It's This, Or Nothing

"Mysticism begins when the totally transcendent image of God starts to recede; and there's a deepening sense of God as immanent, present, here, now, within me. Augustine's line was "God is more intimate to me than I am to myself” or “more me than I am myself." St. Catherine of Genoa shouted it in the streets, "My deepest me is God!"

So you must overcome the gap to know—and then Someone Else is doing the knowing through you. God is no longer "out there." At this point, it's not like one has a new relationship with God; it's like one has a whole new God! “God himself is my counselor, and at night my innermost being instructs me,” says the Psalmist (16:7).

The mystics are those who are let in on this secret mystery of God's love affair with all souls, and recognize the simultaneous love affair with the individual soul—as if it were the only one God loves. It's absolutely our unique affair, and that sets the whole thing on a different and deeper ground than mere organized religion can ever achieve by itself.

Recently, I gave my friend Alex my crucifix. Ten inches high, steel, comtempory design: the hanging man announcing, wordlessly,  acceptance of the struggle, the inevitability of suffering, and ultimately, the victory of the human spirit over everything, even death. 

"If this holds no meaning for you, hand it back to me, because it's precious: but if you understand  it, keep it." He kept it. 

I am done with collecting things, it is time to be giving them away. This, I believe is wisdom. I am well into the second half of my life and my work now is to give out: this is all the purpose one's life needs. To be done with collecting, gathering in, building up making a name for oneself, getting to the top of the heap .. . It's the season for letting go, it is the death before I die, it is freedom. I write this with a light and grateful heart: this isn't morbidity or depression, this is parting with the things, material and spiritual that I no longer want or need, so that I may proceed unhindered into my last years, hopefully, joyfully, with a deeper awareness of what really matters. 

The opening paragraphs were written by Richard Rohr OFM, whom I met when he visited England a few years ago, and whose teachings have had  such a great effect on me. 

Someone once asked me if I am a mystic.How I laughed! One of those first half of life things I've given up, is trying to be good. ( If mystics WERE good... )  I was such a prig when I was trying to be good. Now I don't try to be anything except me, and that, I am learning is good enough! That battle's over. I do though, know what the mystics know, which is the outcome of another battle - faith v skepticism. I am a theist, but it is the God of the mystics, the Indwelling One that I know and honour, not the bossy intolerant anti-Christ of pseudo-religion. 

No, my God is the lover of my soul, who, funnily enough, appears to have faith in me to accept the struggle, to acknowledge the suffering and ultimately to know, as another mystic, Mother Julian of Norwich did, that, " All shall be well. And all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well."

 

Bull's Eye

I am taking a course through EdX.org from The University of Washington on 'Resilience'. I am pretty resilient one way or another and bouncing back from a knock has always proceeded at a steady pace.  I thought I'd take the course in order to use it to help other people. That'll come as no surprise. 

Well! I am bowled-over. Week Two was all about  clarification of values. This seemed easy to start with, but proved to be quite an existential challenge, because I had to ask myself, "Who am I and how do I define myself?" 

First off, I realised that I habitually spend far too much time asking the question: "Who do other people think I am, and what is their opinion of me?"

Just seeing THAT was worth the effort of working through the course. 

"Who I think I am?" might be quite an interesting discussion, but I'm not going to have it here, because  it's a fairly fluid concept and may change at any moment. It's what I DO about who I think I am that  was the focus of the Bull's Eye exercise. Which you might Google for yourself if you're interested. 

Given a while to think about it, I find that one of the least satisfying parts of my life, is my habit of attempting  to please other people. In the process of which, I don't always say what I really think, and I don't always do what I really want to do. 

I have no radical agenda here. I'm not going to do anything very life-changing. I'm just going to quietly, softly, say what I really think, and tip-toe around doing what seems right to me. 

It's an exciting prospect. 

Quietly and softly -  making a difference by being true to myself:

A New Kind of Doing -Fr Richard Rohr Thursday, May 22, 2014

"In the second half of life, we do not have strong and final opinions about everything, every event, or most people, as much as we allow things and people to delight us, sadden us, and truly influence us. We no longer need to change or adjust other people to be happy ourselves. Ironically we are more than ever before in a position to change people—but we do not need to—and that makes all the difference. We have moved from doing to being to an utterly new kind of doing that flows almost organically, quietly, and by osmosis. Our actions are less compulsive. We do what we are called to do, and then try to let go of the consequences. We usually cannot do that very well when we are young. Now we aid and influence people simply by being who we are. Human integrity probably influences and moves people from potency to action more than anything else. An elder’s deep and studied passion carries so much more power than superficial and loudly stated principles. Our peace is needed more than our anger. "

"Vengeance is Mine," Said The Computer Programmer

It's all in the title isn't it?

Actually, what I'm thinking about isn't THAT dramatic. I was reading a study embarked upon by 'associates of Princeton' which could mean just about anything, what with me being a sceptic, but nevertheless it was diverting, and I thought I'd pass it on.

I think there needs to be rules:

Rule #1: Never take part in an experiment in any area of psychology. You're not going to come out well. I don't care if the data is randomised and anonymised: you're still not going to feel good. 

There may be other rules. We'll see.

So this random population of poor students get to play puzzle games against an opponent at 10cents a pop. At the end of the session, the money is to be divided out. I think remembering how, is probably important, but I'm going to carry on even though I've forgotten, and go back to check if I can't wing it.

Rule #2: Never be afraid to wing it if there's no chance of being caught out. Otherwise, Don't. 

What the poor students don't know, because they aren't told, is that their 'opponent' is actually a computer that is programmed to lose. I think computers HAVE to be programmed to lose, otherwise they don't, but I'm a little hazy on this, and am open to correction. 

Rule #3: Always own up to ignorance. It doesn't make you a better person, but it does make you look less stupid in the long-run.

Well anyway, the computer is programmed to ALWAYS ask for an equal share of the bounty, even though it has lost, every time, by just one point. We're not having this are we? It may only be a matter of a few cents, but fair's fair. The guy lost and isn't going to get half, no matter what. 

Rule #4: If you must be hauled in by the Psychology Department to do research, always be nice. It fucks up the data, and this is ALWAYS a good thing. 

Moving on. The real human being protests the opponobot's lack of realism, and the opponobot responds in one of three ways.

1. Carries on insisting on half the booty.

2. Admits it may have been a little over-ambitious in its demands

3.Admits its being a jerk and promises to mend its ways. 

Guess what? The real live human being gets absolutely no satisfaction from responses one and two, and carries on wishing opponent in Hades, whilst to response number three, feels the milk of human kindness flowing  again, and is willing to forgive and forget. 

So. 

Rule #5 Watch yourself. If you want to ingratiate yourself with a real human being, do sorry as well as be it. Or, don't mess with robots. They don't know nothing about anything when it comes to playing fair.

Who the Hell is Arthur C. Brooks?

" In my work today, I promote the free enterprise system, because I believe it has created more opportunity for the poor than any other system in history."

THAT is Arthur C. Brooks. I am going to shock some of you by saying that I think  that AC Brooks is worth listening to. 

He writes for 'The New York Times',  which generously allows hangers-on like me to read ten articles every month for free. I follow it on Twitter. In which, by the way, I do NOT own shares. 

My heart lies, as I think it always will, on the left, and, who knows, I may hold my nose and vote Labour in the upcoming elections for the European Parliament in horror of UKIP, but it certainly won't be the knee-jerk ballot that it used to be when I believed in more and knew less. 

My current position is neither left, nor right, but up in the air. Ed Milliband took the Labour leadership by stabbing his brother David in the back, and has done nothing since that has made me think better of him. I suspect I am not alone. 

The caveat is, that Arthur C Brooks has to be right. The poor MUST be better served in order to maintain the freedom and dignity that democracy owes to ALL its citizens. Go look, see what you think. Capitalism with a human face. You will find him here:

https://twitter.com/maryeffrancis/status/467582651550146560