Personal Absolutism II: Knowing Your Bounds

One of the greatest challenges to anyone entering in to a discussion is learning to firmly defend one's own view while not overpowering or overwhelming the other participants. Discourse is, as one might imagine, rarely if ever improved by the giving of offense: As such, we must strive to know the limits within which we may exert our influence. That is to say: We must be meek.

Meekness is a trait we rarely value in our society; it is also one we do not understand. Similar to tolerance, meekness is in serious need of redefinition.

"...for the meek shall inherit the Earth..."

What do you think of when you read this familiar Biblical reference? Strength? Power? Might? Probably not. Rather, you imagine a weak child who is beaten by bullies. You see this as a consolation-the powerless will one day rule the earth.

Powerless?

Au contraire! Although it may rhyme, meek does not mean weak. Meekness is, rather, power under control.

Look at a farmer working with a Clydesdale: The horse is tremendous, many times the size of the farmer. If untamed, it could run wild and do great damage. The stamina of the beast is incredible, it could run for many many miles without stopping. Should it desire, it could crush the farmer like an irritating gnat.

Does it?

No. In fact, this majestic beast is so perfectly content and understanding of its limits that the mere pull of a hand on the bit will direct its full power, with no bucking or fighting from the horse. Because of this, that great power does not do harm nor expend itself in aimless running; the horse can move great loads from place to place, food, water, machinery. It has the power under control, leading to great outcomes. This horse is meek.



Similar to that horse, when we allow the power of our minds, our emotions, or our beliefs to run uncontrolled we cause damage; we hurt others, we hurt ourselves. We block our ability to learn. We spend great energies to run our reason ragged, arriving at no destination but that whence we started.

If, however, we humble ourselves to learn our limits- to harness the power of our thoughts and words- then we may progress with great speed through discussion; neither offending the others nor spending our time in mental narcissism.

Lesson number two: Humble yourself: Place your power under control.





And tomorrow, we'll go over just where that control might come from.

Personal Absolutism I: Tolerance vs. Acceptance

The struggle to define who oneself is while subject to change and interaction with the world around you is universally recognized as one of the greatest challenges in any life. While I will not claim to have all the answers, my hope is that we might discuss some core ideas relating to how one must do this: A philosophy of worldview foundations, so to speak.

Before we can address the subject as a whole, however, it is important to cement certain ideas and definitions before we continue. Lesson one: always define common terms in discussion.

Something we hear talked about often in today's world is tolerance. It is a word we are all familiar with, and many people use casually. We need to be more tolerant of this or that, someone seems intolerant, we need to show tolerance, etc. It is used so often we can almost ignore it, it has lost all practical meaning for having been used so much.


In fact, it has a new meaning.

I'm going to use a pretty controversial topic here, but let's try not to get our feathers too ruffled, okay? Example being this: We are commonly told by interest groups, politicians, and (in some states and coutries) the government that we need to be tolerant of a homosexual lifestyle. I'm not sure how many people are told this to their face, but it has been made clear that people who don't think homosexuality is okay are intolerant, homophobic bigots, right?

Wrong.

See, this is where we mess up tolerance. You see, tolerance is (and I still can't believe how many people don't get this) the infinitive from which we derive things like tolerate. How many of us tolerated a younger sibling growing up? What did that look like?

Isn't it usually somewhat exasperated? You bet! Now, I'm not saying we all should be exasperated with the gay community. Let's all detach ourselves from that example now, for the sake of clarity.

See, to tolerate something is a kind way of saying you "put up with it". You may not agree with it, and you may speak out against it, but you won't harm it or infringe upon it. You'll abide while it happens, even if you think or know it is wrong.

In that way, tolerance can be good or bad. We tolerate people with beliefs different from our own-this is good. We might try to change their minds, but we don't axe our neighbor because they're a practicing Jew and our house is part of the Church of Bob and the Sub-Genius. That is tolerance.

On the other hand, a lot of Austrians tolerated Hitler's treatment of the Jews after the Anschlüss, figuring that even if they didn't agree with it they wouldn't act against it. It landed a lot of people in Eichmann's office. That is also tolerance.


What we are asked to do today, however, is not tolerance.

We are asked to accept. We are supposed to agree that everything is okay, and that there is nothing we should ever disagree with or believe is wrong. We are taught now that meta-ethical moral relativism and post-modern ethics are tolerance. That to tolerate is to condone.

Bull.

And so the point of this first part is to teach a first step in identifying a truth-oriented worldview : Relearn what it is to tolerate, and always know what things you tolerate, and which you condone. You must be ready to separate the two.


If tolerance is really to accept all things, be intolerant. Some things are just stupid.


More soon.

Moments in Music: A Sustained Passion

About a month ago I had what was arguably one of my most crystalline formative moments in music; it wasn't, however, a concert or lesson, a great recording or a book. What happened, didn't. That is to say, it was the absence of something, and not the occurrence or presence of something that triggered my catharsis.

What so deeply moved me was a reconsideration of some of the core principles I hold as a performer, a musician.

I was spurred to reaffirm the ideals I hold by the cancellation of a piece on the program of a chamber concert in which I was a part. This isn't to say that a piece should never be removed from a program- there are certainly times (and this was one of those) when it detracts less from a program to remove a work than it does to play it at an inferior level.

What bothered me was that when the orchestra was asked to argue to keep it or explain why we needed to drop it, the almost unanimously agreed response was that we "simply were not passionate about [this piece]" That answer did not sit well with me, and as such I reaffirmed the following value:

Music is a gift, always. The reason we perform is because we share this gift with others. The source of unabashed performance is the realization of this; that we are not trying to give a perfect performance, we are trying to share as much music as possible with an audience.
As such, a musician should always have passion. This is not to say they must always like the piece they are performing. I know that I've not always enjoyed performing a piece, and there is a lot of music that I just don't like. What that does not justify, however, is a lack of passion.
The source of a musician's passion is not the individual music, or the single work. It must be Music in a general way; a passion for sharing music and realizing the music on a page, whether we personally enjoy it or not. To play without this passion simply because we ourselves do not enjoy it is a selfish turn of the gift.

If we choose not to play a work to our fullest, we deny the use of our gift to the fullest. We are holding back part of our gift, and whether you believe that is part of worship to God, a gift to fellow Men, or a realization of a composer's art it is inherently self-centered and self-serving.
To lack passion on one piece because we do not like it shows a lack of integrity, telling of other shortcomings in ourselves. And how can we expect to succeed as musicians if we only play well that which we like? This will not keep a job with a symphony, to be sure.
It is a truth that to lack passion on one piece because we dislike it is to admit that we are not musicians.

To play passionately but lack the ability to
perform a piece is one thing;
To be able and lack the passion is another.

It is to abuse the gift.

When we canceled one movement with the rationale that we lacked the passion to play it properly, we spent a concert as selfish individuals, not musicians, and that grieved me.

Soli Deo gloria.

On Peace

Peace

What is it?

If two men began a fist fight immediately in front of your house, what would you do?

I'd call 911; a minute later there'd be one or two police officers there, and they'd split up the two men. They'd run them down to the county courthouse and haul them in front of the magistrate. He'd look at them for a few moments, scold them, and send them where justice prescribes. They'd put them in a cage. In TWO SEPARATE cages, namely.

And that's what we'd call keeping the peace. Peace du Jour. Our sort of peace.

So that's what we do. When two nations erupt into war, we make a committee, decide to reprimand them, and then some bigger, more level headed nation (This job is usually given to the US or Britain) goes in between to try to quell the storm.
And so, by might of bomb and tank we once again gain what we call 'peace'.

But is it? Or is it just the time between fighting where we stand and reload?

Our brand of peace doesn't work...it's broken. The fighting stops, but the hostility is still harbored in the hearts of the people. They'd still be fighting, if it weren't for the cages. And really the only difference between murder and hatred is the lack of a good opportunity, is it not?

So how do we get peace? Is it impossible?

For now, perhaps. There will always be someone who disagrees. And of course peace as our world sees it will never really work! But there was someone who knew where true peace can come from.

He set a unique example. He didn't call the police or send in the army. He himself walked in between the fighters and took the blows each intended for the other. An intercessor, of sorts. He decided one day to walk between the fighting forces and take the pain they had...and so there is true peace, an absolution of iniquity, for those parties.

Any guesses who? Ghandi? Marx? Guevara? Mother Teresa? I promise, it's a historical, verifyable person and action. And, similar to the good, I promise we'll get there.

More to follow.

On Freedom

Freedom is something we hear a lot about, isn't it?

'Freedom of speech'. 'Freedom of press'. 'Fighting for freedom'. 'Granting their freedom'. 'It's a free country'. 'I'm free to' The list could go on for pages.
Perhaps the final epitath of the word lies in the phrase 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; among these Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'.

But what does it mean? What is the self-evident truth in the word 'Liberty'? What is true freedom?

Most people wpould say some thing like: 'Being free to do whatever you want.' We'll ignore their fallacy of logic (using a term to define itself) and say we ask them what they mean by 'free'. To get around the esoteric definition, their answer would most likely be revised to something along the lines of 'Being able (or allowed) to do whatever you want.'
There is of course, a difference between allowed and able, but for now it can boil down to the same thing: Uninhibited ability to do whatsoever one sees fit.

Is that freedom?
I don't think so, and here's why:

Say you live in a place where there are no rules; you can do whatever, whenever. Total 'freedom' as most people would call it. Sort of like Amsterdam on a weekend-zero laws keeping you from doing exactly what you want.
So you do.
Guess what happens? Before you know it, you aren't free anymore.

We'll take smoking as an example. This could apply to any number of things, from sex to drugs to alcohol to your job-anything that holds a powerful spot in your life. You see, you start in control-you are free. You have a cigarette. You choose to smoke it.
It was fun. You buy another pack. No problem, you're totally free.

But what happens when you're a few months down the road? Who is in control?

Let me tell you: It isn't you anymore.
Whatever that thing you were 'free' to do is. You've not only become restricted, you've become enslaved to it-your life is as far from free as it could possibly be!

So when the total absence of rules leads to the sex, the drugs, the workaholism, the alcohol, the car, the casino, whatever it is...the absence of rules actualy becomes an inhibitor of freedom. It cannot both be its own progenitor and anathema!

So then freedom....must not be the absence of rules, but rather knowing what your boundaries are, and operating within them-where you are uninhibited by ANYTHING, simply because you understand that staying within these guidelines will keep you free, even if they seem to hold you back.

Freedom, therefore, is knowing the boundaries that have been set for Life, and living within them in pursuit of what is Good.

What is good? We'll go there later.

A Beginning

To a Thinker, a Philosopher, a Seeker:

I am a lover of truth. A follower of verities. I seek, through logic, cognitive dissonance, and Reason as provided by Providence to seek after Reality.

In this journal, you will find my latest thoughts on subjects ranging from Metaphysics, to Absolute Truths, to my life as a musician and student of the arts-as well as a mere man who seeks to reconcile the life and worldview of a Christian with the trials and activities of modern society.

Read on, Young Learner, that we might glean these things together.