The Spiritual Advocate (TM)

Once Again Into The Fray

2007-10-14T08:06:00.001-05:00

NaNoWriMo - The siren call for the would be novelist.

Frater Bovious had participated in this worthy project in 2004 and 2005, but skipped 2006 due to work pressures.

This year the baton is handed to the Spiritual Advocate.

SA

2006-10-26T22:30:00.000-05:00

Testing Uno Dos Tres

2006-10-17T22:01:00.000-05:00

hmmm. this looks surprisingly like the editor in Blogger.

2004-12-14T07:12:00.000-06:00

Dear Spiritual Advocate,

What is Faith?

Signed - Unsure

Dear Un,

Interesting that you sign as Unsure. One aspect of faith that receives little comment is that the connection between faith and belief is tenuous. Does this surprise you?

Faith is often incorrectly used as a synonym for belief. But, while you should be sure before believing (that 2 +2 = 4, as an example), being sure has nothing to do with being faithful. They are really two very different words. Fear not, that you are unsure. That is the state of man. (For which there is a rather sublime reason to be discussed Later.)

It is nearly impossible to talk about faith without introducing a religious aspect, and so I shan’t attempt such a feat. For most that read this, the religious aspect familiar since childhood will include some form of the Bible, and so I will use a parable from the Bible to illustrate Faith. Other belief systems will find the discussion useful, if they wish to follow along.

Most are familiar with the mustard seed story, though few think it through. Please think through with me, and let’s see where we come out: To paraphrase from Luke 17, 5 and 6, the disciples asked “Lord, increase our faith!” To which he replied “If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree ‘Be uprooted and plant yourself in the sea’ and it would do so.”

This is very curious. A mustard seed is a small seed, and much has been made of the statement “size of a mustard seed” indicating, perhaps in contrast, that the disciples had almost no faith at all. Which is a strange response to the request for an increase in faith. Kind of like someone saying, “Hey, can you give me some money?” To which you reply, “You don’t have very much money now!” You can imagine the disciples saying, in Aramaic of course, “Well, duh. Why do you think I am asking for more? Who are you anyway with the inscrutable sayings? Yoda?”

Many focus exclusively on the idea of a mulberry tree flying through the air to take root in the ocean. From this you get the group of folks interested in telekinesis and other manifestations of 'mind over matter'. Or those that speak of miracles that you can have (for your personal fun and profit), if only you will believe. Which primarily becomes a vehicle by which charlatans bilk the elderly out of their Social Security checks.

Both miss the point.

The key concept to Faith may be found in the very next bit of parable, Luke 17, 7-10. Like so much in this world, if people would only read all the instructions before getting started on the project, the bicycle would be finished in time for Christmas morning.

The next section goes like this: “Who among you would say to your servant who had just come in from the field, ‘Come here immediately and take your place at table’? Would you not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for me to eat. Put on your apron and wait on me while I eat and drink. You may eat and drink when I am finished’? Is he grateful to that servant because he did what was commanded?”

But wait, there’s more. Let’s examine this in light of when it was written, and in light of today’s customs.

Bear in mind, for most of human history, there have been servants, and there have been the served. It is not curious that this relationship was often used to illustrate certain truths about our relationship to God. Now, if you ask a child of today what they think of this; if you ask them, ‘would you say to your servant, come, eat at table’ they would reply, “Yes!” thinking this to be the desired ‘Christ-like’ answer. For we are taught as children that slavery is bad and no man is lord over another.

But the issue of legitimate authority is therefore ignored (as too complex to introduce, perhaps), and perhaps viewed as un-godly or un christlike. I’ll leave that for now, except to say that legitimate authority seems to be a necessary fact of existence.

So, ignoring for the moment that most of us equate any kind of subservience as inherently evil, what this part of the parable appears to say is that sometimes you’re just supposed to do what you are supposed to do, because that is how the world is made. Like, if you step off the roof of the house, you will fall to the ground, because that is how the world is made. And if you instead climb down the ladder, like you are supposed to do, you will most likely arrive on the ground intact.

Here is the key important part of that though. When you climb down that ladder, like you are supposed to do, and arrive intact, your friends and family do not organize a feast celebrating your valiant efforts to return to earth safely. It is no doubt important that you arrive back on the ground safe and sound, but no one expects to be roundly congratulated, have their photo taken, and be clapped on the back. Because, really, all you did is what you were supposed to do.

Chris Rock said during a monologue regarding parents and kids, “People say, ‘I take care of my kids!’”. He pauses and says, angrily, “What do you want? A cookie? You’re supposed to take care of your kids!”

There is often no immediate gratification in doing what you are supposed to do.

Going back to the mustard seed. What does the mustard seed do with all its vaunted faith?

It grows into a mustard tree, like it’s supposed to do.

Look back on your life, and look at all the things you were supposed to do, but didn’t. Whether it is study for an exam, or get to work on time, or visit your mom, or spend time with your kids. Look at all the times you exercised your free will and chose to do something instead of what you were supposed to do. Compare and contrast.

Free Will is both the gift and the test. For this simple reason: That is how we are made. Doing what we are supposed to do tends to be its own unheralded reward. Measured in the end by the sum of one’s life. Not by the accolades received along the way.

Faith is the Exercise of Free Will to do what you are supposed to do.

sa

And now for something completely different

2004-11-06T14:40:00.000-06:00

With apologies to Monty Python.

You are Joey Ramone. You're a revolutionary person,
bound for greatness who always keeps a positive
attitude. People like and trust you, even if
they don't know why.

Which punk rock god are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

2004-09-21T07:23:00.000-05:00

Dear Spiritual Advocate,

What's all this crap about a weekly column? It's been like a month since your last post.
- Unimpressed

Dear Unimpressed,

Impressed or not, matters not. Questions asked may be answered. Questions not asked may be answered in kind. But, I will answer your unasked question of "So why haven't you answered any questions lately?"

Because these pivotal geo-political times and the current political exercise underway in the USA require that the quill of Frater Bovious be given special attention. Ψ

2004-08-05T22:08:00.000-05:00

Dear S.A.,
Is it inevitable that each individual "invent the wheel", or are any specifics of acquired knowledge & skills of progenitors transmitted to offspring at conception?
- Curious

Dear Curious, The key to answering your question relies on the very concept of "inventing the wheel."

Humans can invent the wheel.

Dogs cannot.

The mechanisms for survival of a species require, in the main, one or another approach. Either a species is static, responding only slowly to environmental changes, and all required info for continued survival of the species may be genetically transmitted; or a species is not static, and (beyond core minimal functions such as 'breathe') the ability to "invent the wheel" is the extent of what is genetically transmitted. Hence the lament "We only truly learn things the hard way."

Paradoxically, this inevitability provides for free will. Ψ

2004-08-03T20:56:00.000-05:00

My dear Advocate,
Question #1: Where or what is the Aethosphere? Is it like the atmosphere in any way? Is it where you live or a way to communicate? Is it crusty like the outer part of the earth? Does it have anything to do with how you came to be? Is the aethosphere a means of transportation, another name for the blackbird? Is it essential to your being? Is the aethosphere better than email or the internet? Did Al Gore have a hand in its creation or is it supposed to have always existed?

Question #2: You’ve said you’re an advocate of thought. You mention wind and flame. You claim the title of supporter, defender, intercessor. As an advocate, are (you) on my side? Are you on my side specifically, on the side of moral vs. immoral societies, or something else?
- Uncle Buck

Dear Uncle, The Aethosphere is a klein bottle representation of Ethos and Aether. One lives and communicates within. Crust is self imposed. The Blackbird is sustained therein. It is essential to this epoch. My being is independent of but intimate with. Better both. Al Gore? Heaven's No!

Advocate on all sides; specifically, immoral impossible. Ψ

2004-08-01T09:27:00.000-05:00

Oh Great Spiritual Advocate I humbly ask of you:

Does music matter?
Why do I feel better listening to the Smashing Pumpkins when I'm
depressed?

A devotee.

Dear A, Music is a form of participatory expression. Music affects the relevant portions of one's brain as does a sunset, or an awesome and furious thunderstorm, or a summer's night spent on your back contemplating the sweep of stars in the deep blue expanse above. It is mathematical and emotional. Music is proof that infinite potential exists even in rigidly defined environments. Music is an example of the diversity of life evidenced in our ecosystem. It may be one of the highest accomplishments of man that is accessible to everyone. The rhythm of music felt with your whole body will affect the rhythms in your brain. You can be reharmonized through music, and literally feel better. It is said, when you are singing, you are praying twice. It is an act of creation, and an act of appreciation.Yes, music matters. Ψ

2004-07-27T06:41:00.000-05:00

Today we shall finally answer the question, can a society be moral or immoral, but not before answering some reader questions received via the Aethosphere:

Dear Spiritual Advocate,
Where do you get these questions from? Are they real?
- Tell me now.

Dear Tell, They are as real as you are.

Dear Spiritual,
Are you against the law? I mean, being Spiritual and all, isn't that unconstitutional?
- Nervous

Dear Nervous, being spiritual is not against the Constitution of The United States of America. The confusion over this is the separation of Church and State, a concept not understood clearly these days, and being bandied about in a very irresponsible manner. "Why," one may ask, "Can the ACLU remove a monument of the Ten Commandments, yet allow the Muslim "Call to Prayer" to be blared out over loudspeakers?"

The answer dear Nervous is that they are two different issues. One is some sort of misguided attempt to say that a religious monument on government property illegally endorses a given religion, while the other is a noise ordinance. The fact that both issues impinge on religion in some way is a minor coincidence, made much of by irresponsible people. But we have Constitutional guarantees allowing freedom of religious expression by individuals and the right to assembly, and so, Spirituality is in fact protected by the Constitution.

Continuation from last week. The question:

Yo, Eyeball dude person, can societies be immoral or moral?
- Pontious

Dear Pontious, It is time now to address the concept of 'the common good'. And so we embark on a great presumption on the part of The Spiritual Advocate. There are probably as many potential definitions of common good as there are people on the planet. But, it is important to have a starting point, and thus it is written:

By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily." The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."

Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.

Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

I submit that with these concepts we can reach consensus on the concept of the common good. But, to elaborate just a bit more:

Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to "provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, . . . and certain situations arising here and there, as for example . . . alleviating the miseries of refugees dispersed throughout the world, and assisting migrants and their families."

The common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons: "The order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around." This order is founded on truth, built up in justice, and animated by love.

And so, the issue of moral or immoral societies in the opinion of The Spiritual Advocate hinges on the character of the leadership and whether or not the common good is being served by that authority. In case it did not dawn on you through the three posts, the common good was not defined in terms of any specific gender or nationality. Rather, it applies to every human being on this planet, without exception.

So, to answer the question can societies be immoral or moral? it seems clear that yes, one can judge a society within these concepts and determine which is moral and which is immoral.

The unasked question is "What to do with an immoral society?" Ψ

2004-07-20T23:11:00.000-05:00

Continuation from last week. The question:

Yo, Eyeball dude person, can societies be immoral or moral?
- Pontious

last week there was much discussion of Authority and Common Good. Some may find this constant reference to authority confusing or threatening. But, lo, it is written:

"Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs." This "socialization" also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.

Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching(s)... have elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

Again with the common good.

Authority, what is it good for? Perhaps we should refer to legitimate authority. As follows:

"Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."

By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.

Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

...The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will."

Now, we come to the issue of authority, and its relation to a moral or immoral society:

"Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility":
A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.

Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."

That is a lot to digest. We shall continue anon with The Common Good.

Dear Spiritual Advocate,
What's up with Advocate? Are you some sort of lawyer?
-Uncle Buck

Dear Uncle,
I am an advocate of thought. A wind. A flame. Not so much in a lawyer sense. More in the sense of supporter or defender; intercessor. Paraclete has been translated as Advocate. Ψ

2004-07-20T20:13:00.000-05:00

Dear Spirit Dude, What did you learn from the whole Janet Jackson Boob Incident?
- Wondering

Dear Wondering, What I learned is that in the United States a white man can forcibly rip the clothing from a black woman, and the black woman will be reviled and scorned and the white man will suffer no consequences whatsoever.

Dear Spiritual Advocate, What did you learn from the Matrix movies?
- Neowannabe

Dear Neowannabe, I learned that sometimes, no matter how badly a movie seems to scream for a sequel, it should not be made. Especially twice.

Yo, Eyeball dude person, can societies be immoral or moral?
- Pontious

Dear Pontious, No soundbite answers available here. This requires some set up and some sort of starting point that we can agree upon.

First we need to determine what is meant by society and what is meant by moral or immoral. You may find it odd that I shall choose to use circular definitions as it may be most beneficial to view the two concepts as being interrelated and codependent. One problem with Western thought is the tendency to strip things down and attempt to isolate them from anything else in order to gain insight into their ‘true’ essence. Ignoring the fact that some sort of interrelatedness is part of, or perhaps in fact is, our true essence.

Society being a word used to describe the actions and purposes of multiple persons, definitions of society involve how society is ordered towards individuals. It is therefore written:

“Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority.”

But, what is ‘the common good’? And what is this about the ‘exercise of authority’? It is written:

“By ‘authority’ one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience to them.

“Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.”

Common good again.

And so it is written further:

“A society is a group of persons bound together organically by a principle of unity that goes beyond each one of them. As an assembly that is at once visible and spiritual, a society endures through time: it gathers up the past and prepares for the future. By means of society, each man is established as an ‘heir’ and receives certain ‘talents’ that enrich his identity and whose fruits he must develop. He rightly owes loyalty to the communities of which he is part and respect to those in authority who have charge of the common good.”

Hmmm. Authority and common good again.

We shall leave this for now and allow some digestion and some questioning. We shall take this up in the next issue. Ψ