Some will ask, what promoting parties has to do with religion *. Well, yes or no, is promoting the showing of kindness to others, a proper goal for religion? Most will grant that it is. Fine, so how is kindness expressed? "Well", somebody will start, "one thinks about something that will make another happy". Like what, I'll ask. Give me an example.
"Well, like my sister's boyfriend had been looking for this coin for his collection, and we went out looking, and helped him find it. It made his day". So, in other words, the act of kindness was intimately connected with the decision to bring somebody else pleasure? "Well, no, what made his day, was that we cared enough about him to look". Of course, but if you knew in advance that no such coin existed, and you went looking anyway, and he knew that, would it still be an act of kindness and make him happy? Or, what if you decided, that if you found the coin, you'd then pressure him to throw it away, later? Would that be a loving act? "Well, no, the first would just be silly, and the second would be mean. At best, we wouldn't be doing anything but making an empty gesture."
When one discards the notion that pleasure is a thing to be valued, that is exactly what one has done to the entire concept of kindness. That which has been planned with the thought that it will not reach fruition, has not been attempted at all. The effort is an insincere one, and the kindness, an empty show, a vacant smile that signifies nothing.
The whole notion, is that we will go around doing things, that help each other out. But then, we are called on to not think of ourselves, at all, and take this selflessness to the point, at which that which the others have done for us, is undone, if we are truly "noble" enough. So, this is a value system that if embraced in full by all, calls for the knowing commission of vain acts, that could thus only be viewed as being insincere. There is no love in such a system at all. Simply senseless hardship, promoted as if it was a good - the very definition of evil.
Nor does this system build community, or create empathy on any level, other than the resentful one, that comes from the thought "if I don't do this, people will look down on me, because I'm a bad, selfish person". In other words, play acting out of fear, ripe for the intrusion of passive aggression. But, what did one expect? If we foster a system that calls on us all to reject the good things in life, then we have knowingly fostered a system in which none of the rest of us are enjoying them, either, and that's a pretty malicious thing to do, when you think about it.
Of course, what is more common, is the exploitation of this system, by those who use it as an excuse to make outrageous demands of others. Consider the rich man, with an abundance of leisure time, who wants his taxes cut, but doesn't want to face social unrest when the poor find their needs unmet. So, he finds some kid, working two jobs to put himself through school, barely getting by, and guilts him into performing volunteer work, in order to provide some of the services, that he, the rich man, is too selfish to be willing to pay someone to perform. And we have the nerve to call this exploitive situation beautiful! The rich man gains a few extra luxuries for himself at the expense of the kid having no personal life to call his own. And we're not allowed to talk about the equitability of such an exchange! Because, the excuse goes, it was the kid's choice to say "yes". But if we condition people from birth to say "yes", and create a society in which they may be isolated for saying "no", then how free a choice is it, really?
Look at our own 'nobly courageous' selves, so often. Somebody passes on spending his weekend doing an alcoholic's yardwork for him, because he wants to have a little fun. His selfishness and immaturity are casually condemned in response to his declining of a real burden. But consider the boss who fired this person, who became an alcoholic after a few years of unrelieved unemployment, because he, a rich man, couldn't bring himself to pass up the opportunity to become a little richer. The voices of criticism fall silent. The more powerful man, who leaves another a greater hardship, for less of a reason, is viewed as having done nothing wrong. We speak of kindness, and confuse it with docility.
As we keep saying, the real value that we've allowed to define our society, has become cowardice, under a variety of guises. Say, or do anything, to avoid conflict. But peace, is more than the absence of conflict. It is also the absence of mistreatment, and to support those actions which perpetuate abuse, is to become a party to its commission. By submitting, or pretending to submit to the excessive demands it has become fashionable to place on us, especially when young, and refusing to listen to or discuss the criticisms of so inequitable a way of addressing our society's problems, we become guilty of doing just these things. It is for that reason, that we do not merely have a duty to others, but to ourselves, as well. The answer, as it is so often, is to seek moderation.
It's not a matter of abandoning the normal activities of life, but of adopting a spirit of cooperation, and compassion for all, including oneself, as one pursues them. And to think that fun is a childish or unimportant part of this ... think of who it is, that you feel your strongest bonds to. It's the people you share pleasant experiences with, and if we are to be more honest than "sensitive", cleaning up somebody else's vomit, isn't especially pleasant. So, if we're to maintain that network of friendships and loves, that give society its cohesion, and make it a matter of instinct for people to care about each other, it has to be expected that the individual will make time, and a life, for himself. What makes it kindness, is that we do not merely seek pleasure for ourselves, but for others as well, and come to value the desire to do so, and the knowledge that one would do so for the other, and the other for one. It is not a question of heroic, and masochistic sacrifice, but of balance, and of spontaneously living life with each other, to the fullest.
In this light, pleasure and love aren't competing values, but each is an aspect of the other. To discard one, is to lose both. Let us not speak then, of being "noble" enough to sacrifice all for each other, or being "strong" enough to take all we can grab. Each extreme brings emptiness and senseless misery in its wake. Let us instead speak of compassion, and good sense, and how to live life in its ordinary, non-heroic moments in such a way, as to create a good life we all partake of. Neither giving or taking, but sharing.
This doesn't mean, think a few good thoughts, and all is well. It does mean that we are not to be as the corporate raider, who, having plunged thousands into poverty, spends his free time dishing out food to some of his victims, and thinks that this show of "compassion" will wash away his guilt. If another is starving because one has taken a loaf of bread from him, does the act of throwing a few crumbs back even come close to atoning for having done so, much less earn one rightful praise? True charity would have been for him to work to find employment for these people, as he exercised compassion and good sense, as we have said, in the ordinary, non-heroic moment. It wouldn't have won him praise or admiration, but is the craving for such things any less selfish of a motive, than any other?
Profit comes in many forms, and not all of them are monetary. There is a character who appears in Jewish and Roman Catholic settings with about equal frequency - that of the self-righteous martyr, who sacrifices all with a knowing smirk. She who would never dream of making time for herself, and never tires of reminding others that they shouldn't be doing so, either. She who has traded every healthy, honest pleasure, for the unwholesome one of being able to feel superior to others, and the chance to instill a feeling of guilt where it does not belong, as she poisons the innocent joy of enjoying a few simple, harmless pleasures. This is not "generosity", though the call for that "virtue" provides her actions with an excellent cover. It is pure malice, toward others and herself.
When we shower her with praise, and protect her from criticism, our actions serve to promote that barely veiled spite and the masochism that reinforces it as normative values. We then express wonder, that there is so much callousness out there and so little respect for higher values. But what does one expect, when those philosophies that make a show of endorsing these values have seen this kind of representation?
Sometimes, there is far more of the spirit of the corporate raider, mentioned before, in us, than we'd care to admit. As we create a world in which we invest so little effort in our increasingly casual and distant relationships because noone has time any more, let us consider this. The figure of the lonely old lady each of us knew in childhood, so very desperate for company, who took to talking to the walls, until one day the walls started talking back. Is she any less a victim, then those we are called on to sacrifice the opportunity to socialise on behalf of? Yet, what does one expect of a society in which so few are free at any one time that the continuity of interaction that makes it possible for it to be spontaneous has been gone so long, that many have forgotten that it was ever there, and others can't even conceptualise it?
As a society, we have allowed others to push us into destroying that network of relationships that would have kept her connected to society throughout her life, giving her a place in it. Having contributed to the societal trends that caused her (and others like her) to miss out on so much in life, we then pay a few visits to the elderly, and those left out. We spend a few moments in which it is painfully clear to the one visited, that one really isn't having fun being there. Then we go our way in a spirit of self-satisfaction, having thrown a few crumbs to the starving, as if it could possibly be enough.
Such are the wages of self-conscious "virtue". Such is the reason that the word "pride" often carries the nasty connotation that it does. Yes, we believe in caring about others and helping them, but with a spirit of balance, because even compassion can become an evil when it is pursued without moderation. Past a certain point, we do for one only at the expense of not doing for another, and in so many ways, we begin to miss the point. We shouldn't be helping somebody else, because doing so is "praiseworthy", but because it is a desirable thing that this person should find help, and so we desire to see it happen. Having done so, we shouldn't be looking forward to acclaim, but merely to congratulations on a job well done, and perhaps a discussion of how it could be done even better the next time. This, we call, "the business of compassion".
As we ponder the comparison between these two approaches, that of balance and that of denial, let us add one more thought to the mix. It is only our closest friends who can tell us the things we truly need to hear the most and want to hear the least. It is only they who can pull us out of a rut and get us going again. Why? Because even if we blow up at them and get really mad, there's just too much common history for us to stay mad. We'll miss them. The memory of good times shared calm the nerves at such moments and make real healing possible after an argument. This, in turn, makes the cathartic arguments mentioned elsewhere on this site, that do so much to clear the air, possible.
As for the ruts ... sometimes, we need to be dragged into new experiences or into improvements in our habits, but once we get there, we're glad that we were dragged. The problem is, that a casual acquaintance has earned so little of our trust and we feel so little attachment to him, that if he tries to do the dragging, he'll just be told told to get lost. But with an old friend, you roll your eyes, and go along, wondering what's next.
These are important things. They keep us centered, because if one's point of view drifts too far in one direction, one will be open enough to the influence of others for them to be able to pull one back, without being SO open, as to not know when not to be influenced, thus surrendering one's individuality. The quality of the continued company of the other, becomes a good that our instincts can fix onto, as we balance things out.
I think that we would have to agree, that the promotion of a more rational, centered attitude, and the willingness to listen to each other, are valid goals in a religious setting. Certainly, the prmotion of relationships is apropo for our particular version of such.
So, yes, holding parties, enjoying our cultural heritage ... these are very much a legitimate part of what we would be doing. Aside from the ritual observances, and the ritual context of some of the recreation, is the spirit in which we do these things. What we are seeking to do here, is build community, and shared experience is at the core of that. To refuse to sacrifice our individual freedom to appease the irascibly radical, then, is not to slip in the upholding of our ideals, but to protect both them and our own sanity, in one action.
Sometimes, life really is that simple.
Choices ...A. Return to the main Almond Jar Site.1. Continue with the introduction.B. Return to "... and sometimes we stumble".
2. Return to the previous index.
(*) Rather amusing, because a traditional rite of sacrifice is a dinner held in honor of the gods, ie. a type of party. If one thinks of the gods as members of the community, then what better rite could one offer them than one in which one invites them in as honored guests?