| Special Gift: | The ability to create pleasure and make things happen |
| Self-Definition: | "I'm fun. I see the bright side of life." |
| Shadow Issue: | Gluttony |
| Rejected Element: | Pain |
| Addiction: | Easy Optimism |
| Strength Needed: | Level-headed moderation |
| Defense Mechanism: | Rationalization |
| Psychological Disturbance: | Narcissistic personality |
| Talk Style: | Anecdotes |
| Preoccupations Include: | Maintaining high levels of stimulation, many activities, many things to do, wanting to stay "high." |
| Replacing deep contact with pleasant talking, planning, intellectualizing. | |
| Defusing threat; maintaining a smokescreen of activity. | |
| Charm as a first line of defense against fear. Talking one's way out of trouble. | |
| Interrelating and systematizing information such that commitments necessarily include loopholes and other backup options which can lead to rationalized escape from difficult commitments, but can also lead to an ability to synthesize unusual connections and parallels between what appear to be antagonistic points of view. | |
| Superiority/inferiority dichotomy. | |
| Focus: | Personal emphasis on savoring life. |
| Couple emphasis on being with people of like-mind. | |
| Community emphasis on limits and obligations. | |
| Life Task: | To work with a sense of proportion and balance anchored in the now. Pain of any kind can serve as a steadying point of focus. |
Thursday, December 02, 2010
The Seven: Easy Optimism & Uneasy Activity
Absolutely does not describe 95% of anyone I know.
Black Friday
Thanks to Jack Donovan on FB, I just watched as much as I could stand of a video showing the consumer stampedes of Black Friday: people lined up in drove, in the cold, in the dark, who then rush like crazed Meccan pilgrims into stores and start grabbing bargains.
I am by no means well-off, and am no puritan when it comes to consuming, so I am sensitive to a bargain, but what object in a Target or WalMart store could be so valuable that you would engage in that kind of behavior? Maybe these folks are extraverted sensates and they enjoy the jostling.
Or maybe I am watching our homegrown peasant-thug-barbarian class in freefall. How many of these people also gravitate toward Jerry Springer and Maury Povitch?
I am by no means well-off, and am no puritan when it comes to consuming, so I am sensitive to a bargain, but what object in a Target or WalMart store could be so valuable that you would engage in that kind of behavior? Maybe these folks are extraverted sensates and they enjoy the jostling.
Or maybe I am watching our homegrown peasant-thug-barbarian class in freefall. How many of these people also gravitate toward Jerry Springer and Maury Povitch?
Shocked and appalled!
The WikiLeaks cables reveal yet another un-heard-of shocker:
US diplomats warned of increasing distrust of the United States in Canada. They described "negative popular stereotyping" of Americans on Canadian TV. They also said Canadians "always carry a chip on their shoulder" in part because of a feeling that their country "is condemned to always play 'Robin' to the US 'Batman'".
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Paper cuts
Not everyone commiserates equally with me over the demise of my local supermarket. I guess I am not the center of the universe after all.
Character is fate. Not my idea. Heraclitus. Jung. Etc.
I wish I were tougher than I am. More resourceful. Ambitious. Mesomorphic.
One of my recurring judgments about the liberal worldview is how unreal it can be. Asks you to ignore the perfectly obvious and embrace the pretty incredible.
I know something about unreality. Just cause it's unreal doesn't mean it can't be appealing. Very appealing.
Character is fate. Not my idea. Heraclitus. Jung. Etc.
I wish I were tougher than I am. More resourceful. Ambitious. Mesomorphic.
One of my recurring judgments about the liberal worldview is how unreal it can be. Asks you to ignore the perfectly obvious and embrace the pretty incredible.
I know something about unreality. Just cause it's unreal doesn't mean it can't be appealing. Very appealing.
Funny old one
Five Secrets to a Perfect Relationship
1. It is important that a man helps you around the house and has a job.
2. It is important that a man makes you laugh.
3. It is important to find a man you can count on and doesn't lie to you.
4. It is important that a man is good in bed and loves making love to you.
5. It is extremely important that these four men don't know each other.
1. It is important that a man helps you around the house and has a job.
2. It is important that a man makes you laugh.
3. It is important to find a man you can count on and doesn't lie to you.
4. It is important that a man is good in bed and loves making love to you.
5. It is extremely important that these four men don't know each other.
Pope Benedict and the Homos
The Pope's remarks in his book-length interview Light of the World will not make gay people in the Church happy or make gay people happy with the Church. He re-iterates the standard teaching that sexuality is ordered toward the procreation of children within marriage. Anything which does not flow toward that end is, in Catholic parlance, dis-ordered. No surprise. It's basically the same reason why artificial birth control is not ok.
A big part of what makes the issue so hot is the idea of sexual orientation, and of sexual orientation as being central to personal identity. To my knowledge, this relatively recent set of concepts has little or no history, not only in Catholicism, but in cultural thinking about sex prior to the 19th century West. The Church has responded by invoking the distinction between person and act, the famous "sin and sinner" distinction. For the homosexual person, this disordered inclination is a burden and a trial, and while expressing the inclination is wrong, the person deserves the ordinary respect due to anyone. It makes sense on an intellectual level --it's how most of us tolerate most other human beings, after all-- but it's hard to accept psychologically if you are on the receiving end of the rejection and your sexuality feels central to your identity. Mine does.
Eve Tushnet, an orthodox Catholic, and therefore celibate, lesbian does not dispute the Pope's teaching but does fault him on sharing an assumption about homosexuality with, ironically, secular liberalism, the ideology that Benedict finds most problematic, far more than Islam, for instance. I'll let her speak for herself, but the jist of it is that homosexual people don't want just a set of particular physical actions, but hunger for a specific kind of human relationship. And neither the Pope nor The World seem to get that.
What I have found unacceptable is to believe that when I care deeply for another man and express that love physically, the best I have to offer, in a way, it is essentially deformed. Very hard to maintain much self-respect in that kind of paradigm, try as you might. I am a male and I have a typically male form of sexuality. I like to look, for example. But my sexuality is not about particular acts of organs with other organs. At base, it is about a certain kind of connection that includes physical engagement. And the orthodox teaching is that that physical engagement violates whatever good there is in the connection. I cannot buy that, in good conscience. As I have said before, my sexual misdeeds come from the fact that I am human, not that I am gay.
What Benedict does say, very clearly, is that homosexual priests are a bad idea, that the sexual orientation and the sacramental role are incompatible. He says that gay men have a skewed relationship to both sexes which makes pastoral care problematic. And since gays are supposed to be celibate anyway, as a condition of morality, it makes the sacrificial element in celibacy superfluous.
And in his least charming response, when confronted with the reality of homosexuals in the priesthood and monastic life, he describes it as "one of the miseries of the Church." I tracked down the German original and the word he used is "Nöte" (with an umlaut over the O, which may not reproduce on Blogger). It means "hardships". Clearly something he would rather not have to put up with.
On a case by case basis, you can argue with him for sure. I can't see that either Franciscan Mychal Judge or Jesuit Gerard Manley Hopkins were bad priests at all. But to be somewhat consistent, I would have to say that he has a genuine concern if the celibate priesthood becomes publicly identified as a homosexual caste and if "gay culture" becomes the standard for clerical or religious life. I think that an all-male priesthood is crucial to the survival and identity of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But if all the males, or most, are homosexual...That is much the impression many people have now. Straight men, that is to say, regular and ordinary men, would stay away. As they do from any profession once it becomes feminized.
A big part of what makes the issue so hot is the idea of sexual orientation, and of sexual orientation as being central to personal identity. To my knowledge, this relatively recent set of concepts has little or no history, not only in Catholicism, but in cultural thinking about sex prior to the 19th century West. The Church has responded by invoking the distinction between person and act, the famous "sin and sinner" distinction. For the homosexual person, this disordered inclination is a burden and a trial, and while expressing the inclination is wrong, the person deserves the ordinary respect due to anyone. It makes sense on an intellectual level --it's how most of us tolerate most other human beings, after all-- but it's hard to accept psychologically if you are on the receiving end of the rejection and your sexuality feels central to your identity. Mine does.
Eve Tushnet, an orthodox Catholic, and therefore celibate, lesbian does not dispute the Pope's teaching but does fault him on sharing an assumption about homosexuality with, ironically, secular liberalism, the ideology that Benedict finds most problematic, far more than Islam, for instance. I'll let her speak for herself, but the jist of it is that homosexual people don't want just a set of particular physical actions, but hunger for a specific kind of human relationship. And neither the Pope nor The World seem to get that.
What I have found unacceptable is to believe that when I care deeply for another man and express that love physically, the best I have to offer, in a way, it is essentially deformed. Very hard to maintain much self-respect in that kind of paradigm, try as you might. I am a male and I have a typically male form of sexuality. I like to look, for example. But my sexuality is not about particular acts of organs with other organs. At base, it is about a certain kind of connection that includes physical engagement. And the orthodox teaching is that that physical engagement violates whatever good there is in the connection. I cannot buy that, in good conscience. As I have said before, my sexual misdeeds come from the fact that I am human, not that I am gay.
What Benedict does say, very clearly, is that homosexual priests are a bad idea, that the sexual orientation and the sacramental role are incompatible. He says that gay men have a skewed relationship to both sexes which makes pastoral care problematic. And since gays are supposed to be celibate anyway, as a condition of morality, it makes the sacrificial element in celibacy superfluous.
And in his least charming response, when confronted with the reality of homosexuals in the priesthood and monastic life, he describes it as "one of the miseries of the Church." I tracked down the German original and the word he used is "Nöte" (with an umlaut over the O, which may not reproduce on Blogger). It means "hardships". Clearly something he would rather not have to put up with.
On a case by case basis, you can argue with him for sure. I can't see that either Franciscan Mychal Judge or Jesuit Gerard Manley Hopkins were bad priests at all. But to be somewhat consistent, I would have to say that he has a genuine concern if the celibate priesthood becomes publicly identified as a homosexual caste and if "gay culture" becomes the standard for clerical or religious life. I think that an all-male priesthood is crucial to the survival and identity of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But if all the males, or most, are homosexual...That is much the impression many people have now. Straight men, that is to say, regular and ordinary men, would stay away. As they do from any profession once it becomes feminized.
The US Military and the Homos
Next day.
The large scale survey that the Pentagon took revealed that, overall, about 60% of the military don't have a problem serving with homosexuals, even if they regard the behavior as religiously or morally unacceptable. (This means that 4 out of 10 do have a problem.) The report suggests that letting gays serve openly would not be much of a problem, nothing that the services could not handle, given the right strategies and a little time. When you look at specifics, frontline troops are less sanguine about this and Marines are uneasy about it at a rate of 60%.
And having Lady Gaga demonstrate...well that's almost reason by itself to keep DADT in place. It's precisely the effeminate, boundary-breaking behavior that gay culture celebrates which proved to be the most frequently mentioned objection to repeal.
I am not in favor of repealing DADT unless it serves the military or at the very least does not inhibit its mission. If they come to the decision that it would be a good thing, then I'm for it. I know some gay soldiers who have served honorably and even heroically, with great sacrifice. I would like their service to be recognized. But that sentiment is not a sufficient reason to make a whole policy.
I would be very happy if the services were for it, and for a specific reason of mine. Unlike gay activism about a lot of other societal structures, which wants to transform and deconstruct the traditional institution to make homosexuals comfortable and "equal", the dismantling of DADT would allow --I hope-- men who want to let themselves be transformed by a traditional institution do so. I want it to be possible for gay men to become soldiers without having to hide, not to homosexualize the military. As long as the military is ok with it and the guys who join the military want to become soldiers, to adapt and become part of the preexisting tradition and not dismantle it, then it's a win-win.
Congressional Republicans remain agin it. Even though the responses from the military are, unsurprisingly, mixed, the opening comes from within, not imposed. I like that. The process is important to the final success of the outcome. We'll see how it finally pans out.
PS A commenter on another site has read through the document and holds that the contents do not actually support the conclusions, that there is quite significant resistance to the idea of out gays in the military.
The large scale survey that the Pentagon took revealed that, overall, about 60% of the military don't have a problem serving with homosexuals, even if they regard the behavior as religiously or morally unacceptable. (This means that 4 out of 10 do have a problem.) The report suggests that letting gays serve openly would not be much of a problem, nothing that the services could not handle, given the right strategies and a little time. When you look at specifics, frontline troops are less sanguine about this and Marines are uneasy about it at a rate of 60%.
And having Lady Gaga demonstrate...well that's almost reason by itself to keep DADT in place. It's precisely the effeminate, boundary-breaking behavior that gay culture celebrates which proved to be the most frequently mentioned objection to repeal.
Repeatedly, we heard Service members express the view that “open” homosexuality would lead to widespread and overt displays of effeminacy among men, homosexual promiscuity, harassment and unwelcome advances within units, invasions of personal privacy, and an overall erosion of standards of conduct, unit cohesion, and morality. (DADT Report p 5 and a thankful HT to Eliot Riffler)The report's writers kindly assess this as misperception and stereotypical thinking, but, come on, as we all know, stereotypes are offensive precisely because they contain unpleasant truths. But would this kind of homo be drawn to military life? You certainly hope not. But cf, Bradley Manning.
I am not in favor of repealing DADT unless it serves the military or at the very least does not inhibit its mission. If they come to the decision that it would be a good thing, then I'm for it. I know some gay soldiers who have served honorably and even heroically, with great sacrifice. I would like their service to be recognized. But that sentiment is not a sufficient reason to make a whole policy.
I would be very happy if the services were for it, and for a specific reason of mine. Unlike gay activism about a lot of other societal structures, which wants to transform and deconstruct the traditional institution to make homosexuals comfortable and "equal", the dismantling of DADT would allow --I hope-- men who want to let themselves be transformed by a traditional institution do so. I want it to be possible for gay men to become soldiers without having to hide, not to homosexualize the military. As long as the military is ok with it and the guys who join the military want to become soldiers, to adapt and become part of the preexisting tradition and not dismantle it, then it's a win-win.
Congressional Republicans remain agin it. Even though the responses from the military are, unsurprisingly, mixed, the opening comes from within, not imposed. I like that. The process is important to the final success of the outcome. We'll see how it finally pans out.
PS A commenter on another site has read through the document and holds that the contents do not actually support the conclusions, that there is quite significant resistance to the idea of out gays in the military.
Shadow
In Jung's psychology, that inescapable part of each one of us that we would never wish to be, but are.
The Pope and the Generals
Almost simultaneously, we hear Pope Benedict XVI make clear and clearly negative comments about homosexuals and read a Pentagon report which recommends that homosexuals be allowed to serve openly in the American military.
It's late and I am heading off to bed. But some thoughts on these phenomena to follow.
It's late and I am heading off to bed. But some thoughts on these phenomena to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
