An Evening with Kids - A Need for Human Investment
Looking back, this evening's experience was marked by two noteworthy poignant observations. The first was with a 7 year old kid at my table. As I said, my table had really smart kids who were so conversant about many things that I had to step up to keep up. One of the smart ones 7 year olds, I'll call Tom (fake name) asked me how his crayon coloring looked. I said it looked cute. Then he looked at me and said, "People will grown only when God wants them to grow". I couldn't understand why he said so. I was a little bit confused. My philosophical mind started wondering if Tom was trying to say something about the doctrine of Predestination. I looked at him. He said with sad eyes, "My Doctor told me that I will not grow big like everybody else". I still remember how sad his eyes looked when he said that to me. Wanting to encourage him, I said that he will grow big. He replied, "No my Doctor says I will not". When Tom got down from the chair, I could see that he was short for his age. When Tom's mother came to pick him up, she seemed like a short lady too. Somehow, it was ingrained in Tom's mind that, "God did not want him to grow". I wanted to dispel the ingrained idea. But I did not know how. Tom's sad eyes remained in front of my eyes. The kid was very smart. I also think he has artistic talents. His coloring of the picture showed a lot of maturity for his age, from his choice of colors to his strokes. I wish SOMEONE would INVEST time with Tom to help him understand that life is complex and that being short isn't something to be sad about, lest the sadness in his eyes should result in an indelible scar in his heart sapping him off his ability to live life to all its fullness as promised by the Saviour.
The second poignant moment was when when we were returning from playing some outdoor games with kids. The kids ENJOYED holding hands with some of us as we walked. Two girls who were 8ish were holding each of the hands of one of the ladies in our group. Just then one of the girls Tiffany (fake name) said, something like, "my socks is hurting me". What the little girl said did not make sense to the lady whose hand she was holding or to me. The other girl immediately said, "Oh, she just wants someone to carry her in their arms". What happened there was a classic case of 'Transaction Exchange' which the Psychologist Dr. Eric Berne talks about in his book, "Games People Play". He says, the human beings seldom expose their deeper needs, they say one thing to get something else. People who know them personally, quickly assess their real need and respond to that. The other 8 year old knew the Tiffany enough to know her deeper need. Dr. Eric Berne says in the same book that people play such games so that they get 'stroked' emotionally and/or physically by other people. He goes on to say that the NEED for 'stroking' and the FULFILLMENT of that need is what keeps a human being full of life. He says that if a new born kid were to be left alone without the 'stroking' of another human being, it would actually die. I wish SOMEONE would INVEST time with the likes of the 8 year old to fulfill the deep need to be 'stroked' emotionally and physically, lest she should search for it ways that would end up with her getting exploited in the cruelest way possible.
When I came back home as I was reminiscing upon my experience, I was reminded of something Franky Schaeffer, the son of (my favorite Author) the great Francis Schaeffer said in his book, "Sham Pearls For Real Swine". He says that the person who said that parents need to spend 'quality time' with kids should never be allowed to become a psychologist (I improvised the last part of that sentence, I don't think Franky would disagree though). Franky goes on to emphasis that Parents need to INVEST not just a 'quality time' but A LOT of time with kids. He says, "You have to beg, borrow and steal family time from the world bent upon distracting you from the most important things in life".
When Parents do not INVEST A LOT of time with kids - to attend to their deepest needs, dispel their deep insecurities, help them see the world from a Scriptural perspective, SOMEONE else needs to step-in and do that. If none does that, this generation is sowing seeds for the destruction of the culture that has given us so much freedom, security and privileges. The problem with the education system for our kids does not just have to do with the lack of funds or the selfish attitudes of unions or the lack of committed teachers. The problem is that our society does not value children as much as it ought to. We don't look at children as souls that need to be nurtured to shoulder the weight of this Civilization. Instead we look at them as 'material' beings that need non-human attention of the Wii and/or TV and/or Toys.
One of my very theologically sound friends whom I respect a lot looked at the flat-screen TV at his home and said to me, "This is my son's
Captain Nemo, Nataulius And the Search for the Good and the Transcended
My Valentine Meditations - On the Missing Valentine
Rabbit Hole - Small 's' science and Small 'g' god
The Fighter – From Futility to Freedom
Thoughts on NTY Marriage Story Feature
It is a case of two divorcees gettting remarried. Divorcees getting remarried is a good thing. Sometimes, people get married to the wrong people and it would do much better for them and their kids to seperate rather than to be abused. But what was really noteworthy about this divorce and remarriage is that there was no history of abuse or ostentatious incompatibility in their original marriages, the reason why they divorced is because after having been married to a person for more than 10 years and having kids, these people suddenly realized that they were in love with someone else. But this is not the cause for the anger unleashed.
The story goes like this... Two families were friends who were going places from Restuarants to Vacations together for a few years until one of the spouses in each of the families get 'hitched' with each other and decide to dump the other spouse. The four people have 5 children between them. Basically Mr and Mrs. Ennis and Mr. and Mrs. Partilla are good friends until Mrs. Ennis and Mr. Partilla decide to get married and then dump their respective spouses. The dumped Mr. Ennis is himself a media executive who has held high-level jobs at IAC and News Corp and is now head of the digital media practice at the investment bank Petsky Prunier. The Ex Mrs. Partilla is a high level media executive as well.
We live in a world were somewhere between 1 in 2 to 1 in 3 marriages end up in divorce. I am sure this sort foursome scandals has happens quite a bit. But two reasons make this news feature infamous. One, the gumption that this couple had in sending their story to be featured the New York Times unmindful of the hurt it may cause their their ex-spouses and kids. Two, the notorious decision taken by NY to post it without even fact-checking with the ex-spouses. I don't intend to analyse NYT's motives, afer all the media loves to grab attention, besides NYT has a liberal worldview.
What stuck me most was the justification given the couple for their childishly selfish behavior. I wonder what made them think their story was an exemplary case of courage and bravery as exemplified in the comments below. I wonder what gave them a sense of entitlement to admiration of the readers.
Partilla says, “I didn’t believe in the word soul mate before, but now I do". Caroll says, “He said, ‘Remind me every day that the kids will be O.K.,’ I would say the kids are going to be great, and we’ll spend the rest of our lives making it so.” She adds, “I came to realize it wasn’t a punishment, it was a gift,” she said. “But I had to earn it. Were we brave enough to hold hands and jump?”
Having assumed that they have earned the readers admiration for being brave, they now indulge in quite a bit of self-pity feeling entitled to empathy.
NYT says, "As Mr. Partilla saw it, their options were either to act on their feelings and break up their marriages or to deny their feelings and live dishonestly. “Pain or more pain,” was how he summarized it."
It is incredible that it was lost on them that they acted like kids who want to 'feel good' play and dont want to work hard at homework. They shun pain and want to do what makes them feel good with a mypoic view of only their own self-interest, causing pain to their ex-spouses who did not abuse them and their kids who were not abused in their original marriages either. They want the world to applaud them for yeilding their childish 'feel good' proclivities.
Caroll says, “My kids are going to look at me and know that I am flawed and not perfect, but also deeply in love,” she said. “We’re going to have a big, noisy, rich life, with more love and more people in it.”
Actually, in the photograph of cake cutting at the reception where the five children are pictured, the face of the eldest girl who is probably 12ish is void of any clear emotion except may be angst. The stark fact is that Caroll's sentiment of 'deeply in love' is directed at none except her own feelings of love. This is the kind of immaturity that Shakespeare describes as 'love loves love'.
Mr. Partilla feels that "...options were either to act on their feelings and break up their marriages or to deny their feelings and live dishonestly".
It is intresting that the couple associate dishonesty with a feeling rather than their 'unprovoked' betrayal of their original spousal commitment. When there was no abuse in their original marriage, that they betrayed their committment to their spouse isn't seen as being dishonest by these 'blind lovers'. It is incredible that to excersice some 'self-control' over their 'frivolous' feelings is seen as being dishonest. Aren't self-control and honesty virtues which go hand in hand?
I wonder what they tell their kids when the kids 'feel' like they want to always play pingpong video games and eat french fries and avoid the pain of doing homework and eating healthy. Would they encourage their kids to just be 'true' to the feelings and avoid all hardwork so that they wouldn't be dishonest to the way the feel about things??? Or would they teach them the virtue of self-control???
Interestingly, they are not alone in their skewed idea of dishonesty which is contained only within the realms of their feelings and has nothing to do with their commitment to a person. One of the very few bloggers who supported them said, "...I feel encouraged to see that they are loyal to how they feel".
Until quite recently, Loyalty was something that can only be attributed to people. Would loyalty have the same meaning even if it attributed to non-personalities? Perhaps, it seems only right that after having desecrated the virtue of honesty, in the same vein, they should extend it to the other age-old virtue like loyalty. Of course, unsaid, the virtue of love has been desecrated the worst of all. When 'feelings' takes precedence to Truth there is no saying where it goes.
This is a malady of the age we live in - The Age of Sentimentality. It is an age where we give an inordinate importance to how we feel about things. Unlike our ancestors, our greatest goal in life isn't aligning our life to the Truth of life, rather we pursue a 'feel good' factor about life. Steve Jobs in one of his interviews said it best, "I don't care about what is right or wrong, I care about success". In fact, the reason (apart from rigid i-phone protocols) why i-phones aren't used it the corporate world is becuase they aren't robust equipments, they just 'feel good'.
Back in those days when families were still stable and psychatrists weren't in much demand, people had a sense of what the Truth was, they tried to align their life to the Truth. Self-control was a virtue because it helped them align their life to the right way to live. But now, we live in a post-modern (hyper-modern) world and so Truth is relative. When Truth becomes relative, feelings take precedence. The result is the 'abolition of manhood' and move back to 'childishness'.
C.S.Lewis said in his book, 'The Abolition of Man' says that our generation is creating men without chests. Humankind has a chest and a spine so that they can go against their basal instinct and put the interest of their kids and spouses above their own and be truly loving and develop character. Once we loose our handle on absolute Truth and relegate right and wrong to the realm of frivolous feelings, we are sowing seeds for decadence of our civilization because none of the virtues that make man a man means anything anymore except how they make you feel at different points in time. I believe it is in this vein that G.K.Chesterton said, "A civilization can stand in one angle, and fall in every other. We are now testing angles."
The entitlement that this couple have to be admired and empathized with after having acted so immaturely following their feelings, is symptom of a decadence that has set in our civiliation. When sentiments and feelings to take precedence over Virtues and Truth, man loses his manishness. When man loses his God given manish nature, the civilization he creates begins to die, albeit a slow death.
Secretariat - The Dilemma between Family and Legacy
Narnai - Voyage of the Dawn Trader
I do wish the screen writers had not meddled with Aslan's stealthy appearances depicted in the book, but not much of a reason to be disappointed. I think the part where Edmund and Caspian turn against each other and how Aslan makes his fearsome presence felt shouldn't have been taken out of the movie. On the other hand, Aslan appearing in the mirror in Lucy's dream was quite a bit of digress from the book, but was most welcome.
The movies portrayal of the 'green mist' exposing human vulnerability was a brilliant improvisation of the book's 'darkness', which really tied the narrative together in a way that I think book does not. The 'grey mist' representing evil brings back the traitorous ambition of old evil witch into Edmund's conscience and the wanting to be 'materially' valuable into Lucy's.
I was glad Aslan's parting words, "In the other world I am known by a different name. The very reason you were brought into Narnia was so that you'll know me a little here, and better there.", was unaltered. After all, at the end of the day those are the words that give the Narnia the meaning that makes it eternally beautiful and true, Right?
Next Three Days – Love of God
A Joyful Thanks Giving with Adam's family
Teen Pregnancy Center - A Opportunity to be Drawn
The Social Network - All about a Relationship!
Ps: This spin in the moive is entirely fictional. The real life Mark Zuckerberg is perhaps relationally challenged but he has had one girlfriend since his Harvard days and they have been together all along. Commendable!
The Town – Modern Morality – Betrayal better than beating!!!
The movie 'The Town' is a well made. There is subtlety in the script, pace to the story and intense realism. The movie is a realistic depiction of modern lifestyle. It impels me to critique the modernistic worldview that undergirds the idea of the good and the bad in this movie.
A bank robber, Ben Affleck, falls in love with the victim of one of the heists. Among the gang thieves, Ben Affleck is portrayed as the good gentle hearted guy and his childhood buddy, Jeremy resorts brutality too quickly. You get to hate Jeremy’s guts and love Ben Affleck who is powerful yet avoids hurting people 'physically'. What struck me about the movie was the sense of stridency with which the movie upholds goodness as having more to do with the physical than the spiritual. It is a movie true to the materialism of this age where morality is confined to the realm of the 'material' - only that which can be touched and felt.
Jeremy is shown as a bad guy because he hurts people to intimidate them. He does not mind killing friends if he knows that they'll betray him to the FBI. Ben is shown in good light as a guy with a conscience who has become a thief because of inexorable circumstances. Ben does not hurt people physically, but he hurts them emotionally. Strangely, in the movie’s depiction, that he hurts people emotionally does not factor in as moral bankruptcy.
Ben uses a woman, Jeremy’s sister, for his sexual pleasure and then shoves her off when he finds a new one, the victim of the heist, all the while maintaining the facade of a good guy trying to be the best he can be, given the unfortunate circumstances of his childhood. When Ben Affleck falls in love with his victim, that he already has Jeremy’s sister for a lover whose daughter she says is his does not pose a moral dilemma to this guy with a golden heart. Having decided to elope with his new lover, he just shoves her and the kid out of his apartment.
My problem with the movie is that it makes it appear as though he is 'justified' in cutting lose from Jeremy’s sister, now that he 'truly' loves another. The painful scene of the shoving-off is entirely depicted from Ben Affleck's ‘alpha-male-to-be-pitied-for-a-broken-childhood’ perspective. In the scene of separation, you hear the kid crying in the distance when he and the kid's mother are having an altercation. He lifts the kid, walks out the door, leaves her outside the door and asks the mother to follow. Period.
The scene is shot in a way to make the viewer oblivious to the horrid pain he, the guy with a golden heart, is causing the weaker ones. I would have had a better appreciation for the scene if it faithfully depicted the horrible pain this guy was causing the lady and the little three year old. That would have been more realistic as it would have showed that Ben Affleck, who is portrayed as a good-natured victim of his circumstances was himself, a horrible victimizer.
The movie instead of showing him as the victimizer, somehow justifies his spiritually hurting his girlfriend and her daughter now that he has 'connected' with a new girl. That movie does not call a spade a spade and depict Ben to be as much a victimizer as was Jeremy. It is just that methods of victimization are different. Jeremy hurts the body, Ben kills the soul.
The reason why the modern man is often morally blind to hurting the soul, and the reason why Ben is portrayed as a better guy, is because modern morality does not transcend the ‘material’ bodily reality of life. Modern morality, relative as it is, says beating a person is wrong, but betraying the person’s love isn't. It says one can keep eloping with new a lover as long as there are no strings attached and one does not physically abuse the ex.
Even if there are strings, if the pull of new love is strong enough modern morality 'justifies' the snapping-off of the commitment that holds one back from reaching out for the Modern Dream of a finding a sexually fulfilling relationship with no strings. The only problem is that God did not create sexual relationship to be cheap, whether one likes it or not there will always be strings that bond and bind.
In fact, once Ben’s true colors are apparent to the new victim-turned-lover, she asks, "wasn't it enough that you messed my life already (through your heist and the following FBI harassment), did you also have to f*** me?” She asks him to get the hell out of her life. Even here, the guy is depicted to come on top, as a guy with a sensitive heart, he gives here all the money he made in the heist and then says an empty platitude that goes something like "I'll meet you again in this life or the next".
In depicting such partial alpha-male centered materialistic reality, the movie is a lie. But the movie is a true reflection of the lie of the modern lifestyle. It is a faithful reflection of the twisted reality of life as perceived by modern man. If the movie and the depiction of the scenes depict anything it depicts the problems with the modern worldview of life which is preoccupied with the material at the cost of discounting the spiritual and paying a costly price for that. After all, man is not just flesh and blood, he is also mind and spirit.
