As you might have noticed over the past few months, in an attempt to better understand my own motivations for living the way I do, I have addressed several topics relating to the practice—or perhaps, malpractice—of religion. I’d like to try to address an issue that I feel greatly impeded my understanding of both the Gospel and what some would deem “true happiness.” And so before we get started, I’d like to attempt to define a few terms. “Gospel-centered living” is a term I’ve developed to try to explain my lifestyle. It’s a life where I’m trying to do what I feel is right, but where that right is defined or at least guided by what the religious school of thought to which I subscribe proclaims. In this discussion, “true happiness” refers to a happiness devoid of feelings of culpability and regret, uninhibited by what might be if we do or had done more.
Some of the faithful would suggest that by leading a Gospel-centered life we will be happy, as though there were some formula for creating happiness. For many, there is a series of hoops which, if jumped through in the proper order and with the right frequency, will ultimately lead to happiness.
I hear comments like the following so often I’m growing weary of them: “And I know that living this Gospel is the only way we can find happiness in this life.” If this statement is true, then why is it that the same faithful individuals claiming Gospel-centered living to be the key to happiness are so unhappy in living what they’re preaching? Depression runs rampant among the faithful, and yet the Gospel-centered life is supposed to bring happiness.
I think in some cases, people are sincerely trying to convince themselves that the way they’re living and thinking about themselves and the world will one day lead to happiness, at the expense of feeling there’s something wrong with them if they’re not happy living what they think is the Gospel’s proscribed way. Somehow, by repeating what they’ve heard other unhappy individuals say about what they believed would lead them to happiness, they’re one step closer to believing it for themselves.
Evidently, there’s a disconnect here. These faithful are mislead (which many atheists and agnostics will argue), they’re misinformed (as many faithful from the world’s religions aside from your own will tell you), or they’re misunderstanding the truth they profess to believe in. As a man who believes to have found truth, I am inclined to believe the third among my fellow faithful.
We will only ever be as happy as we allow ourselves to be. If we impose upon ourselves an unattainable goal, our never attaining it will ultimately lead to our unhappiness. Just as we avoid disappointment by managing our expectations, we must avoid unhappiness by managing our reality. It is here I feel so many faithful err. Somehow we think we’ll be happy by following some nonexistent or inefficacious formula to a t, while there’s really no formula to follow. When I share an experience that promoted my faith, my hope is that it will edify others. However, I cannot expect a personal experience to play out in the life of anyone who seeks to repeat it. Rather, I would hope that those listening would apply the principles surrounding the events that lead to my faith-promoting experience.
Just as an artist will not succeed by recreating someone else’s masterpiece, we must paint the canvas of our own lives with our own colors and in our own way. Only then will the experiences that promote our faith also lead to our happiness.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
"...waiting on the world to change."
Admittedly, I'm a bit perturbed.
Or perhaps disappointed is a better word. When considering the political atmosphere, there's plenty of cause for disappointment. As politicians continue to make promises they evidently aren't keeping, I'm disappointed. When politics becomes a game where parties and players are more concerned with keeping score and jockeying for position than they are with representing people, I'm disappointed. But we aren't doing much to encourage good behavior.
It seems almost all political commentary, whether via mass media, Facebook note, or blog, is centered on what candidates aren't doing for us. Now, don't get me wrong, we need to hold our politicians to as many of their promises as possible, but why do we not hear about the promises politicians are keeping? Surely they're keeping some of them, and probably as many as they realistically can. It's so easy to focus on the negative, especially when we're searching for ammunition against the opposing team.
As the result of a process I still don't understand, I was selected to represent my high school to go to Boys' State in my home State. The experience was more than just informative, it was enlightening. I was disgusted by the amount of backbiting, lying, maneuvering, and manipulation used to gain support for a candidate or cause in such inconsequential policy-making. Based on this experience with high school juniors, I can only imagine what's going on in Washington with PhDs, JDs, MAs, MSs, and MBAs.
Wouldn't it be refreshing to see an honest politician? I hesitate to put those two words next to each other. I guess that's why I'm still, in the words of John Mayer, "waiting on the world to change." I know how ideological it sounds to think there's such a thing as an honest politician, but it sure would be a breath of fresh air.
Why can't we focus on the good? Should politics be as intrinsically pessimistic as we make it out to be? If we ever want to get anything done, we need to stop pointing fingers.
Gandhi said we need to be the change we want to see in the world. Maybe we could start by encouraging politicians when they're doing things right, rather than criticizing them (as we're so wont to do) when they're doing things wrong. "One day my generation is going to rule the population" (thanks again, JM). I just hope we'll be better about all this than the current critics. Unfortunately, I guess I have my doubts.
Or perhaps disappointed is a better word. When considering the political atmosphere, there's plenty of cause for disappointment. As politicians continue to make promises they evidently aren't keeping, I'm disappointed. When politics becomes a game where parties and players are more concerned with keeping score and jockeying for position than they are with representing people, I'm disappointed. But we aren't doing much to encourage good behavior.
It seems almost all political commentary, whether via mass media, Facebook note, or blog, is centered on what candidates aren't doing for us. Now, don't get me wrong, we need to hold our politicians to as many of their promises as possible, but why do we not hear about the promises politicians are keeping? Surely they're keeping some of them, and probably as many as they realistically can. It's so easy to focus on the negative, especially when we're searching for ammunition against the opposing team.
As the result of a process I still don't understand, I was selected to represent my high school to go to Boys' State in my home State. The experience was more than just informative, it was enlightening. I was disgusted by the amount of backbiting, lying, maneuvering, and manipulation used to gain support for a candidate or cause in such inconsequential policy-making. Based on this experience with high school juniors, I can only imagine what's going on in Washington with PhDs, JDs, MAs, MSs, and MBAs.
Wouldn't it be refreshing to see an honest politician? I hesitate to put those two words next to each other. I guess that's why I'm still, in the words of John Mayer, "waiting on the world to change." I know how ideological it sounds to think there's such a thing as an honest politician, but it sure would be a breath of fresh air.
Why can't we focus on the good? Should politics be as intrinsically pessimistic as we make it out to be? If we ever want to get anything done, we need to stop pointing fingers.
Gandhi said we need to be the change we want to see in the world. Maybe we could start by encouraging politicians when they're doing things right, rather than criticizing them (as we're so wont to do) when they're doing things wrong. "One day my generation is going to rule the population" (thanks again, JM). I just hope we'll be better about all this than the current critics. Unfortunately, I guess I have my doubts.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Qualifying the goodness of others
One of my least favorite expressions, which I hear at church all the time, goes something like this: "He/She's not a member [of our church], but...." The commentator then goes on to say what a wonderful or Christlike person the individual is or what a good example he/she is, and the comment is usually pronounced in a tone implying, "I was surprised to find a good example of any Gospel principle outside the membership of our church, and you should be as surprised too!" So why do we always have to qualify or justify people outside our church?
The word "but" is a loaded word, charged with more meaning than its measly three letters might suggest. Essentially, when we say "but," we are emphasizing an implied contradiction between what we said in the first clause and in the second clause of the sentence. For example, "He's not a doctor, but he knows a lot about micro pathogens." Or even sarcastically, "I'm no rocket scientist, but that looks like it should work." So when we say, "He/She's not a member [of our church], but..." we imply that our friends of other faiths should not be expected to be good people. Am I truly to believe that? I won't!
It only makes sense that each faith believes it is teaching the truth. (If it weren't, why not belong to the faith that was?) A belief system is based on the belief that it is correct. So we should expect our friends to believe they believe the truth, regardless of whether we believe what they believe. It shouldn't come as a surprise, then, that I feel I really have found a great source of truth in my church. In fact, I haven't found a better one anywhere.
Accepting this belief, however, I accept that others likely feel the same way about their faith. They believe they're doing what's right, and quite frankly, many of them are likely doing as good a job or better of living right as I am. To assume less would be presumptuous. So why should I be surprised when I hear an inspiring story about a friend or prominent figure of another faith?
In addition, asking whether someone "is a member [of the Church]" creates several unwanted consequences. Are we to have our friends of other faiths feel alienated every time we refer to them as "non-members?" Not members of what? Is the Church some kind of exclusive club, where you're either in or out, or should the Church be a place where all feel welcome? Besides, if a visiting member of another faith is questioned about his membership, will he even know to which membership we're referring? "Of the health club? The yacht club? Sure, sure, I'm a member."
Another undesirable consequence of such thoughtless language is the alienation and distance it creates. Many faiths--including the majority of Christian faiths, I would argue--are openly evangelical. Recruiting the new faithful is essential. If it is our goal to increase our church's membership, should we not be referring to visitors inclusively rather than exclusively?
Moreover, our church activities should be designed in such a way that those of all faiths feel comfortable attending and participating. Now don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing for Unitarianism, just an open exchange of ideas. Should church not be a forum where our questions are answered? If we want to be better at answering people's questions, some practice might not hurt. Why not host such practice in our church meetings?
When I look at the violence around the world, much of which many attribute to religious differences, I see this exclusionary attitude on both sides of the arguments. If we want to put an end to religious discrimination and violence, crusades and jihad, we might start by including and inviting others in our speech about them rather than self-segregating and alienating ourselves. These attitudes lead to isolationism, a key ingredient to ignorance.
How ironic that it is perhaps in our places of worship, where we preach tolerance and love, that the root of our divisiveness lies!
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Sacred Art
In ancient times, only the socially privileged, highly educated, or specially trained knew how to read. In ancient Egyptian and American societies, among others, writing forms were based on pictures that evolved to carry certain meanings. Art, especially in sacred settings, was used to convey messages to the illiterate. It was rich in symbolism, scripturally and doctrinally accurate, and naturally inspiring.
(In fact, many of this world's artistic masterpieces are inspired by religious themes. Some nations focused entirely on sacred art for many generations. Only in more recent history have secular pieces become historically significant and respected.)
That said, I have to admit, at the risk of sounding like an art snob, that I much prefer religious art that depicts actual events or prophecy from holy writ. I'm not as concerned about things religious figures might have done, could be imagined to have done, might possibly be doing now, or could potentially do.
To me, these imaginative forms of sacred art are similar to "quoted" statements from scripture, such as the Savior's reportedly teaching, "I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it." While this statement does not necessarily contradict the Savior's teachings, and while it is possible the Savior actually taught this principle, these words are not contained in any revelation of which I am aware. And yet, they are some of the Savior's most oft-cited words by members of my faith.
There is another intrinsic problem with both invented religious art and imagined sacred citations: while they might be a reflection of the creativity of their authors, to the scripturally illiterate--whether by choice, inexperience, or incapacity--representing imagined situations as real or accurate can be deceptive, misleading, and the source of, for lack of a better term, our religious urban legends.
Furthermore, people will accept, remember, and believe what they see. The human mind is a powerful tool with a great capacity to recall words and images. Once an erroneous piece of information enters our mind, not only must we learn the truth when we encounter it, but we must also forget the wrong information we once learned.
Allow me to illustrate with a couple acute examples. First, this week's Church bulletin had a pencil drawing of the Savior tossing a child above Him in the air. While the image does not contradict the Savior's teachings, it also has no reference to an actual occurrence in the Scriptures.
Second, while the Scriptures teach Christ was baptized by immersion, I have seen art depicting John the Baptist and Christ in the river Jordan with John baptizing Christ by aspersion. I encountered this art as a missionary while attempting to teach about baptism by immersion and following Christ's example, and, needless to say, it had a detrimental effect on my teaching efforts.
Moreover, people have a hard enough time getting the facts straight in so many instances of Scriptural reporting. With different accounts recording slightly different information, the questions surrounding certain stories are understandable and justified. This is even more reason for artists who choose to represent sacred scenes to pay special attention to what they're producing.
This same principle has implications in music that teaches incorrect principles, or anything that does, for that matter.
What are your thoughts?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Fous au volant
A couple weeks ago, I was crossing a busy intersection on my daily route to school. As I was a few minutes late, I looked both ways and began running across the street. I didn't have the right-of-way, but the intersection was clear in the directions of traffic as far away as I could see and our turn to cross the street was next. What's more, another student was just a few steps ahead of me.
As I was almost across the street, a car crested the hill opposite the intersection from where I was crossing at a speed greatly exceeding the steeet's residential speed limit. Floating lightly on its suspension, the car cruised through the intersection, swerving to avoid me. The driver angrily laid on the horn as the light changed in the intersection.
As I reflect on the experience, I realize how close I came to suffering serious bodily injury or death. I recently married, and I couldn't help but think about the heartache such an accident would have caused my dear wife. Should I have run into the road without the right-of-way? In retrospect, it seems more than just foolish or even reckless. But another question has occupied my attention even more the last few weeks:
What's up with the dangerous combination of absent-minded pedestrians and angry drivers in Provo?
I am convinced that Provo has the worst drivers and the most thoughtless pedestrians of any city in America. Pedestrians all over the city cross the street without looking either way. A couple days ago, a girl used a crosswalk at an intersection I was driving through. Staring at her iPod, with her headphones in, she sauntered into the street, ignorant she didn't have the right-of-way. What was she thinking? Cars slowed for her, but she's lucky she didn't get hit. At least in my case I had looked both ways before crossing the street and tried to determine it was safe to do so. This girl didn't even acknowledge the existence of the cars in the street she was crossing.
I'm not sure what causes such absent-mindedness in a city so full of college students. My university is a respectable school with a difficult application and admissions process; how is it we have such a high concentration of thoughtless, selfish individuals?
Before you judge me too judgmental, let me expound. I am of the belief that, despite everything we've been taught and the fact that we should know better, students at this university are essentially selfish individuals. This explains apathy to common-sense safety practices, like looking before crossing a street, as well as the reason my neighbors think it's okay, in their perceived haste, to occupy two spaces in our apartment complex's crowded parking lot. I guess staying between the lines is too much to ask.
Thoughtless interaction between pedestrians and drivers is only exacerbated by police attitudes toward j-walking. In a recent report in my university's newspaper, the local police department was quoted as saying its officers are more prone to ticket drivers not stopping for pedestrians, even when they aren't using crosswalks, than they are to ticket pedestrians for j-walking.
This "carte blanche" the police department has effectively granted pedestrians might be to blame for such deplorable public behavior as crossing (at a crosswalk or otherwise) a street without looking, but what explains other inexcusable lacks of driver etiquette, like never letting anyone in, crossing into the right-hand lane when turning left, turning left well after the arrow has expired, and the ever-unsafe "I'm-letting-you-turn" maneuver? What about all the other directions and lanes of traffic, are they all letting you in?
Has anyone else experienced this, or do I just expect too much from the drivers around me?
Sunday, December 7, 2008
From Dating to Marriage
My good friend Eric made an interesting statement recently after breaking up with his then girlfriend. This was around the same time I was getting engaged. Said he: "I'm convinced dating does not lead to marriage."
This comment flew in the face of a lot of advice I've received from a lot of people I respect, people whose advice I value for a multiplicity of reasons. Over the last few weeks, however, as I have thought about my own experience in the world of dating and relationships and as I have heard more than ever about the romantic lives of my single and married friends, I have come to agree more and more with Eric: the act of dating, especially dating in the micro-culture in which I live, does not lead to marriage.
As a student at a private religious university and an active member of my faith, I am subjected--often on a weekly basis--to comments about dating, courtship, and marriage from professors and religious leaders alike. They seem to have one common goal: marry off as many single students as possible before they leave school. Historically, my school's extracurricular and on-campus activities have been calculated to the same end. Dating (going out on dates) is not only encouraged, it's expected.
As a single male student here, I was expected to invite girls out to eat, to see a movie, to go rock climbing, to go mini-golfing, (this list is endless), .... Furthermore, it was socially expected that I would be ready to report on my weekend's activities at Church on Sunday to any one of my ecclesiastical leaders who might inquire.
And so, for three years after my two-year Church service, I asked girls out seemingly every weekend. I'm the kind of guy who does what's expected of him most of the time, unless I have some reason to believe that by so doing I would violate my personal standards. Since the social expectation seemed to be coming from my religious leaders and mentors, I subconsciously filed away dating under practices "ordained of God."
"The Family: A Proclamation to the World," issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued in 1995, clearly states that "marriage...is ordained of God" (see opening paragraph of the proclamation). On a local level (and seemingly more particularly at my university), local Church leaders have sought to interpret this statement to mean that, by extension, dating is ordained of God.
Dating, in and of itself, does not lead to marriage any more than eating Cheerios for breakfast every day for a year leads to marriage. In fact, "dating" in the way the word is thrown around so nonchalantly in our culture is not acceptable in other cultures. And yet, marriage is a part of virtually every society and culture around the world. So how is it others get married if they don't date the way we do?
Before I continue, I would like to concede that I do feel dating can have a place in developing social skills potentially important in a marriage relationship. Moreover, when we date, we learn much about ourselves.
This should not, however, be construed to mean that these social skills and personal revelations cannot be obtained through any other means. Dating might even be the most effective way to develop these skills in our culture, but I know a lot of antisocial boys and girls that wind up married, even before their gregarious, adventurous counterparts.
The way we use the word "dating" often refers to a series of excursions, often on weekend evenings, almost exclusively with one person at a time. (That is, after all, what makes it a date, right?) These serial encounters force us to step out of our comfort zone, which might include not spending time with members of the opposite sex, especially not one on one time. To these ends, dating can build important social skills required in courtship and eventually marriage.
But it seems like the more couples I meet and the more stories I hear, even and especially from my married and engaged friends at my highly fruitful, marriage-producing university, the less I believe that just going on dates will get people married.
Perhaps the reason for encouraging us to date so much is that in our culture, this seems to be an effective way to help us cultivate these social skills. As for the dating itself leading to marriage, however, I'm not convinced.
While I cannot speak for everyone, in my own personal experience, it wasn't until I gave up on dating the way I felt I was being instructed to that I met and married my wife. During our entire courtship, we only went on a couple "dates." What we did spend time doing, however, was being with each other. We spent hours together just sitting and talking on a blanket on the grass outside our apartment complex. It was completely unplanned and natural. It just happened.
In fact, our first (and only, we joke) real date was one day last summer in the late afternoon when Kaela paid me a somewhat unanticipated visit to give me a CD she had made for me. I popped the CD into my computer and we listened to some great music together, then I informed her I was in the mood for Italian food and wondered whether she might be interested in accompanying me to a favorite restaurant in town. We went and had a great time, but again, it was not planned at all.
It was over the course of a couple weeks, but especially that first evening at the restaurant, that I realized how easy it was to talk to Kaela and how comfortable I was around her. I suppose the rest is history, but there's an important lesson to be learned here, and I suppose it's the reason for all this thought: we will not get married, at least certainly not happily married, until we put aside all the angst of the dating game that so many well-intentioned leaders heap upon us and learn to just be ourselves. It sounds simple, but it's the truth. If you are capable of truly being yourself on a first date you're excited about, all the power to you, but I highly doubt that is the case for most of us. Things just have to happen naturally, and until they do, no one will get what he/she really wants out of a marriage relationship.
And so, dating, as we call it, does not lead to marriage. In fact, I submit it's only when we disarm ourselves and the people we might be interested in "dating" and get down to getting to know each other--really know each other, not just some puppy love kind of know each other--that anything will turn out the way we want it to.
As a matter of fact, if you had approached me a year ago and introduced Kaela to me as a girl I might be interested in dating, I would have politely introduced myself to her, made some small talk, and politely excused myself. In so many ways she wasn't what I was looking for, but getting to know her in the way I did made it clear she was everything I never knew I needed and always wanted and more. She completes me, she understands me, she is patient with me; in other words, she just gets me. Being married to her is better than anything I could have imagined or hoped for out of marriage and yet, I think I could count the "dates" we've been on, both during and after courtship, on one hand.
This comment flew in the face of a lot of advice I've received from a lot of people I respect, people whose advice I value for a multiplicity of reasons. Over the last few weeks, however, as I have thought about my own experience in the world of dating and relationships and as I have heard more than ever about the romantic lives of my single and married friends, I have come to agree more and more with Eric: the act of dating, especially dating in the micro-culture in which I live, does not lead to marriage.
As a student at a private religious university and an active member of my faith, I am subjected--often on a weekly basis--to comments about dating, courtship, and marriage from professors and religious leaders alike. They seem to have one common goal: marry off as many single students as possible before they leave school. Historically, my school's extracurricular and on-campus activities have been calculated to the same end. Dating (going out on dates) is not only encouraged, it's expected.
As a single male student here, I was expected to invite girls out to eat, to see a movie, to go rock climbing, to go mini-golfing, (this list is endless), .... Furthermore, it was socially expected that I would be ready to report on my weekend's activities at Church on Sunday to any one of my ecclesiastical leaders who might inquire.
And so, for three years after my two-year Church service, I asked girls out seemingly every weekend. I'm the kind of guy who does what's expected of him most of the time, unless I have some reason to believe that by so doing I would violate my personal standards. Since the social expectation seemed to be coming from my religious leaders and mentors, I subconsciously filed away dating under practices "ordained of God."
"The Family: A Proclamation to the World," issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued in 1995, clearly states that "marriage...is ordained of God" (see opening paragraph of the proclamation). On a local level (and seemingly more particularly at my university), local Church leaders have sought to interpret this statement to mean that, by extension, dating is ordained of God.
Dating, in and of itself, does not lead to marriage any more than eating Cheerios for breakfast every day for a year leads to marriage. In fact, "dating" in the way the word is thrown around so nonchalantly in our culture is not acceptable in other cultures. And yet, marriage is a part of virtually every society and culture around the world. So how is it others get married if they don't date the way we do?
Before I continue, I would like to concede that I do feel dating can have a place in developing social skills potentially important in a marriage relationship. Moreover, when we date, we learn much about ourselves.
This should not, however, be construed to mean that these social skills and personal revelations cannot be obtained through any other means. Dating might even be the most effective way to develop these skills in our culture, but I know a lot of antisocial boys and girls that wind up married, even before their gregarious, adventurous counterparts.
The way we use the word "dating" often refers to a series of excursions, often on weekend evenings, almost exclusively with one person at a time. (That is, after all, what makes it a date, right?) These serial encounters force us to step out of our comfort zone, which might include not spending time with members of the opposite sex, especially not one on one time. To these ends, dating can build important social skills required in courtship and eventually marriage.
But it seems like the more couples I meet and the more stories I hear, even and especially from my married and engaged friends at my highly fruitful, marriage-producing university, the less I believe that just going on dates will get people married.
Perhaps the reason for encouraging us to date so much is that in our culture, this seems to be an effective way to help us cultivate these social skills. As for the dating itself leading to marriage, however, I'm not convinced.
While I cannot speak for everyone, in my own personal experience, it wasn't until I gave up on dating the way I felt I was being instructed to that I met and married my wife. During our entire courtship, we only went on a couple "dates." What we did spend time doing, however, was being with each other. We spent hours together just sitting and talking on a blanket on the grass outside our apartment complex. It was completely unplanned and natural. It just happened.
In fact, our first (and only, we joke) real date was one day last summer in the late afternoon when Kaela paid me a somewhat unanticipated visit to give me a CD she had made for me. I popped the CD into my computer and we listened to some great music together, then I informed her I was in the mood for Italian food and wondered whether she might be interested in accompanying me to a favorite restaurant in town. We went and had a great time, but again, it was not planned at all.
It was over the course of a couple weeks, but especially that first evening at the restaurant, that I realized how easy it was to talk to Kaela and how comfortable I was around her. I suppose the rest is history, but there's an important lesson to be learned here, and I suppose it's the reason for all this thought: we will not get married, at least certainly not happily married, until we put aside all the angst of the dating game that so many well-intentioned leaders heap upon us and learn to just be ourselves. It sounds simple, but it's the truth. If you are capable of truly being yourself on a first date you're excited about, all the power to you, but I highly doubt that is the case for most of us. Things just have to happen naturally, and until they do, no one will get what he/she really wants out of a marriage relationship.
And so, dating, as we call it, does not lead to marriage. In fact, I submit it's only when we disarm ourselves and the people we might be interested in "dating" and get down to getting to know each other--really know each other, not just some puppy love kind of know each other--that anything will turn out the way we want it to.
As a matter of fact, if you had approached me a year ago and introduced Kaela to me as a girl I might be interested in dating, I would have politely introduced myself to her, made some small talk, and politely excused myself. In so many ways she wasn't what I was looking for, but getting to know her in the way I did made it clear she was everything I never knew I needed and always wanted and more. She completes me, she understands me, she is patient with me; in other words, she just gets me. Being married to her is better than anything I could have imagined or hoped for out of marriage and yet, I think I could count the "dates" we've been on, both during and after courtship, on one hand.
Monday, May 26, 2008
My own worst enemy
Does anyone else find it curious how some people are always happy, despite what would seem to be a relatively high level of adversity, while others, living supposedly cushy lives, are completely dissatisfied with life?
I think it might have something to do with a recent observation I've made, at least in the case of myself. I am becoming increasingly convinced that while humans come in all different packages, one common thread among us is the need for adversity and struggle in our lives. If we don't have any, we'll make some, even if it means making some up.
I don't mean to downplay the importance of people who are living truly difficult lives. Certain circumstances are completely out of our control. I'm not sure children starving to death in Africa or Asia (or in any part of the world) would choose to be where they are without the prospect of improving their situation. Now, starving children are an extreme example, but others much closer to home deal with the loss of loved ones, serious illness, or otherwise difficult circumstances beyond their control that most would agree make for a difficult life.
That said, let's take the example of some of the people we might consider living the dream life. Born into wealth and fame, they are the movie stars of the world. Everything seems to be going their way, and where do they end up? Drug addiction, the least-stable romantic relationships in recorded history, and high rates of suicide?
With these extremes in mind, let's consider my own life's experience. I'm a senior at a good university in the United States studying what I want to, and I've even changed my mind a few times. I'm living in a wonderful apartment with awesome roommates and neighbors, and I'm just up the street from my friends' place. I have a car, a computer, and I didn't have to work last term because I didn't want to. Last night, I sat out on the lawn with friends eating dessert and talking until midnight because none of us had anything better to do. All that was after going out to dinner and watching a movie and a friend of a friend's apartment.
And somehow, I feel I'm just getting over what has proven to be one of the more difficult moments of life to date. But when I consider what I've gone through, it's hard to complain about my circumstances. I just completed a 3 month dream job in Europe with excellent compensation, I'm on scholarship at my university, and the possibilities for my future are endless. It's just up to me to decide what I want to do.
Now, I suppose there's a lot I'm not saying about my personal life that factors into the mix, but that's just my point. I feel responsible for my personal life. While there are factors of it I can't change, the way I react to my circumstances is entirely up to me. (I suppose that's true for starving children in Africa too, but I wouldn't dare equate the two.) But rather than focusing on the good things in my life, I focus on the negatives. I expend so much energy trying to make everything just right, rather than sitting back and admiring and enjoying all the good things in life.
I've always tried to convince myself that my perspective was skewed, but I observe people all around me doing exactly the same thing I am; that is, taking the good for granted and focusing on the negative. What if we were to devote our time and energy to the good and just let the bad take care of itself? That sounds idealistic, but the good has no problem taking care of itself while I wallow in the negative. I'm not suggesting civic, personal, or family irresponsibility, but I think we could all do with a little less adversity (or at least what we perceive as adversity) in our lives. Why do we create it for ourselves? Or if we're not creating it, why do seemingly minor negative aspects of life dominate our time and energy?
I think it has to do with what is at our core as human beings. Deep inside each of us is a longing to be something better. Whether that translates to being a saint or just improving our situation, we're all always striving for something better.
What are your thoughts?
I think it might have something to do with a recent observation I've made, at least in the case of myself. I am becoming increasingly convinced that while humans come in all different packages, one common thread among us is the need for adversity and struggle in our lives. If we don't have any, we'll make some, even if it means making some up.
I don't mean to downplay the importance of people who are living truly difficult lives. Certain circumstances are completely out of our control. I'm not sure children starving to death in Africa or Asia (or in any part of the world) would choose to be where they are without the prospect of improving their situation. Now, starving children are an extreme example, but others much closer to home deal with the loss of loved ones, serious illness, or otherwise difficult circumstances beyond their control that most would agree make for a difficult life.
That said, let's take the example of some of the people we might consider living the dream life. Born into wealth and fame, they are the movie stars of the world. Everything seems to be going their way, and where do they end up? Drug addiction, the least-stable romantic relationships in recorded history, and high rates of suicide?
With these extremes in mind, let's consider my own life's experience. I'm a senior at a good university in the United States studying what I want to, and I've even changed my mind a few times. I'm living in a wonderful apartment with awesome roommates and neighbors, and I'm just up the street from my friends' place. I have a car, a computer, and I didn't have to work last term because I didn't want to. Last night, I sat out on the lawn with friends eating dessert and talking until midnight because none of us had anything better to do. All that was after going out to dinner and watching a movie and a friend of a friend's apartment.
And somehow, I feel I'm just getting over what has proven to be one of the more difficult moments of life to date. But when I consider what I've gone through, it's hard to complain about my circumstances. I just completed a 3 month dream job in Europe with excellent compensation, I'm on scholarship at my university, and the possibilities for my future are endless. It's just up to me to decide what I want to do.
Now, I suppose there's a lot I'm not saying about my personal life that factors into the mix, but that's just my point. I feel responsible for my personal life. While there are factors of it I can't change, the way I react to my circumstances is entirely up to me. (I suppose that's true for starving children in Africa too, but I wouldn't dare equate the two.) But rather than focusing on the good things in my life, I focus on the negatives. I expend so much energy trying to make everything just right, rather than sitting back and admiring and enjoying all the good things in life.
I've always tried to convince myself that my perspective was skewed, but I observe people all around me doing exactly the same thing I am; that is, taking the good for granted and focusing on the negative. What if we were to devote our time and energy to the good and just let the bad take care of itself? That sounds idealistic, but the good has no problem taking care of itself while I wallow in the negative. I'm not suggesting civic, personal, or family irresponsibility, but I think we could all do with a little less adversity (or at least what we perceive as adversity) in our lives. Why do we create it for ourselves? Or if we're not creating it, why do seemingly minor negative aspects of life dominate our time and energy?
I think it has to do with what is at our core as human beings. Deep inside each of us is a longing to be something better. Whether that translates to being a saint or just improving our situation, we're all always striving for something better.
What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)