Rethinking Sacrifice

    I think it is safe to say that within the context of American culture the concept of an individual  making sacrifices in his or her daily life has a negative connotation, especially so with regards to self-sacrifice. That is not to say that the American connotation is a purely negative one; to the contrary, within the sphere of nationalism sacrificing for one's country is one of the most noble and honorable things a person can do. And certainly to some extent, a person is expected to make some sacrifices for the sake of their family and friends. However, I would argue that the sacrifice of the solider and the sacrifice of the socialized individual are, for different reasons, not true sacrifices.
   
      With the case of the soldier. It is true that they are willfully endangering their life and even in extreme cases directly offering their life for their nation/tribe. But I argue that they are only willing to do so on their terms. Take the archetypal war movie. The protagonist is fully prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, but if the stage of the battle, the methods, or the time clashes with their personal ideology they rebel. What makes them heroes is that we see their rebellion as just. It is not that they are cowardly, but that the demands on them were, or they were immoral, unjust, or wrong. Our faith in them as heroes is latter affirmed when we see them proceed to give their life to their cause when it is on their terms. Of course I am over generalizing, but the archetype of the lone hero who follows their own judgment in the face of corruption, tyranny, and incompetency does exist in American cinema and literature.      

          The reason I do not see this as a true sacrifice is because at no point does the protagonist relinquish their ideology. While hey may willingly forfeit his future, at no point does he truly sacrifice his self, the core foundation of his beliefs and motivations. If anything, the act of dying immortalizes who he is, what he stands for, in the most powerful of all symbolic gestures.This is not sacrifice. As I have hinted to in the opening of this paragraph, to sacrifice means to relinquish some part of what one covets. To let go of a piece of what is most treasured. At no point does the lone hero do this. Yes they are willing to give their life, but only because they hold the meaning that they transform it into to be infinitely greater. And that meaning is something that they themselves MUST condone. That meaning is not antithetical to them. To the contrary it is the essence of what they are. It is their self. Because of this, I would more accurately describe the hero's sacrifice as "The Hero's Transformation" where they convert their finite life into an immortal symbol. I am by no means arguing that this is not a powerful, noble, and honorable gesture; but it is not a sacrifice. The achievement of immorality fulfills not forfeits the human ideal.  As for the example of sacrificing for the family, I would call this more of a compromise.

      Something I often find myself talking about with my friends is the nature of relationships. In these discussions there is generally a distinction made that sacrificing for a relationship is bad, while compromising for one is good. What is this distinction? As I have previously addressed, to sacrifice means to relinquish something of ultimate concern to the individual. Because there is nothing of more concern to the individual than him or her self  (self here is referring to the basis of a person's beliefs and motivations), true sacrifice is always self-sacrifice. Anything short of giving up that of which is most valued must be seen as a compromise. To compromise is to relinquish something while still protecting that which is most important. Returning to the relationship example, let's say your boyfriend/girlfriend wants you to comb your hair more. Combing your hair is annoying, but it is not integral to your self. You lose nothing you truly covet in succumbing to her request besides perhaps time. However, I would suggest that despite what is found in many maxims and cliche sayings, time is the cheapest part of our self and the part that is most readily compromised to avoid true sacrifice. Now Let's say that you are unwilling to comb your hair. That not combing your hair to you symbolizes autonomy, freedom and rebellion from conformity (or any number of other values) in this instance you are not as accommodating. One of three things can happen. First, you could battle it out with your girlfriend/boyfriend until one of you successfully breaks the reality of the other and colonizes their mind with a new set of beliefs that clearly understands why combing your hair is unacceptable or why you must comb your hair. The second thing that could happen is that both of you refuse to yield, and ultimately it is not either of your inner worlds but your relationship that breaks. Or lastly, you could both refuse to yield, but instead of breaking off your relations you offer tribute to your boyfriend/girlfriend in the form of some other comprise, an offering of time or capital that counteracts your inability to sacrifice. This last case is called a sacrifice in the semantics of our language, but in reality it is a compromise. It is a compromise because instead of yielding your self, a greater quantity of something less valued, but still significant, is alternatively presented as an offering to the other. This offering states "I refuse to yield, but I still value our bond, only to a lesser degree."

     Now the question that stands is: is there anything wrong with this? I would guess that the initial impression of the Western reader would be a strong NO! You should never forfeit who you are! If your boyfriend/girlfriend cannot accept that, then they are not right for you! This cry is a cry for the supremacy of individualism. The author of the italicized statement is undoubtedly a voice whose mind is filled with images of a tattered, timid soul feebly offering up chunks of its own flesh to appease the voracious appetite of an abusive and domineering "other." I do not question the validity of such an image. I am sad to say that such an abusive relationship is the reality of many people, both privileged and not. I am not contesting this image, but suggesting that it is on of abuse, not of the norm. Just as a person should not use the criteria of an abusive relationship to base their relationships off; they should also not use the criteria of an abusive sacrifice to base their own conception of sacrifice off of. I will state now that in almost all cases (with some exceptions) a one-sided sacrifice is an abusive one. You should never relinquish yourself to someone or something that does not value you. And if you are truly valued , as you value them/it, than the other will be moved to sacrifice as well. Again, there are some examples where this is not the case, but I would say that in general any positive sacrifice should be a mutual one.

    I think positive sacrifices are nesseacry to build truly democratic, stable, productive individuals. For in a positive sacrifice two or more people have surrendered some territory within their hearts so that they have room for the presence of others. To Sacrifice is a gesture of love and an extension of self. The notion that sacrifice is bad comes from a strong belief in the self as a stable and quantified entity. Or in other words, the belief of the Western construction of the soul. Each person has their soul, which is unique and separate from everyone else. To relinquish even a part of that is to destroy not only what makes you you, but what defines humanity.

   This however is a position of faith, and one that I do not hold for that matter. I do not see myself as a discrete entity. I believe that the nature of reality is not stagnation but flux. The self is not a constant essence, it is a collage of all the various pieces of the reality we move within. As we move geographically, historically, culturally, the pieces change, and thus the collage changes. I do not think that The me of now and the me of 10 years ago are the same self. If you were to ask anyone who has  known both of these people you would find that they are almost contradictory of each other. If you still do not believe me, I would urge you to keep a journal. Write each day what you feel, or on a particularly emotional day, and make sure to really flesh it out. Look at that journal just 3-4 months later and I guarantee you will be astonished by the things you wrote. If you look at that journal a decade or two later I would bet that you would not even recognize yourself.

   From the perspective of the self as a dynamic force, self-sacrifice is no longer destructive, but merely a choice in direction. It is a willful push towards a certain configuration of identity rather than passively waiting for your current self to unconsciously erode into a new form.

 I have much more to say on this, but I need to wash some dishes and than go to bed. So that is it for now. 

What It Means To Be Strong

 In my twenty-two years of life nothing has stung more than the realization that there are many ways to be strong; and that each is an endless depth unto itself. I do not know why it took me so long to see it. It should have been obvious. Confucius says, "to take what is close at hand as an analogy for what is far" and you will not stray too far. I know that when I was a young boy I wanted to be strong more than anything;  judging from my interactions with them, I think most young boys do. This is what is close at hand. So what is far? I would say that when I was a young boy the farthest thing imaginable was a young girl. In some ways I still find young women hard to comprehend... but that just goes to show I need to do a better job listening. Confucius says, "to take what is close at hand as an analogy for what is far." The young boy in my past is close at hand and girls were and are still far. If I, as a young boy, wanted to be strong more than anything, I am going to assume that young girls do too. It is from this assumption that I can clearly see that strength is multi-facted.
    Young boys are (not unanimously, but predictably, at least in our culture) obsessed with fighting and their muscles. Why, because we see this as what makes a person strong, and we want to be strong. Young girls, (not unanimously, but predictably, at least in our culture) are obsessed with their beauty and grace. Is this not also because they see this as what makes a person strong? Beauty gives you power over others just as physical dominance does, but in a different way. Then you begin to think about it, and you realize that someone who is beautiful or muscular can still be psychologically weak. So there is strength over others and there is strength over yourself; and within each of these categories there is a wide variety of methods for obtaining said strength. Strength is a plurality.
     But as a young boy (and perhaps a young girl too) you want to be able to say that your strength is the supreme strength. The strength that stands on top of all others. But you can't; and it is hard to accept, the promiscuity of what is strong.
     Harder still, is accepting the fact that your strength, the world you live and breathe in, is just as unknowable as strength in the broader more absolute sense. If you are a thinker, a runner, a drawer, a breather,  and you are concerned with being strong, you cannot imagine the ends of your world. To love an art (all those just listed and more) is to chase it to infinity knowing full well that it is a place we will never be able to go. I am such a man that loves strength, and so I love the Don Quixotes of the world. the men and women who follow that star all the time knowing just how far a star is from where they are. To me that is what it means to be strong. That is what it means to be beautiful.
    But it is hard. More so than you could ever possible imagine. I do not know if it is the culture that I was raised in or if it is should be attributed to a facet of the human condition, but I find myself incredibly prone to floating. There is a quote, I apologize that I do not know if I am quoting it properly, or who it should be attributed to, but it goes something like, "the enemy of great is not bad, it is good." Once we reach some level of proficiency we are satiated at a remarkable speed. And this applies for every single thing a person does. We learn to think, we learn a couple interesting facts or tricks, we give up on there being another way. We learn to walk and never once think that we could differently and that it would be better. To some extent I suppose this is necessary. If we meticulously went over every minute piece of existence we would never get anywhere. But I think we are at a point that is of the opposite extreme. Where even with the things we love and care about we have lost all sense of humility, all sense of passion, or curiosity and have assumed our own superiority self-evident. In all fairness, I am a step beyond this where I vocalize said arrogance, but I do not think it is that big of a step. And I do think that the majority of people are not that far from me. Perhaps they keep it to themselves, perhaps they do not actively try to change people, but the are every bit as stagnant with their methods of loving, problem-solving, thinking, living.

    Confucius says that in a hamlet of 20 homes you would find people as smarter than him or more courageous, but that no one excels him in his love of learning. To love learning, truly love learning, is to constantly be plumbing the depths of the world you have chosen to reside in (By world here I am referring to a body of knowledge that comprises a way of life that you believe to be strong/good/right and have chosen to partake in).

  I'll accept it if you think you know how to tie your shoes and brush your teeth, but anything beyond that level I cannot.        

Review: The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation

The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation by Roger T. Ames

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



This is a great book for anyone who wants to get a good introduction to the core values of Confucianism. The translation of the Analects itself is not my favorite. Though I like parts of it better than others on the whole I like Burton Watson's translation better. That said, the introduction of Ames Philosophical translation of the Analects is the best I have read. It gives the reader a clear understanding of some of the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western thought, and accurately portrays the ideal of confucianism.

Too many academics in their writings on Confucianism have written based on the reality of history rather than the ideals that Confucianism tries to set. To judge any belief-system religious, philosophical, or political by the way it has been put to practice rather than what it strove for is to demonize it. If you look at the implementation of confucianism in Chinese or Korean histories you find authoritarianism, sexism, machoism and a long list of atrocities. However, the same can be said for christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Democracy, or any other belief system. Yet we do not judge Christianity based on the Crusades, or democracy based on the genocides it has led to in India and Rwanda. So we should not judge confucianism by the worst of its perversions. In attempting to see the ideal for which confucianism strives, this book is perfect.





View all my reviews

The Irony of Human Persuasion

      I spend a great deal of my time thinking how to convince people to change their habits. How to convince my family,  my friends,  my community, my country, and humanity in general. I do this because I am convinced that specific values and customs that they hold are wrong; and by wrong here what i mean is dangerous. I do not think I am alone in this. To the contrary, I think a concern for the actions and beliefs of loved ones is something that consumes most people. And that ultimately is what an attempt to change something about a person really is, a concern for their and your well-being. What I want to discuss here is not the validity of such an endeavor, but the illogical way in which the majority of us go about it.

   Thinking about my own life, when someone i love holds a belief or practice that i feel is dangerous my response is to show them why what they believe is wrong and what they should believe instead. Or to put it in other words, to attack the belief or practice. Does that make sense?  At first it appears to make sense. After all, I care about them, so of course I would look out for their best interests. But let's think about it a different way. I want to prevent people I care about from experiencing danger, but I attempt to reach this goal by attacking them, which to the human mind is synonymous with danger. Does this make sense?

   I don't think it does. And yet, from my experience this is the way most people attempt to change people. They might attack the idea by calling it stupid or ridiculous. If they have obtained a liberal arts education, there is a good chance they will attack the idea using the tools of western logic to show the other that they are being irrational in their belief. If they have any sort of higher education the use of scientific knowledge is generally a part of the assault, and if not, there is always the sword of experience and age to thrust into the belly of youth and inexperience. This variety of methods of persuasion are all an attack of some form or another.

  Why do we attack when we want to save? Isn't this just taking a perceived threat and substituting it with a real threat? Is it any wonder that people respond defensively to these attempts? You will rarely change someone's mind by attacking them, because we as humans are naturally distrusting of what hurts us. When touching a stove burns a baby the baby reflexively puts distance between its body and the stove. We react in the same way to hurtful ideas. The only reason our loved ones tolerate continued verbal assaults is because we are so integral to their self conception. This again is a reference to my notion of self (an essay I have not written) but the quick version of the idea is that a "self" is a network rather than a discrete body. Your most intimate relationships are literally a part of who you are. When your finger burns do you chop it off? No. In this respect, even though a particular relationship may continue to attack you, because it is a part of your self as whole you learn to cope with the attacks. However just as with attacks to your body, damage can be so severe that you have no choice but to amputate the limb or undergo some other sort of corrective surgery. I argue that the same is true from the self. We are defined by different relationships, some more important than others, but ultimately we are the heart-mind of our self, and if necessary can cut any and all other relationships to save ourselves. However, amputation or surgery are always painful events that leave the body irrevocably different from what it was before. In an ideal life, we would be able to avoid such things, and thus in our real lives do attempt to avoid such things at all cost. Even if it means dealing with a constant source of pain.

 To summarize, I am suggest that the most common form of human persuasion (attack, which could also be defined as argument/debate) is one that we are naturally adverse to and suffer from. In the following essay I will suggest some alternative methods of persuasion that I am personally trying to integrate into my daily life.

Review: Dynamics of Faith

Dynamics of Faith by Paul Tillich

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



To anyone who sees faith and religion as lesser forms of knowledge that have been rendered obsolete by the developments of science, Paul Tillich's book The Dynamics of Faith is a must read. Tillich is concise and artful with his prose and defines and defends his point beautifully. Reading this the clarity of his argument coupled with a subtle ambiguity that keeps you from being certain masterfully embodies the very ultimacy he tries to convey. I could not help but be reminded of Confucius's (Kongzi) use of the word "ren" in this work, and can only hope that some day I am able to write with such art.



View all my reviews

Review: The Human Animal

The Human Animal by Weston La Barre

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



Weston La Barre's work of evolutionary psychology (sociobiology) is an entertaining work. The reader will learn much about the process of evolution and the biological mechanisms of several species that will broaden their scientific perspective and provide several fresh and powerful analogies. That said, La Barre strays too far into the realm of psychoanalysis. The strong influence of Freud is unavoidable and at times off-putting. The reader must constantly remind themselves La Barre is a product of his time, but still, some of the arguments he makes are so shockingly sexist and outdated that you cannot help but develop skepticism for the overall worth of the book. Honestly it is not one that I will read through again. But I did enjoy it. His description of ants, the sequence of different animal families, and expansion on Freud's ideas of the spectrum from culture-to-pyschosis are all interesting and worthwhile.



View all my reviews

Review: On Human Nature

On Human Nature by E.O. Wilson

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



It is not surprising that On Human Nature receives a lot of criticism in the social sciences field. The solution he suggests is to effectively re-engineer the social sciences more thoroughly within the natural sciences. A process that would completely eradicate some current fields of academics (such as theology). While his delivery is crass in this sense, I do believe the book is worth reading and contains much valuable insight and knowledge. It is interesting to point out that the 1st dilemma he suggests human society faces is a need for what Paul Tillich calls faith. Though Wilson tries to rewrite it scientifically it is impossible to ignore this if you have read both authors. In this light I would say the question Wilson raises is valid, and the information he provides is vital, it is only his solution that I would disagree with (and only slightly). Basically what Wilson suggests is that we engineer culture to promote humaneness. The way he says it is different, and his method of doing this is different from what I would suggest. However, overall I think he is on the right path.



View all my reviews