American Culture(s)

I recently read a book called Balthazar. It's book number two in a series called the Alexandrian Quartet -- four novels about a collection of characters who live in Alexandria. One of the central themes of the novels is that idea that the city makes the people who they are: in the first novel, Durrell (the author) goes as far as saying that it is not the characters who live but rather Alexandria that lives through them. In other words, the characters' personalities are the manifestation of the character of the city itself.
I have wondered about this a lot. To what extent is this idea real? Are we manifestations of the consciousness of our city or town? To what degree? We live in an incredibly mobil society. Most of us have lived in multiple places. In what ways are we conglomerations of the cultures that we have belonged to, or at least the cultures that have surrounded us?
On a related note, I think about the homogenization of America a lot. It seems to me that we are becoming less regional, in terms of cultural distinctions. We watch the same movies and TV shows; we shop at the same stores; eat at the same restaurants; listen to the same music; wear the same clothes. As we move around, our regional cultures blend. What have we lost in terms of regional character? What have we held onto? What have we gained?
I'll close this with the words of Jack Kerouac: "Whither goest thou, America, in thy shiny car in the night?"

A Few Thoughts on the Nature of Religion

I had the opportunity this weekend to spend a lot of time with a friend of mine here, driving to the outer banks to surf. We talked about faith, mostly Christianity, for a good solid seven hours. The two of us have some different ideas regarding the interactions between God and people. It was nice talking with him because it forced me to think and to articulate some things that I have come to believe in the last five years (maybe longer, really).

One thing stands out particularly to me. He asked me, "If we were to die in a car accident right now, do you know that you would go to heaven? What assurance do you have?" I was raised in the camp that asks this question, so I knew the question; I knew the philosophy that informed the question; and I knew the answer that would be considered the right answer. But that was not the answer that I gave. I found that I couldn't answer, "I know that I would go to heaven because I asked Jesus Christ into my heart, and I have faith that the saving blood of His sacrifice covers my sin and allows me into heaven." I could not give this answer, even though I hold much of it to be true. Instead, I fumbled about a bit, trying to articulate my experience that the closer I draw to God the more I become aware of my unworthiness. But this wasn't really at the heart of what I wanted to say.

Then, the answer I wanted came to me: going to heaven is not the goal -- loving God and becoming like Him is the goal. So I told my friend that I'm not really concerned about whether or not I get into heaven. What is religion? The word itself means the reunification of God and humans, a coming together. I find that I am much more moved by the love poetry in Song of Songs than I ever was in the past. True Christianity, true religion, is an intense love between a person and God. "I am my beloved's, and he is mine." Religion is not a legal contract -- it is a burning, passionate love, a desire to be near the One you love, and a desire to become like the One you love. That is all.

I cannot talk about this adequately at all. I'm sorry. I don't mean to preach, and I certainly don't mean to criticize anyone's philosophy. Love is not the stuff of essays; it is the stuff of poetry. Leave philosophy for the philosophers and love for the lovers.

The Thusness and Suchness of a Skinny Whiteboy

I have always been a skinny whiteboy. But there have been times when I've wanted to be something else (I've never minded the boy part; it's the skinny whiteness that I've had issues with). Over the years, I've tried at various times to be less skinny and less white. This is sounding ridiculous to me as I write it down -- good; it should sound ridiculous. I composed the following haiku about it:

Does the Walking Stick
Envy the Bumble Bee?
Utter foolishness

I watched a movie last night called The Painted Veil (starring Edward Norton and Naomi Watts). It's the story of a married couple who do not love each other. It's the story of them learning to love each other. My favorite scene is one in which the couple are sitting and talking together for the first time in months: they discuss the incongruities of their relationship; she tells him how she loves games like tennis and golf -- "and I like men who play games." She laughs about the way he tried to interest her in the art and canals of Venice that were so moving to him. Then he says, "I suppose you're right. It was silly of us to look for qualities in each other which we never had." This sounds tragic, but it's actually the turning point in the film. Once they are finally able to see one another for who they truly are, they are able to begin to fall in love with a real person, rather than being frustrated by the illusions of an imagined lover who never materializes.

There is great liberation in learning to see the world as it truly is.

Poll Results

Well, the results are in for my first blog poll: as it turns out, my friends are a bunch of mama's boys and daddy's girls, just as I suspected.
Seriously, thanks to all of you who took time to answer the poll. I thought that it was a good question because I couldn't answer it myself: each of the factors that I listed have played such a crucial part in the formulation of my own identity that I would be different person than I am if any one element was removed. Apparently, it was a pretty good question because your answers were pretty evenly distributed too (although I will say I'm a little disappointed in my fellow "surfers", if you even call yourselves that -- geeze).
I do find it very interesting that the one answer that got the most response was 'parents'. It makes me think long and hard about the significance of parenthood: not only do our children become our world, we become theirs. I think we often underestimate the degree to which parents create the environment that shapes young people. It makes me think of my parents and the environment that they created for me. Specifically, it makes me think about ways in which all of the other person-shaping pieces of my past grew out of that environment: my parents raised me in a very religious home; they read to me a lot and gave me lots of books; they brought me up on a Minnesota fishing resort and in LA; my dad taught me to body-surf. I absorbed all of these things. They germinated somewhere deep inside. As an adult, I took several of these things in different directions, different from where my mom and dad have taken them, but it was they who planted the seeds.
It makes one consider the significance of parenting. Thanks y'all.

How Many People is Too Many?

I just got back from my local election place. I'm wearing my American-flag "I Voted" sticker on my lapel, as every true patriot would do. In Charlotte, all of the local issues really revolve around a central issue: growth. We are a city that is growing rapidly. People are drawn here from all over the country because, as far as cities go, Charlotte is clean and green, safe, aesthetically pleasing, and enormously community oriented. Collectively, everyone seems very enthusiastic about our growth. We are looking forward to all of the benefits that growth brings -- increased crime; increased pollution; increased congestion; loss of local character; a break-down of community. In short, it's an exciting time, kind of like watching a healthy, beautiful athlete destroy themself with steroids and human growth hormones.
So all of this has me thinking about growth, and the size limitations of a healthy human community. (Also, I've been reading some interesting essays on this topic, written by Edward Abbey in the early eighties.) When does a community outgrow itself? At what point do we say, 'This is too much. There are too many people here.'? What are the markers of healthy parameters? What factors must we consider? Natural resources seems like an obvious place to start, but what other quality-of-life issues do we look at as indicators?
I'm really looking for feedback here. Is there a fixed number of people beyond which true community as we think of it becomes, if not impossible, severely handicapped? Or do the numbers vary based on the nature of different locations?

Why I Watch Bull Riding

I tivo professional bull riding. Why? I love the psychology! Not man versus nature, or man versus beast, but man versus himself. Any of the cowboys are capable of riding any bull on any given day, physically capable. The question is whether or not the man is psychologically able to stay on the bull – can he control his own fears and his own movements for eight seconds?
Eight seconds – it’s not a long time, but it can be an eternity for a person who is in the midst of directly confronting fear.
There is something in bull riding that reminds me of surfing and kayaking. They share a fundamental element: in each sport, a person puts himself or herself in the hands of a force that is more powerful. A person cannot out-muscle a bull. A person cannot out-muscle a river. A person cannot out-muscle the ocean. There is no chance. All of these are forces beyond our control. And so each of these sports, or arts, becomes a microcosm for life – we ride along in the grips of forces more powerful than ourselves; all that we can do is learn to control our own minds and bodies so that we move with the force rather than being crushed by it.
The other thing is the absolute presence in the moment. Riding a bull, running rapids, or riding a wave, one cannot be anywhere else, cannot think of anything else; one is fully present in the moment in a very zen-like way.

“The play’s the thing”

Play is the essence of life. By ‘play’ I mean a couple of different things simultaneously. First, I mean ‘play’ in the sense that moving pieces are put into play. Life itself is composed of an endless collection of moving pieces, each one constantly at play, in flux: the ebb and flow of the tide, pulled by the orbit of the moon around our endlessly spinning planet; the rock cycle, slowly eroding, sinking below the surface, melting, being pushed upward once more; the water cycle, evaporating from the sea, raining on the mountains and plains, gathering into streams, creeks, and rivers, eventually rejoining the sea; the various life cycles of birth, reproduction and death.
Everything is moving, always, even if imperceptibly. Life is a constant flow. Yet, I think that there is something in human beings that makes us yearn to make things stable, constant, un-moving. I think that this may be a misguided desire based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the world: from a short-sighted perspective, things look solid, even permanent, things like rocks, mountains, and cities. We like permanence because it gives us a feeling of security. But perhaps we could find a more true security in learning to become part of the endless flow of life.
This is all more abstract than I was hoping for, so I’ll change directions a bit, probably into more abstraction: we need play in our lives. And here by ‘play’ I mean tension. Life is composed of one force working against another in a push and pull dance. We are accustomed to fearing tension, in relationships, in our own lives. We tend to hold harmony as an ideal, not realizing that tension is often the means to harmony. Tension – the expression of different forces engaged in honest conflict with one another. The rock directs the course of the river for years; the river smoothes the surface of the rock, changes the shape of the rock, moves the rock. In human relationships, I express myself openly and honestly, you express yourself openly and honestly; the result is tension, a tension which in turn leads to a better understanding of one another. The value of play in relationships.
The same principle applies to the conflicts inherent in the individual, conflicts of beliefs, and conflicts of desires. We long for a unity of self, a oneness of purpose and being (I think that’s a large part of the appeal of Mel Gibson’s movies, like Mad Max, in which all of the protagonists' thoughts, feelings, and desires are channeled into one unified sense of purpose – revenge). Maybe we suppress parts of our selves, block out some ideas because they conflict with our image of a cohesive identity. But maybe what we need in order to find our true identities is to allow our conflicting beliefs and desires to play against one another in order to find either resolution or harmony. Play.
The second meaning that I had in mind when I first said ‘play’ is playing, as in play time, or ‘go play outside.’ It seems to me that our increasingly competitive culture is losing the value of play. And what are we without play? We are reduced to mere functionality, servitude, mechanism. Without play, we don’t have life. Without play, we don’t have creativity (or at best, we have an anemic, stifled, pragmatic version of creativity). Without play, we don’t have joy. What are we without joy?