Pools

Every summer, we all witness that mad dash of sweaty, cloistered bodies stripped of their cumbersome winter apparel streaming towards a sanctuary from Apollo’s wrath; some cool body of water. The frozen plains of reflective glass only months earlier give way to a rebirth of the solar god, whose throne is once again reclaimed. And so, a gentle breeze cuts through the reticulated landscape to have its way with the ponds, lakes, and puddles we all like to splash in. And pools once again attract us to their buoyantly delicious fluid we all love to swim in. The young and the old find their common ground in either splashing about or fixed lacily prostate in its dense, but spacious, wetness.

One can’t help but think of the Roman bath houses, the banks of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, or Syrinx’s reeds in an Arcadian lake awaiting the musical lips of Pan to blow. Historically, mankind has sought out pools as not only a way to cool themselves off, but also as a means of congregation. For as we all know, there is nothing more appealing to Man as Society itself; and in particular socializing. The greatest achievements of civilization are civility. And it requires a collective to produce a civil act; for one cannot be civil to one’s self alone.

The pool, therefore, like the aggregate of men and women, is the result of millions upon millions of drops of water coming together. The rain carelessly falls with each bead and one never knows where the individual drop will fall. But, the kinetics of the pool we can safely and confidently predict. The arm glides over the surface and slices through it and we immediately know the direction of the swell. The Northwind blows traversing the skim and we perceive its ambulation and which way it is going.

Jesus once said in a conversation to the genuinely inquisitive and open Nicodemus that the spirit was like the wind and that one could never know its direction (whether it went this way or that). But can we say anything different about the rain in contrast to the pools? Consider a game such as football. For if one of the members of The New England Patriots has possession of the ball, are we not convinced of the direction the rest of the team and the opposing team will rush to? Contrariwise, can we equally say with the same degree of certainty what Prometheus would chiefly do with his time if he were unchained? John Paul Sartre, the existential philosopher, pointed out that his own free will terrified him, for it was possible that he could perform any act at any given time, marvelous or dreadful. The individual, while cursory, unpredictable, and monstrously god-like at times, is our highest expression of existence. The group, the herd, Nature herself, are superficial in contrast; and monotonously predictable. And while I can see why we find pools so relaxing and rejuvenating on a hot summer day, they are hardly the right places to find relief from the heated, vexing light of our own inner souls and spirits, where purpose drowns out the chaos of our humdrum lives.

Scientism: Throwing the baby out but not the bathwater

I can only guess what it is like to awaken to this world from that pre-human state of being where the mind is first developing its consciousness. On first seeing the sky, clouds, buildings, water, grass, the forest, and the countless other things we call the world, there must be a sudden shock, or pause that grips one. Undoubtedly, the conscious life of infancy is a mystery. Researchers can only guess at 'what it is like to be' a baby. But one thing is for certain, they seem to be in awe of EVERYTHING around them.

This awe, this ever pressing passion that seizes the mind and pulls it away from numbering things, distinguishing things, and takes it all in as a sort of shock of what IS may have something more to it than merely something one may call an undeveloped mind. Maybe, as we mature, and develop our ability to communicate, we actually lose sight of this awe. Perhaps there is something in the awe that is absent in the acquisition of language, of mathematics, of what we call logic reasoning skills. It could be the case that as Jesus stated, one must be as a child to enter into His kingdom, we must exchange awe for the words we use to understand all that is around us.

Consider how we develop language. According to St. Augustine, the process involves the child observing the parent and mimicking his or her movements as to get his or her attention. But why does the infant wish to get the attention of the parent? There is much debate on this, but the simple answer is to satisfy some desire, some craving, of the child. He or she may be hungry or thirsty and this is why they are crying in pain. They recognize that their body is in pain for something and they are expressing this pain of want. However, they also notice that the parent is providing for them relief from this want, this pain, through feeding them. Therefore, the infant further notices that he or she can mimic certain sounds the parents make, usually as a cue by the parent to successively approximate a specific word such as carrot or meat, so as to avoid the pain of want which gets worse as time goes on.

Soon, the child is able to acquire a wealth of mimicked behaviors and sounds which serve as a complex of preventing the pain of want. The infant growing into the maturity of childhood, is drawn into a world of language by communicating mimicked sounds and behaviors all related to want and its prevention. He or she learns that it is an 'I' and that this 'I' does things 'for' other things. Subject and predicate are born as to be more specific on what it wants to satisfy its cravings. But the language it develops ultimately grows more and more peripheral to the original motivation of satisfying a desire to where the desires are still there but the object to satisfy the desire is proliferated into many things.

All along, we the parents are under the impression the child is 'learning' through this process. But is this really learning? Or is it adapting? For what did the child 'know' before it had to start mimicking behaviors and focusing all its energies on this (on what brings the body pain and want) and not on those things which feel 'good' to the body? We cannot say what it is since we would be using language we had developed to satisfy the want of satisfaction or rather the negation of pain and want. Ultimately, this really puts into perspective the question of what we really do know. After all, our language could be said to be nothing more than a garden of words and terms grown out of our pain, not out of our joy and happiness. Indeed, the terms joy and happiness, presumably stem from some desire we had as children to avoid pain. It is nothing more than an inspired term from the shadow of joy and happiness.

Indeed, we number things, we count them, as to see some specificity in them. I see one tree, two trees, three and so forth. But their number is only in their being trees. And trees are only those things which have some use for the prevention of pain. Mathematics is painful, not only in practice but ontologically according to this. In short, we only know the shadow of things when we speak of them with the words we have learned in this Life. The awe and wonder the infant experiences which it cannot communicate (for we residents of this world of pain we live in are unfit to give them proper names to use for joy) we see as nonsense and unlearned babblings. But maybe we are the ones babbling, groaning until as the Bible says all of creation gives birth to the joy it has hidden behind the pain of its birth.

Sidewalks

They are the running boards of our lives where we come and go to places of short distance. They are the children's canvases where earliest works of art are sketched with chalk. They are cracked and split as the years pass by, but last longer than our lifetime. Frequented by kings and queens, and yet the least of our pets will do their business on them. They are simple in design and yet can display the most intricate of patterns in their grainy texture. Both the state and citizen own them, but neither can claim the whole of them. They are sidewalks, those cemented floors that lay between house and road, between where we are and where we wish to go.

It is upon these urban paradoxes that I find myself perplexedly musing or, rather, walking and cycling on a daily basis. The inhabitants of my neighborhood are most content to busy themselves as they water their lawns, jog, or head to the park without a thought. I wonder if they ever might look down to ponder, Where does this path go and where does it come from? For as much as we know about sidewalks, none of us can account for their geography, etymology or even eschatology. And while I suspect that the most imaginative of our children may fancy rainbows shooting from their very beginning point, or some pit of monsters and a stormy abyss at their end, our own answers may not fare any better. After all, we take sidewalks for granted while investing so much time on and around them. But there is a comfort to be found in their very existence.

In Shel Silverstein's poem Where the Sidewalk Ends, he gave a rather vivid account of the sidewalk. It is where the street begins, where the grass grows soft and white, where the sun burns crimson bright , and where the moon-bird rests from his flight. But he offers nothing of as to where the sidewalk might end. And no mention either of where they begin? For where they are and where they are not must meet somewhere in the intermediary cosmos of villa to village. Is it the yawning void of Nordic Mythology where Ymir the giant gave birth to the nine worlds? Is it that purgatory in Dante's Inferno? Or is it some Stygian realm at the foot of Elysium?

Now while this is all magnificently spectacular speculating, let me say that where all sidewalks come from and where they end is abundantly clear: where we are all coming from and going to. They begin when we begin and end when we end. They are that part of us that we see so little of, even when thinking deeply and analyzing our own self-identity. They are the first and last of our steps. Akin to Aristotle's definition of time, they are the before and after, but not of motion but of motivation. They are that general and abstract expression of why we do the things we do. And perhaps this is why we overlook sidewalks so. For, like us, there is infinitely more to them than meets the eye.

Angels Without Wings (an excerpt)

One of the most obscure and perhaps shadowy topics that one can investigate is that of angels. These beings, which have captured the minds and hearts of people throughout the ages, are found in religious texts, legends, myths and even fairy tales. Indeed, one can hardly sift through a collection of sympathy cards at the local store, sentimental or religious artwork or even album covers in a music store without seeing some depiction of angels. Their very image seems to inspire a sense of security and safety and tranquility. They are often associated with the departure of the soul and presented as guides to one’s heavenly eternal dwelling place.

One of the more salient associations most have with angels is their connection with religion. For, most of the world’s religions have some form of angelic beings included into their doctrine. Whether it is as a protector of the divine realms or some messenger that stands between the Will of God and the part that humanity plays in it. Most people in Western countries that have grown up around Christianity remember various Christmas plays that portray the Angel of the Lord descending down to the shepherds in the fields at night. And the Angel, with its commanding presence, inspired fear in them so that it had to remind them not to be afraid.

This story of Christmas and the Angel of God brings to mind many of the images that one has of angels. As mentioned, the depictions of them on sympathy cards, works of art, album covers and innumerable other sources of either classical or pop iconic themes usually have one similarity to them; they are winged. Indeed, the idea of angels with wings as almost tautologous. The presence of angels assumes a being with wings. It’s as natural as a tiger with a tail, an elephant with a trunk or a fish with fins. And yet, the clear difference between these examples is that these are of animals; biological species. Angels, however, in contrast to this, are not an identifiable species. No one has managed to capture one in flight, pin its wings down and attach it to some examination table. In fact, it is highly unlikely that such a situation would be possible. Angels, after all, appear and re-appear as out of thin air. It is doubtful that such a situation is possible.

To further this point of investigating the nature of angels, clearly they are a speculative species of beings: For to know of their existence is to believe in them. There is no empirical evidence of them and are therefore outside the spectrum of science; or at least normative and generally accepted scientific investigation. Many would say that they are fancies, the product of unbridled imagination and the creation of an era that accepted myth and superstition as fact. And while many people believe in angels, and one recent study found that most Americans believe in angels, the evidence of their existence is ultimately unfalisfiable.1 In other words, one has to believe in their existence as opposed to being aware of their existence.

If one is to admit that they exist, based on either eyewitness accounts, their necessity based on some ontological system stemming from a philosophical perspective, or on the authority of one’s religion, their appearance, therefore, is limited to that; mere appearance. On cannot, as stated earlier, analyze them in the normal sense. So, the only way in which one can understand them and know more about them is based on either eyewitness accounts or the authority of scripture and the descriptions provided by their involvement in religious history. With this in mind, the general perception is that of a human-like creature sporting a majestic and glorious pair of wings. But, is this an accurate depiction of them? What do they really look like and what are the actual accounts of their appearance in history?

From the Judeo-Christian perspective, the Holy Bible has numerous references to the presence of angels and their interaction with mankind. In the Bible, accounts of individuals sighting angels and being visited by them is rather common; particularly by those that God is seeking to communicate His will to. The narrative of Christianity, in particular, with the Christianization of Rome and subsequent Medieval Europe, was the foundation for art and literature that reflected the Christian story along with the characters of the Bible; this included angels. However, what one will find is their depiction as being winged humans that descend upon earth as a bird descends down from the sky in which it is flying. This begs the question of how accurate this is in contrast to their portrayal in the Bible; or in other words, does the Bible portray angels as having wings, and if not, why is it the case that subsequent portrayals, secular and religious, are of them being winged? And so, this is where the discussion starts.

Angels, however, are creatures without wings. They have always been described, at least in the Bible, as looking very much like humans. Typically, the only difference was that of countenance. For an angel was one that had always appeared to mankind in a majestic and glowing manner. In fact, this would explain the inclusion of halos in many depictions of angels in art. In that, angels had usually either terrified, excited or simply startled humans suggested that there was something special in their appearance. The inhabitants of Sodom found them to be attractive and wished to make love with them. If this is the case, they would have been nothing short of looking at a movie star times a million. They are attractive and radiant, but nonetheless human in appearance.

And yet, the majority of people throughout history, have depicted them, in art and in literature, as sporting wings. The earliest depiction of an angel is one of a human looking creature without wings. However, in the very same century, in the tomb of a famous ruler in Italy, there were depictions of angels with wings. Furthermore, throughout history angels had been depicted as being winged things. We had seen that there are primarily two reasons for this. The first has something to do with Greek and Roman Mythology. Mercury, or Hermes, a messenger like an angel, had wings upon his feet. Naturally, then, to the pagan Christian, an angel should have wings as well. But even more than this, the very fabric of pagan thought demanded a naturalistic explanation of spiritual matters; this included beings such as angels. In order to make it believable that angels had wings, a pagan would find that angels must have wings. For how else could they travel from earth to Heaven unless they were carried by wings.

Furthermore, there has always been a confusion with angels and other Heavenly beings, such as cherubim, seraphim and other creatures. The women with stork like wings that Zechariah saw was unlikely an angel. For, an angel was with Zechariah at the time, as well as the fact that, the women were not messengers, like angels were. Furthermore, cherubim, which are bearers and guardians of those precious things pertaining to God’s glory, are no more messengers than seraphim, which express the glory of God in His throne room. And while demons were angels at one time, it is either highly unlikely that they are winged, and if they are, then it is not an inheritance of their angel origin. And so, it is with great regret, as all great truths are, to state that angels indeed do not have wings. However, while this may excite some sense of confusion or disappointment at our own conception of angels, just remember, angels can be just as effective without wings as with them. And besides, I doubt one should go about erasing all of the artwork with angels of their wings, for it seems to comfort us to see them with those splendid, feathery, white, soft wings; even if its not true.

The Back

I was driving my van the other day, through worries and back alleys-which is quite frequent nowadays-when I took a wrong turn. And while this is generally an annoyance to me, the extent of which results in the shaking of my fist or a few choice words escaping my lips, this incidence was quite different. For I ended up behind a strip mall, or I should say the back of each store front. The empty vacuous rear of dumpsters, chipped paint and merchants' secrets spilled over onto the narrow road chiefly frequented by semis and solitude. I spotted two or three employees of some establishment huddled together like an embarrassment, smoking their sticks and chattering. All the while I thought to myself how potent a contrast that exists between the delightfully decorative store fronts, with their inviting charm and welcoming décor, and their back doors. For I thought why not create an attractive presence throughout? Why must the unseen, save those unimportant to the mousetrap businesses, be ignored?

But perhaps I was too hard on the commercial real estate and its blatant superficiality. For anyone who has moved furniture will tell you what lies behind couches, entertainment centers and underneath beds. And it’s certainly not something one would be prepared to accentuate with vases or domestic accouterments. The fact is, we rarely sweep under our rugs or behind dressers. Guests who come to our homes never see what looks perfectly good from the front.

And aren't we glad our spouses or boyfriends and girlfriends were not introduced to our backsides. I mean to say barring other physical considerations, it is our smiles, our general countenances, our faces which drew them to us in the first place. Author G. K. Chesterton once commented that much of the grotesque ugliness we see in the world is merely what we see of its hindmost and not its van ward; where the product of a tidied front is evident. For there can not be clean laundry without dirty water poured out. Nor can there be cut diamonds without messy diamond dust spread somewhere. Our fronts, which we spend so much time polishing and refining, always produce dingy backsides. The secret is in knowing which, and appropriately associating with, what we cherish as our own front and what we throw away in the back.

Unmarketable Commodities

There is a story I once heard about a famous inventor who worked for a company before he gained recognition for his inventions. As I understand it, this individual developed an improvement on a machine he operated as an employee for this firm. As a result, he managed to get his work done with considerable ease due to the improvement on the device, even allowing him the opportunity to read various books while working. Well, to make a long story short, his boss was not happy with him for reading while he was supposed to be working, despite the fact he was getting his work done. Ultimately, he was fired. I find this to be characteristic of the workplace today. It is quite evident that there are bosses who are more interested in the appearance of working than the actual results of work itself.

But, this appearance of working really hard at something and actually getting something done are not always clear and identifiable. One may appear as though they are not doing much of anything when really they are. There have been many times when I have observed one of my coworkers perform a task, which I thought easy. But, when I tried to do it myself, it wasn’t as easy. As well, many times our accomplishments are not always seen, even though, what we have accomplished is beneficial to others. Consider the poets, the philosophers, the musicians who assemble little packages in factories while composing some lyric, some thought or some rhyme? What of their accomplishments? We may see little achievement at their job, but much achieved in the creation of a song, idea or verse. They very well maybe slower than others at their job, but of course, they are pumping out more than just assembled widgets, they are giving us songs, ideas and poems, but we don’t have to pay for them; save, the most popular, and thus published, works by the ‘lucky’ artists. Instead of being transported by trucks to stores, these achievements are spread by word of mouth, from one person to another, encouraging, enlightening and inspiring everyone who uses those artists’ products. You’ll never see them traded on the New York Stock Exchange, for after all, they are bartered for by the asking of a question, the listening of a tune hummed under one’s breath or the request of an elegy’s recitation.

I say, before we criticize the daydreamer for being a slacker, let us consider the possibility that we owe him or her for services already rendered. After all, we wouldn’t hesitate to spend money that we have earned on new furniture, an automobile, or any other aging commodity. But, what of those aging tunes we hear over and over again, or an old-fashioned idea? It is true that we purchase books and spend money on CDs, but where do you suppose the ideas expressed in those books came from, or the melodies in the new hit CD? Like all our appliances that eventually are worn out, our ideas get old and in need of either repair or the acquisition of new ones. I don’t expect we should actually pay money for such things, but we should pay a little respect for those who generate them. Can we really live without the songs that touch our hearts or the answers to those questions, which haunt our every thought? Let us thank those who give us the unmarketable commodities that we don’t have to pay for. The dreamer has to pay for it with, not only the labor of the mind, but with our discouraging name calling, like, ‘you’re lazy’, or ‘you don’t do anything.” It just may be the case that we are the lazy ones, not them.

The Uninformed Voter

I don't know about you, but I have just about had it up to here with political commentators: Especially with the presidential election upon us. Oh sure, every now and then I am tempted to tear myself away from a light-hearted sitcom to listen to some serious issues discussed. The problem is, every time I do, I begin to doubt my own ability to make political decisions. For instance, one political pundit will lash out at another citing various statistics gathered from financial reports, while the other will quote some obscure elected official in response. At the end of the debate, one is left with a pile of information no ordinary person can remember. This would probably be fine if it weren't for the commentators' instance on a voter being well informed. They often accuse the public of problems in our country because the ordinary citizens are not educating themselves on the issues. As a result, we voters elect individuals based on criteria that are irrelevant; so such talk show hosts may say. In view of this, I feel like a political tree branch, to where my position is blown from one side to another by the winds of rhetoric, presentation and just plain too much information for me to take in.

The more I thought about this issue of being well-informed, I began to wonder whether these 'commentators' and political talk show hosts knew enough themselves to make an informed decision. After all, why is it that they disagree so significantly with other individuals that have, presumably, the same level of knowledge on the issues? Then it dawned on me, maybe I can make political decisions without knowing what the news shows say I ought to know. In fact, it reminded me of the 70s TV show Three's Company. Oftentimes, in the show, one of the three roommates would engage in a conversion that was overheard by the other two roommates. But, since the eavesdroppers would only hear part of the conversion, they would infer all sorts of crazy scenarios from what they heard. Maybe this is what politics can be like. It is possible that since we cannot know the whole story of, say, the economy or other issues, perhaps we can only trust an individual who, being in contact with these problems every day, knows more than we do, or can, about the subject.

I don't want to come across as suggesting that we disregard the importance of knowing the issues. Indeed, there are many political issues, which are cut-and-dry, like social issues and the like. However, let's face it, if we only have part of the story, we can prove, or disprove anything. Sometimes we can only look to a presidential candidate's trustworthiness. If we disagree with their position on an overall vision for our country, that's one thing, but if we over hear what they have done, or will do, by a third party, let's just put our hands over our ears. If that is what some call uninformed, then so be it.