An August Horror

A shudder rippled through his body.  It felt visible, but no one seemed to notice.

He did his best to maintain his composure.  He had only just turned away from it when “SNAP!”  Without warning he had actually broken the pen he was holding.  Exhausted, he realized he was tense beyond belief.  His vision wasn’t focused as he sat contemplating everything, but the noise caused him to see that he was staring at it again.  Why?

Symmetrical, he knew the round objects could be beautiful in other settings, if they weren’t paired together.  Hanging on the wall just a few inches below the ceiling, they were menacing.  The one on the right measured time.  He wondered how many times it had tormented him before, only to transform as soon as the halfway point was reached.  After that, he was always relieved.  After that, it became a source of hope.

It wasn’t the clock, but what was left of the it that really gave him nightmares.  When he was younger, all the time; these days only while he slept did it cause these nightmares.  He felt a paralyzing fear.  Who would invent such a dreadful device?  Torturous, its design irritated him to this very day.  An impenetrable grid of metal covering who knew what–for who knew what reason.  He was curious if there had ever been an attack, or if the designers knew precisely the evil they were creating and preemptively bolstered its defensive systems.

He realized everyone was staring at him, just as he stared at the object.  He would never know for how long he had been shouting profanities.  Luckily, this time around, he was the teacher.  This time around the speaker, that formless voice dictating orders as if by divine right, had no hold over him.  This time he had no concern for, nor did he need to know, anything it issued forth.  This time, he told himself, he wouldn’t be disturbed by it.

He feigned a calm, collected exterior as he and his students waited together.  Everyone heard the familiar peremptory crackle of the P.A.  They were only moments away now.  He thought he could do it.  He thought he was bigger.  He thought he was more mature.  He thought he was grown.

“Good morning school,” the speaker spewed.  “This is your principal speaking.  Welcome to the first day of the 2013-14 school year.”

Running as fast as he could, he arrived at his car out of breath.  Keys in the ignition, the DJ’s giving away concert tickets, he was determined to leave.  But he couldn’t.  He started this journey, and he could never forgive himself for quitting.

The Fruit Paul Didn’t Like (And Why Not)

“But the fruit of the spirit is,” the pastor started, taking a breath, “Love (me), joy (me), peace (me), forbearance, kindness, goodness (me, me, me), faithfulness (me), gentleness (we are talking about a man here, right?), and self-control (me).”

As if straight out of Bill Murray’s classic Groundhog Day, he initially believed he possessed most of the fruits of the spirit Paul highlighted.  “Initially believed” might not be entirely true.  He didn’t ever actually believe that he possessed the fruits of the spirit, noble as they were, but he wanted to believe he did.  Truth be told, he just wanted others to believe he embodied them.  However, time, forever stationed at the front of the classroom, taught him that when he wanted to believe he possessed some good quality, the ‘wanting’ indicated that he didn’t possess the quality.  This case was no different.

Distressed, he longed for his morning slice of humble pie to be as effective as his late night bowl of ice cream.  At his age, the used-to-be-surprising feel that came with knowing that he wouldn’t get it right in this lifetime had worn off.  Now, he simply felt the distinct feeling of resignation.  If he constantly put such effort into life, and perpetually failed, what was the point of all that trying?  Just then, a story he’d heard as a child thrust its hand out in aid.

Once a mentor tasked his student to push an enormous stone up a hill.  Struggling daily, the man persisted to no avail.  Not wanting to let down his mentor, he woke daily with more resolve than before.  Still he failed.  Finally he gave in to anger.  “Why?!” he shouted.  The mentor spoke, “Do you not see the muscles that have formed in your arms?  In your legs?  On your back and chest?”

The desired moment of clarity came just within reach.  He wondered if maybe certainty was left off the list above because you just never know.  What was arrogance after all, but a more certain form of certainty?  He knew both were clearly opposite humility on their continuum.  Humility–the genus under which the species labeled above as fruits of the spirit fall–being the eternal victor.  Humility–that special ingredient required in order to love;  required in order to say, “I don’t know, but I know that knowing is not what’s important.  What’s important is that I’m here with you now.”

The only way to get there is together.

A Letter to Racism

Dear Racism,

I’m writing this letter to you to give you notice that I’m coming after you.  You’re toxic.  Every time I think you’re finally gone, you pop right back up again.  Over the years, I’ve learned to cope with your appearances in private capacities, but apparently some inner reservoir of  boldness has caused you to gain an increasing amount of state sponsorship.

Do you even know what I’m referring to?  No?  Two weeks ago, we were required to read Paul Kivel’s The Culture of Power at work.  How in the hell did you convince a public school district in 2013 that you deserve an audience?

Hiding between the lines of that article, you entered the room to remind us of some challenges that lay ahead.  As it turned out, no amount of wishful thinking on my part would hide the fact that you were just getting started.  Once you focused our attention on our differences, you became the predominant theme of the day.

Let me me clear: I have always despised you.  In the past, however, I thought if I ignored you that you would go away.  That day, you showed me the error of my ways.  I now know that my choice to not give you the attention you so desperately desired caused you to misunderstand me.  You misunderstood my thoughts about being in the “culture of power.”  Allow me to state them plainly:  I know that I should be in the “culture of power.”  Two of your further attempts to infect me that day illustrate your weakness and will help demonstrate how I know that I’m better than you.

First, you said, “You’re going to be dealing with kids whose parents taught them to never trust white people.”  My father never–not ever–taught me such a thing.  On the “Things to Teach Children” continuum “Never Trust (fill in the culture) People” is close-minded and weak.   Ever read Thucydides?  Heard of the US Civil War?  Cultures who think like you die out.

Second, you said,  “To motivate them, I say to my students, ‘Are you telling me you always want a white president?'”  Never have I, nor anyone else I know in the “culture of power,” ever considered skin tone when voting.  A worthy candidate is difficult enough to find as it is.  What possible good could come from adding clearly irrelevant, meaningless criteria?

I guess the mistake is probably mine.  For some reason I projected that because I wanted you to die, you also wanted you to die.  Now that I’ve had the time to think about it for a second, I realize that that would be suicide.  And not many things willingly commit suicide.  But die you must.  So no more will I idly ignore you.  Beginning now, I’m going on the offensive.  I’m coming to kill you.  My weapon is constant, consistent correction.

If you want to survive, grow eyes in the back of your head.  Avoid public places.  If you care for your friends, avoid them.  Don’t stay in any one place too long.  Get comfortable wearing a different size shoe.  I really hope you think I’m joking.  I’m begging you to test my resolve.  Do it.

Your sworn enemy,

Love

Aristotle Gave Rhetoric To All-Part 2

For the layperson, logos means logic; ethos, ethics/credibility; pathos, emotion.  The audience is more than aware that the most sound logical argument (logos infused), if made by an unsound person (wanting ethos) without some appeal to emotion (wanting pathos) will not be effective.  It is important to pause here and note that Aristotle was describing life as he saw it, not prescribing life as he thought it should be.  Think back to Plato.  Plato believed rhetoric was generally applicable only to the spoken word and that rhetoric was irrational.  Aristotle is distinguishing himself then.  And this is a subtle, but weighty distinction.  It is the key to understanding precisely why Aristotle is due all the credit he receives for his contributions to rhetoric.  In the specific case of pathos or emotion, unlike Plato, Aristotle does not see harm or irrationality.  Instead, he observes that emotional appeal is a part of any communication.  Since it is a part of any and every communication, he goes on to argue that it must be accounted for.  Aristotle writes that emotional appeal must be acknowledged.  And once acknowledged, emotional appeal begs to be studied and put to deliberate use.

Even a rhetorician’s actual ethical credibility, or ethos, is not objective or mathematical.  Today, if not during Aristotle’s lifetime, scholars note that a speaker’s ethical credibility can be faked with the skillful application of rhetoric.  Perception is reality, as the saying goes.  Basically if a speaker can convince an audience he or she is an expert, then in the audience’s eyes he or she is an expert (Moss 638).  Again, note that Aristotle does not recommend the deceit.  As before, he simply recommends that this ability, inherent to rhetoric, to influence the audience be acknowledged.

Given the thousands of years since Aristotle lived, there are plenty of opinions regarding his ideas.  Interestingly, most seem to still find his ideas challenging and applicable.  Of late, it seems that there may even be a bit of resurgence regarding the application of his analyses.  Michel Meyer suggests that people should think about Aristotle’s contributions to the study of rhetoric in the following way.  Meyer writes that he believes that Aristotle taught that rhetoric is the way people negotiate the distance between each other.  He is referring to the temporal distance that unspoken questions create.  For example, Meyer mentions a certain television commercial for Chanel no 5 (a fragrance).  He says the unspoken question is how can an image sell a scent?  The answer Chanel chose was to negate the problem.  The ad campaign developed a commercial which included very familiar problems being solved, to include Little Red Riding Hood taming wolves.  Implicit in this action is the association that Little Red Riding Hood miraculously tames previously dangerous wolves, just as Chanel no 5 solves the audience’s fragrance problem (Meyer 250).  The success of Chanel no 5 alone can be taken to prove that rhetoric is clearly involved in answering these unspoken questions.  In other words, the skillful application of varying amounts of logos, ethos, and pathos is both possible and effective.

In conclusion, this paper simply adds to the already well-established argument that Aristotle is the father of rhetoric.  In continuing a pedagogical tradition that Socrates began, Aristotle furthered the study of the tools available to a communicator, whether speaker or writer.  He didn’t seem to concern himself with prescribing what to do, instead just describing the options a rhetorician possesses.  Considering the practical desire to persuade other people each person has on a near daily basis, it seems that modern man should still be interested in reviewing the way which early man believed it was possible to do this.  Aristotle’s ideas captured in his book Rhetoric is the best place to begin.

****

“Aristotle’s Rhetoric.” The Contemporary Review Aug 01 1878: 206. ProQuest. Web. 23 July 2013 <http://search.proquest.com/docview/1294650855?accountid=14506&gt;.

Meyer, Michel. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric.” Topoi 31.2 (2012): 249-52. Springer Link. Web. 23 July 2013. <http://0-link.springer.com.skyline.ucdenver.edu/article/10.1007/s11245-012-9132-0/fulltext.html&gt;.

Moss, Jean D. “Reclaiming Aristotle’s “Rhetoric”” The Review of Metaphysics 50.3 (1997): 635-46. JSTOR. Web. 23 July 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20130074&gt;.

Aristotle Gave Rhetoric To All-Part 1

Rhetoric cannot be discussed without Aristotle; Aristotle cannot be discussed without rhetoric. Not just rhetoric, but Rhetoric, one of the many books he wrote.  A good way to begin talking about Aristotle’s thoughts on rhetoric is discussing his relationship to Plato.  Plato, himself a student of Socrates, taught Aristotle.  A moment spent marveling at the pedagogy of these three men cannot be a wasted moment.  What is known about Socrates comes from what Plato wrote.  That is to say, Socrates taught exclusively by speaking.  It should not surprise anyone, then, to learn that Plato taught that rhetoric was specific to the spoken word.  Aristotle dissented.  Here then is a starting point.  In what might be a direct reaction to Plato, Aristotle did not believe that rhetoric was “merely verbal and manipulative, and for that very reason, irrational (Meyer 249).”  Aristotle believed the opposite.  He believed that rhetoric had “a rationality of its own (Meyer 249).”

Aristotle defines rhetoric “as the art, not of persuading–for the best of speakers may sometimes fail to persuade—but of finding what persuasive things there are to be said on a given side of a given question (The Contemporary Review 206).”  This publication (from the late 1800s) further elucidates that, “as a moralist, he [Aristotle] disallows any appeal to the feelings and passions of an audience; but as a rhetorician, he proceeds to give a long and very valuable analysis of those feelings and passions, explaining to us their nature, enumerating their ordinary objects, and suggesting how they may be most effectually aroused (207).”   This again helps clarify what exactly is meant by rhetoric, and why history rightly records Aristotle as the resident expert.

That Aristotle’s thoughts on rhetoric were a reaction to a man whose pedagogy he trained under should not weaken those thoughts.  In fact, taking into account their durability throughout history, Plato’s thoughts on rhetoric, themselves, are better suited to lose value in the debate.  That said, it is time to look at Aristotle’s contribution to rhetoric.   Aristotle convincingly taught humanity that there are three categories available for use during argumentation: logos, ethos, and pathos.  These three categories are all always present, only varying with regard to their ratio to each other.  In other words, logos, ethos, and pathos make up one hundred percent of an argument, whether 30-30-40 or 80-10-10.  It doesn’t matter what the exact breakdown is; the point Aristotle made was that all three were being used—whether intentional or not.

****

“Aristotle’s Rhetoric.” The Contemporary Review Aug 01 1878: 206. ProQuest. Web. 23 July 2013

<http://search.proquest.com/docview/1294650855?accountid=14506&gt;.

Meyer, Michel. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric.” Topoi 31.2 (2012): 249-52. Springer Link. Web. 23 July 2013. <http://0-link.springer.com.skyline.ucdenver.edu/article/10.1007/s11245-012-9132-0/fulltext.html&gt;.

Huge Requirements-Part 3

After several iterations of exercising and adding weight, the two have settled into their routine.  This routine involves a most serious approach to lifting weight, sprinkled with endearing bits of jocularity as the men rest–endearing from the outside, terrifying from the inside.  Between these two men the topics of conversation are limited indeed.  Listening closely, we hear discussion about diets, discussion about the rest of the week’s workouts, and discussion about physical ailments (the more acutely described, the better).  We’re terrified to learn that most of the conversation is about sex.  Not real sex of course—fantasy sex.  Over the course of an hour or so, a good three-quarter’s of the conversation revolves around the women present in the gym, and what these men would do with them.  As if Petey Pablo’s hit “Freak-a-leek” was accidentally placed on endless repeat, they reveal themselves to be animals.  Or do they?  Here we leave the scene to explore this a bit further.

Reflection, based on time spent in the community, reveals that among the base, the paltry, the pornographic language, something more is happening.  Remember, we are talking about men who take things to the extremes.  Bodybuilders put massive amounts of effort into achieving their size and strength.  They need a way to know they aren’t wasting their expertise, and that’s how their discourse community is built.  It is about filtering.  It is about learning who can to stay and who must go.  If you don’t get it, can’t handle it, or just don’t approve, then these men don’t want to be around you anyhow.  Men like these are endlessly pestered with attention, questions, and potential protégés seeking tutelage.  They simply don’t have the time to address everyone.  So they create a set of filters.  Where did they learn to use filters?  Their mentors.  Each bodybuilder decided to put up with the immature crassness if he wanted to learn the art.  Along the way, they determine that it is a necessary evil.  Do you really want to know their secret?  Stick around.  Deal with the language.  Deal with everyone in the gym knowing that you’re objectifying women, engaging in self-love at its highest level, and making jokes about everything once thought sacred.  Do that long enough, and maybe, just maybe, they’ll accept you as a student.

Sure, there is something maladjusted within these men, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.  We’re talking about why men whose physical appearance alone clearly communicates their physical superiority over other men still need to have their own language, still need to use paltry and base arts and entrenchments.  At first, it is easy to think that of all groups of people, bodybuilders wouldn’t need to use these uncouth methods to distinguish themselves.  Upon further inspection, they do.  They do because their mentors required it in order to prove that these students weren’t going to waste their time.  Before becoming a bodybuilder, these men have a goal.  They do what is necessary to achieve it.  Then they become the mentor.

Huge Requirements-Part 2

He returns his bag to his shoulder, exits the locker room and heads to the bench press.  Free weight bench press of course.  As he places his bag under the bench he looks around, a smile quickly forming.  He recognizes a friend.  This friend isn’t necessarily a giant, but there is something respectable about his physical prowess.  As they banter, our bodybuilder tips back his water bottle—a full gallon jug—and takes a drink.  Placing the cap back on, the conversation concludes with a handshake.  With a hint of interest, he directs his attention to the reception desk.  His hand nonchalantly rises to shoulder level as his lifting partner smiles and returns the gesture.  Noticing he nearly ignored the receptionist, the partner stops and charmingly offers his sincerest of apologies.  The receptionist appears to want to tell him he needs to sign in, but quickly reconsiders.  Skipping the locker room, the partner (also carrying a giant duffel bag) heads straight for the bench press.  The heartiest of handshakes completes the greeting and signals to all that they are about to begin

And begin they do.  Our man grabs a ten pound plate, and begins warming up his shoulder and rotator cuff.  One arm making deliberate movements, the other hand feeling the concerned area.  Switching hands he repeats the process.  His friend then takes the weight and does the same.  During this ritual—which dates back to the first time they, not wanting to irritate their mentor, skipped warming-up as a consequence of being late to a work-out and then tweaked their shoulder—they discuss briefly how their shoulders aren’t quite 100%, but that they feel good enough.  This minor chit-chat serves as a vocal warm-up, as much as a health conscious discussion.  It is their way of talking about the weather.  Finally, our man grabs a 45lb plate from the rack and loads it on the bar.  The warm-up has officially commenced.

Huge Requirements-Part 1

In the classic Moby Dick Herman Melville writes, “For be a man’s intellectual superiority what it will, it can never assume the practical, available supremacy over other men, without the aid of some sort of external arts and entrenchments, always, in themselves, more or less paltry and base.”  Substitute “physical” for “intellectual” and you have a perfect description of a bodybuilder circa late 1990s-early 2000s.  The paltry and base aids that bodybuilders call upon, however, have a specific noble purpose unlike those Melville references.  At the turn of the 21st century, bodybuilder mentors used paltry and base external arts as a filter to weed out men who were weak in discipline and drive–to cull the heard as it were.  As a matter of course, the student later becomes the teacher and the entire group ends up with its own way of communicating.

Quite unlike intellectual superiority, measuring physical superiority is easy.  Whether in size or strength or body fat, the human body is quantifiable.  Nonetheless, bodybuilders, these giants of our time, still create their own discourse communities.  Join me as we enter the once secret world of bodybuilding.

Immediately, we recognize the man walking toward the gym’s receptionist as a bodybuilder due to his sheer size.  He is a giant.  Giant also is the duffle bag he has over his shoulder.  It is oversized–as is everything in it.  A 5lb container of protein power, the sturdiest weight belt on the market, wrist wraps and straps, medium sized notebook and pen, and a Tupperware container of chalk fill the bag.  This bag wasn’t always packed this way.  Initially, it likely had a change of clothes, or a towel.  Over the years, one-by-one each item made its way, as if called, into the bag.  Today, this bag softly whispers to the uninitiated, “You and I are very different.  Do not expect to understand.  That you stare only proves my point.”

Blushing, the young lady receptionist takes his flirtatious greeting to heart.  If she is allowed any leniency with requiring members to sign in, this man gets the pass.  “Have a good workout!” she adds, displaying a little too much interest as he turns towards the locker room.

Once in the locker room, he becomes king.  Locker use is doubtful (who would dare touch his gear?), so he drops his bag wherever he pleases and heads to the restroom.  Next, he returns to the designated sitting area and settles into his seat with an air of gravity.  He hasn’t yet conversed with any other men in the locker room.  Using their silence as a currency, the other members pay their respects.  One last glimpse around the room ensuring he hasn’t missed anyone important, he bends over to tie his shoes properly.  These shoes being a very unique, almost wrestler looking boot.  Sturdy and serious, these shoes and the manner in which he ties them tell us he isn’t here for fun.

I Confess! I Want To Reset Christianity

Now that I actually see those words, I don’t feel so bad.  What do you think?

I want, not just a revival, but a full-on reset.  Well, almost.  We’d need to keep the most essential element in order to press forward.

That we are no longer “WOWed!” by the amount of data at our fingertips informs us that the information age is almost over.  Its effects have been far reaching.  Concepts like evolution, doctrine, hidden gospels, church abuses, and many questionable traditions have been thrust into the spotlight.  Everyone interested can learn all about these things.  From a near-outsider perspective, the result seems to be a palpable lack of focus.  Should the Church cater to the people?  Should the Church cling to tradition?  Should the Church do this?  Should the Church do that?

Last Sunday I heard a sermon that covered a verse from the Bible that mentioned the words “predestine” and “foreknow”.   The preacher preambled much longer than normal before beginning to teach what these words mean.  Why did he need to preamble?  Because nearly 2000 years have muddied the waters.  Within the Church, “predestine” and “foreknow” are now hot button issues.  That means that some of you may already be put-off that I included them here.

To me, they are nothing more than stumbling blocks.

Here’s the question that can’t be avoided: How far would Jesus go to save a person?  Remember, we’re talking about reality.  Life, death, heaven, hell, love, separation, light, darkness–the real.  The simple fact is that we know more about the Bible and it’s authors today, than many believers did for the last 2000 years.  Some of the new information is difficult to reconcile.  Most of the new information is difficult to ignore.  Would Jesus ask us to reconcile it?  Would He ask us to ignore it?  Would He sweepingly reject it as clearly the work of the devil?

What’s the first step to this reset?  Forget everything you know about Christianity except Jesus.  Study him.  If other books of the Bible need to be referenced to figure out Him out, reference them.  Reference them insofar as they help us understand Him, but no farther.  For example, take again the words “predestine” and “foreknow.”  Did He reference those ideas?  If not, ignore them.  I want to ignore what we know about the formation of the church, the early church leaders, the saints, church history, everything (even Paul).  Whether definitely confusing or likely helpful, I want to ignore it.  For now.  A deliberate act.  A purposeful act.  An act with the end in mind.

I believe I know what grace feels like.  I also believe that despite my sincerest efforts I have contributed to others not knowing what grace feels like.  I’m okay with that.  But I won’t do it anymore.  One option staring me in the face is resetting Christianity and beginning anew.  I can’t picture the result of a unified focus on Jesus without having delusions of grandeur.  It probably won’t happen.  I’d sure like to try.  How about you?

How To Ignore

(If you’re short on time, skip to the bottom for numbered instructions.)

Five days had passed.  He still wasn’t able to focus.  He couldn’t believe what the President had said–what the President had done.

His friends were sick of listening to him rant.  He felt like his co-workers were starting to be more than annoyed.  But he couldn’t relent.  He was in shock that the President of the United States of America had come to the conclusion that his best play was to say what he did.  He was so angry.  Rage had descended upon him as if an avalanche.

Five days was too long.  He knew this.  Academically, he knew he needed to get over it.  But he was a man of integrity.   He couldn’t pin down the reason, but he felt his integrity was under attack.  As of this moment, though, he knew the time had come.  He had related to everyone what he felt, and he had reached the point of diminishing returns.  He knew he needed to just ignore it.  He just didn’t know how to do that.

Instructions for How To Ignore:

Step 1 – Decide that acknowledging an experience, regardless of it’s truth, hurts more than it helps.

Step 2 – Lie.  Deliberately convince yourself that you didn’t experience or aren’t experiencing the event in question.