted.

This is where our compassion steps in. By shielding ourself in our vulnerability from our judgement we give ourself the space to heal, to reform, and to atone (to become at one).

I have found this personally helpful with my divorce. I have deep and painful wounds from my ex wife. Some of which she continues to inflict. I am not strong enough to protect myself from receiving these wounds, and I do judge myself for not doing so. In a surprisingly profound symbolic act, I began 'protecting' my ex from God, by asking for God's forgiveness and compassion for my ex. In doing so, I embodied all of the aspects of compassion I have within myself, and was able to converse with my judgement. This dialog, though unresolved, has helped me to meld both my compassion and my judgement into a unified vision of my ex.

It's also helped alleviate many of the panic attacks I was suffering in regards to my ex.

Not that I don't still think of my ex, but if we go back to the metaphor, then it's really my compassion sheltering and caring for my vulnerable self while moderating my judgement. It's... not what I would expect from a Judaic perspective, but then again Kabbalah isn't your average Judaism (-:

So, I find myself a little more whole thanks to a liberal metaphorical interpretation of the bible.

Funny how things go sometimes, eh?

- Jason

Perfection and Imperfection

I can see that Estelle Frankel's Sacred Therapy is going to be a staplehold of this blog for awhile. If nothing else it has breathed new life into it.

Perfection: Though I have always understood that my perfection lies in my imperfection, and my continual desire for improvement, I have always held that things outside of me are perfect. The universe is perfect. All things are perfect. The system I live within is perfect.  Yet with the absurdity of which my perfect universe has been stretched, it is hard to hold on to that perfect universe image. I cannot hold out for a lost hope that the universe will balance itself in my stead. I don't do that with friends or family, I won't do that with the universe.

So then, what is left to me? I could take balance in my own hands, become a crusader for balance and correct the imbalances in the universe. This would be no different than internalizing perfection, and then projecting it outward (instead of the opposite, which I have been doing). Or, I can find some peace that the universe is as broken as I am, and it, and all things in it, are laying on the floor, shattered by being dropped, or falling, from it's once mighty place.

Justice is balance, justice is equilibrium, justice is a perfect universe. If that is so, what is an imperfect universe? Does it lack justice, or is justice simply broken, like everything else?

In the perfect universe, Newton's three laws of motion apply. Namely the third: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The universe balances perfectly. Yet as an irony, nothing in the universe would form if it was perfect. Stars and planets formed because of inconsistent distributions of matter from the big bang. Imperfection gave birth to stars, planets, and life. Can the universe really be so perfect?

I guess that's part of exploring it, finding the cracks.

- Jason

Legacy vs. Future

I'm in the process of reading Sacred Therapy by Estelle Frankel, and her story of divorce struck me, perhaps too profoundly, as another story of a women's choice to leave her partner. I am becoming profoundly triggered by these stories, and the lack of regard that these women show to their former partners. Perhaps it's the lack of responsibility that I see them take for their choices. Often these 'changes' are viewed as a rebirthing for the woman, a reformation of their lives. Does this qualify dismissing the past which created this rebirth?

My mind goes several places with this notion. Firstly, to Frank Herbert's Dune. "Every revolution carries within it the seeds of it's own destruction." The choice to break a family is much like overthrowing a government, and often takes a 'ends justify means' approach. What does this say of the quality of the revolutionaries though? If the idea is to free from tyranny, then should not the method be free from tyranny? It strikes me as undirected change, no more.

Yet that is one avenue of exploration. One that both my wounded ego and my sense of justice are quite fond of, but just one nonetheless. Another avenue is to look at my own hypocracy in stating that our origins should be respected and considered. What births us helps to define us.

I am not a person who respects tradition for it's own sake. I do not believe that doing something because it's been done is a legitimate reason to continue doing it. Yet is not tradition a respect for where we come from? Does it not pay homage to what allows us to stand today, as the people we are? A recognition of our fore-bearers who's efforts allowed us to make the choices we do today? I criticize these women for lacking this recognition, yet I do not recognize it myself? This is hypocracy at it's finest and I am it's purveyor.

As I continued my reading, the focus of the book was on how to deal with traumatic 'heart breaking' experiences. My mind goes towards the question of the difference between the woman and the man in the aforementioned situations. Frankel, as do many other women, speak as if their decisions were not under their control, yet they were the initiators of the heartbreaking circumstances. When speaking of the unfairness that the world inflicts on oneself, is it appropriate to include damages that are self-inflicted? Is the process of healing the same for when you plunge the dagger into yourself instead of when the dagger is plunged into you from someone else?

One aspect of Judaism, learned from class, that I really connected with was the idea of days where harms should be rectified, through actions and not just words. Coming from my situation it easy for me to say that, and to wish for that, yet the authenticity from which that desire stems from is tainted by my experiences and wish for justice. I cannot say with an unbiased mind that I would truly want that kind of world.

Yet I do live that kind of world, for what that kind of world depicts is a world where thought and action are one. If you feel bad for something then you fix it, or make amends. One of my most extolled virtues is how purely myself I live. It's not just about saying the words, I live the words. I am the words. If I speak of my regrets and failures, I work to fix them and the harm they've done.

*sigh*

But I guess the real question is, like Jesus, how do I turn the other cheek in my soul?

- Jason