Advertisement

Beginner's Heart

Beginner's Heart

friendship and the art of loving

BrittonFamilyInJerusalemTempleAs one of four sisters, I’m used to the envy that twins with love. At least when it comes to sisters. So it’s okay w/ me that I’m not the sister each of the other three loves the best. Because I’m the one who loves each of them the best.

So today’s post is about that: what it means to not be the best-loved, the most popular, etc. American culture is all about being loved — the last one on the island. That would NOT be me!

Advertisement

Growing up — but even more so once we were all adults — I was often envious of my sisters with the friends they managed to keep, despite our many moves. I have no friends left my childhood, only a couple from my early adulthood. I moved too much, and my family was always my central focus.

I have cousins I adore. And of course, there are those three sisters. Not to mention my beloved, and the friends I’ve made as a mature adult. I even have a BFF!  But not friends who knew me in 5th grade — as each of my sisters do. My 5th grade year was spent in a land long ago and faraway. :) friends

Advertisement

And that’s a lot of why I don’t have childhood or high school friends now: I moved at the critical times when those friendships might, otherwise, have survived.

and then a voice says: but your sisters managed… you’re the loser.

This is the voice we often hear when we look at others, I suspect. So some years ago I looked at why I didn’t keep friends from early life.  And I realised: I did. They’re my family. I’m as close to my sisters as to the BFFs of others. PLUS I have the BFF I’ve made as a mature adult — the friend who knows and loves who I am NOW, not because she knew me ‘when.’

friendshipBut I still wondered: what if it’s because you’re not loveable? And laughed at myself: that only matters on TV. Seriously — isn’t it more important to love than to be loved? Besides, my sisters — and my friends — DO love me. Lots. It’s not like I live life as a social leper. :)

Advertisement

So in my ruminations about this, I thought about beginner’s heart, and what that means. About love, and learning how to give it. That the art of love is as precious as the gift of being loved. And I’m good at loving my sisters, my friends, my BFF. My beloved husband, sons, daughter-in-law, grandson, nieces & nephews & cousins… My extended family.

As well as a couple of additions — an almost-brother (he introduced me to my husband, so very many years ago), another almost-sister. heart in hands

Which may not seem like many, but given how full my life is now, with the men and women I’ve found to love as dear friends in my adulthood, I’m very happy.  I may not be the best loved. But even with a simple beginner’s heart, still learning, I’m pretty sure I’m great at love.

Advertisement

leftovers and ‘after’ days

image Yesterday we had a lovely evening — friends came over to celebrate African American History month with a sharing of various African American artists & authors. I cleaned and cooked before it all began. I made this beautiful lemon icebox pie. I even made cornbread in the big skillet that was Mom’s. All of which made today was one of the  perfect ‘after’ day.

One of the (many) joys of having a party is it’s a two-fer: after a party, there are leftovers! All that food, already cooked! And the house is already clean! All you have to do is sit back & enjoy the fruits of past labour. How cool is that? First there’s the party (which was great, just FYI), then there’s the great day after.

Advertisement

Plus, since my beloved is recuperating from knee surgery, a quiet day spent reading, teasing the dogs, and visiting w/ sons, on the phone, was just the right kind of day for us.

More of my life is spent, it seems, in this lovely ‘after’ state. I work on one project, and rewards I never anticipated pop up somewhere else. I do one thing, and it brings unexpected pleasure later, as well as in its completion.

You don’t have to do anything much for a perfect ‘after’ day. And unlike those ghastly ‘before & after’ pics, this is one time that ‘after’ is not so much better as just as good. Different, sure. But still lovely. So go ahead — call up folks and have a get-together. You’ll have both the pleasure of the event, and all those leftovers for after. Perfect!

 

Advertisement

30 Days of Love: ‘calling in’ and room for compassion

compassion“Calling in” is a new term for me. During the 30 Days of Love project, I’ve learned several new things — vocabulary is only 1 piece of it.

I had to go to the original article, after reading today’s prompt. Calling people out on racism, heterosexism, or just plain hatefulness is a calling for me (and yep, I said that on purpose). Still, from what I gather, reading Ngọc Loan Trần’s amazing piece on calling in, adding ‘calling in’ to our tool belt of strategies for intercultural dialogue is NOT a ‘get out of being called out free’ card for anyone.

Advertisement

If you’re a dumbass who seriously believes that others are in any way ‘less’ than you in your privileged state, I will call you out. I’ll begin by assuming you didn’t mean what you said, and ask you to clarify. But if you’re convinced that, say, women should obey their husbands, and stay home and make babies? I’m not supporting that with my polite silence.

What Ngọc Loan Trần offers us is, as he puts it, a ‘less disposable way of holding each other accountable.’ I have been guilty of utter cluelessness, when it comes to not ‘getting it.’ I’ve said things with NO malice intended — not even stereotyping — but still clueless as to how they sound. For instance: if you were outside of the US during the entire 80s, you probably don’t know that there ‘spear chucker’ was no longer a term for the extras in Cecil B. DeMille films (think: Moses and all those crowd scenes). You would be terminally embarrassed — and deeply, profoundly sorry — if someone took your clueless, dumbass remark as a racist slur. But to them it would be. No matter what you intended.film extras

Advertisement

You almost certainly would call me on it, telling me in no uncertain terms that I was a racist. And then you’d probably get up and leave the conference room. At least, that’s what happened. The problem with that is that I had no idea what I’d done. I had to ask a friend (black), who cracked up, thinking of me using the term in a work meeting.

‘Calling in’ wouldn’t have worked in that specific instance, anyway, despite my clueless lack of intention. Neither party who left knew me well, so they had no reason to assume I wasn’t a racist yahoo. As far as they could tell, they were the victims of microagressions. So discarding me as another white idiot was certainly understandable. But say instead, that I’m clueless with a dear friend. Say that I don’t understand when she’s been insulted by a white woman. That I don’t ‘get it’. In that case, instead of ‘calling me out’ for my lack of understanding, my dear friend Sylvia took the time to explain what had transpired, what it meant, and how she saw (and felt) it. I’ve written about that elsewhere.

Advertisement

inclusion 2Because Sylvia and I already were good friends, it was worth it to her to take the time to share her feelings, her thoughts on what had happened. She wanted me to ‘get’ what had happened. In other words? She called me IN — asked me to be one with her for a moment in her life, in her thoughts and feelings. Again, I quote Ngọc Loan Trần, who notes that “when we shut each other out we make clubs of people who are right and clubs of people who are wrong as if we are not more complex than that, as if we are all-knowing, as if we are perfect.”

Advertisement

I absolutely love this idea. I can’t thank 30 Days of Love or Ngọc Loan Trần enough for offering me something to go with my other compassion practices: tonglen, wrathful compassion, meditation, breathing. Certainly there is a time for calling out, as there is for wrathful compassion. But I am hoping that I can do more to dissolve barriers — to create unity — by learning how to call others in. Isn’t that what inclusion is all about?

Advertisement

Happy Birthday, Darwin!

As my husband had surgery today, and I’ve been helping him prepare (yesterday), and then spent today at the hospital, today’s post is an extended  riff on one from last year, also on Darwin’s birthday.

170px-Charles_Darwin_by_G._RichmondI love science. And of course Darwin — like Da Vinci, like Einstein, like Copernicus — dominates it. Today is his birthday, and I promise this post has to do w/ beginner’s heart (at least eventually!). One semester — and one only — I tried to teach Darwin in a lit class. We do a lot of nonfiction in literature (Benjamin Franklin, Mary Wollstonecraft, Scott Momaday, just to name a few), looking at figures w/ long-term literary impact. Several of my students (and this was an honours class) flat refused to read Darwin. Nope, they told me. He’s … well, Darwin. And against their religion(s).

Advertisement

Just to read him? I asked, incredulous. You can’t even READ him, to see what he said in his own words? And to a student, they shook their heads. I promise I’m not exaggerating, nor am I over-stating their adamant refusals. No negotiating — Darwin may as well be the anti-Christ.

Because this had never happened to me before, and because I don’t believe in putting students on the spot, I allowed them to read something else. But I’ve never forgotten that class. Nor the quiet, back-door responses of other students to this small cadre of their very vocal and conservatively religious colleagues. One told me she felt totally disdained by the students in the class, because she was an atheist. Another told me that he felt his religion — Judaism — was both maligned and dismissed by the conservative Christian students.

Advertisement

I offer no facile comments or final conclusions about this class. I don’t understand it now much better than I didn’t then, if that makes sense. It’s always been incomprehensible to me that any literature is ‘forbidden.’ I did ask my students why they had been forbidden to read Darwin. They hadn’t been expressly ‘forbidden,’ they assured me. But to a person, they said that Darwin was evil, and they were ‘discouraged from’ reading his work. After all, he denied the divine plan.

But here’s what I wonder: how can mere human beings even discern the divine plan — always given that there is one…? If something there is that created the spark that became today — the dark flavour of a hot mocha with an extra shot, the break in winter cold, the exceptional kindness of a nurse at the outpatient clinic where I spent the day with my husband — how can I, addled mortal that I am, comprehend that? And why should faith feel threatened by knowledge? Note: I didn’t ask the students to accept Darwin; just read him.

Advertisement

My students were not interested in discussing their decision. I did ask if they followed the Old Testament, and the Laws of Leviticus. This is what hurt my Jewish student — the Darwin-deniers were appalled at the idea. But it’s the Old Testament —  Genesis et al — that drives the Young Earth creation myth. And to be a Young Earther means you also deny the following scientific fields, as I’ve touched on elsewhere: physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaelogy, climatology, and dendochronology. In 2011, 30% of Americans said they took the Bible literally — no interpretation. In other words? They  believe in the Young Earth philosophy. No wonder we don’t have many scientists!

Advertisement

So, Darwin, what do you have to say about this? Baptised Anglican, raised in the Unitarian church, you studied to be Christian clergy. You refused the label ‘atheist,’ preferring to be known as an agnostic. You even included a quote from Charles Kingsley in Origin, in which Kingsley argued that it was “just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that He created primal forms capable of self development… as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas which He Himself had made.”

Now, here we are, almost 200 years later. And like my students, many Americans refuse to even read Darwin. And I’m no closer to understanding why. Still, I suspect  Darwin wouldn’t care a jot. Evidence, he would say, trumps faith. But it needn’t cancel it out. Darwin might be not a test of faith, but of scientific imagination.

Previous Posts

wanted: the perfect house to become a home
This is the house I identify with childhood, on the left side of this giant 'duplex,' with the giant screened porches upstairs. It's a villa, with a ...

posted 3:01:12pm Aug. 30, 2015 | read full post »

cultural burdens, with homage to Carol Emarthle-Douglas
This may be the most moving piece of art I've seen in many many months. When it came across my FB ...

posted 5:48:11pm Aug. 26, 2015 | read full post »

silver linings
For those d'un certain âge, the Rolling Stones said it best: You can't always get what you want/But if you try sometimes you just might find/You get what ...

posted 6:20:17pm Aug. 24, 2015 | read full post »

the impulse to art
This, my friends, is art. And better than anything else I can think of, it demonstrates our deep-set need to create beauty. The Dalai Lama ...

posted 9:41:23pm Aug. 20, 2015 | read full post »

cleaning house, reprised
As we come closer to moving -- even though we no longer have a house under contract, nor do we know when we'll find one! -- I'm getting ever more serious ...

posted 5:10:21pm Aug. 17, 2015 | read full post »

Advertisement


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.