Debating With Myself???

In all honesty, I have no yet finished Silence, but after yesterday’s discussion, I really want to. One thing that has stuck with me and is pushing me to want to read the story is one of the ideas that was brought up yesterday in class. The thought of a conflict between loving God and loving people.

For us, this is not a battle that we face often, if ever, and it is definitely not a struggle that we think about in our culture. We, 21st Century American Christians, have probably never had to make any decision where the options are: A) defame Christ with our actions to save others who had professed a love for Him at some point, or B) do not defame Christ and let the others be tortured with no hope.

My thought is merely that I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of this choice. Which is showing more love and devotion to Christ? Yes, trampling the cross to save others seems to be pushing Christ down. However, in Matthew, Jesus said, “...as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” This leads me to think that leaving people to be tortured is also pushing Christ down.

All day, these thoughts were going around in my head and I find myself at a common point with the honors alumni who spoke yesterday. Every time I think about this, I argue points with myself and my position on the issue changes...

PS I posted on Mallory Searcy's "Apostatize..."

shoes i hope to never be in

The Priest in silence is no doubt in what we might call "a pickle." The decision he is forced to make at the end of the book is one i truly hope i never have to make. On one hand, he maintains his faith and doesn't give in to the torture, and has to live the rest of his life knowing that the other christians were killed and he could have prevented it, and on the other hand, he publicly renounces his faith but in doing so saves the lives of the other christians. Now, the debate arises of whether what he did was right or not. If we looked at the situation biblically, then it would seem that what he did was wrong. All other things excluded, he publicly committed an act of denial of his faith. I would assert though, that if it was his life that was on the line, then what he did would absolutely be wrong. As christians, we are called to value our faith in Christ above our very lives; " to live is Christ, to die is gain." An important point to make however, is that he did so on behalf of other christians, an ironically Christ like act. He took the burden of that sin upon himself to save the others. Does that make certain forms of sin permissible if it is to the end that others may live? I'm not entirely sure i would say yes. If that question were to be answered yes, then by extension, a good enough end can indeed be justified by wrong means.

On the other hand, one could easily argue that that was not the priest's place to intervene. Although it seems callous and selfish, if he were to have allowed the other christians to suffer, then he would not have denied his faith, but at the expense of others. Some would say that this would have been the right decision because his chief concern should always be maintaining Christ as the utmost purpose and priority in his life regardless of all other circumstances. But then again, this option seems like he would have been allowing others to suffer and even die only so that he could remain without that sin, a seemingly selfish act.

The central question dealt with here is this: is it right to remain without sin and in doing so cause others to suffer and even die or commit sin so that others may live?

Truth be told, i have no idea what i would do, hence the title of this post.

p.s. I commented on Mallory's

Definition of suffering

The question that we looked at concerning the priest was whether you can love Christ and watch Christians suffer? (Decisions define suffering)The priest expected suffering, but it was as if he expected it too much. Did he even know what suffering is?
   All this talk about suffering and I can't help but wonder do I even know what suffering is. Looking at Christ for example, God allowed his son to come and pay the penalty for our sin, because He loved us THAT much. Whoa! It seems to me that it is more of a thing of sacrifice. God sacrificed his son for us. Where does suffering come in to that? Well, Jesus suffered for us on the cross. It was a very brutal suffering.
  Bringing this back to the priest in Silence, he was watching Christians suffer and therefore had to make the decision on whether or not he could love Christ AND watch Christians suffer. The priest "denied himself" for a spiritual martyrdom. He sought to die, yet he sought this too much.
   So, what does it really mean to suffer? I feel like real suffering is what Christ did for us on the cross. Its the ultimate picture of him suffering for us. A martyr? Maybe yes, but it was a sacrifice Christ chose to make because he loved us so much.
   The priest's decision on whether or not you can love Christ and watch Christians suffer was more of a display of martyrdom and a sacrifice.
   I feel like I'm rambling now, I hope this makes a little sense.
  P.s i commented on Anna's "Pursuing Truth in the Most Unexpected Places"

apostatize. hard to say, harder to spell.

For me the concept of apostatizing is one that I haven't been able to move past. I mean, I understand that it is denying Christ, but at the same time- it changes nothing about the belief of the person who says it, right? I mean, I know this is the limited worldview of mine speaking, but it seems like faith is a very personal experience. Conversion, decision to follow Christ- can that ever be taken away? I mean with the Japanese, these are men and women who love Christ with all their hearts and are tortured for it, and then finally give in. Is that a reflection of their love of Christ or is that a reflection of Japanese torture methods? Is it an example of eternally not following God- or a moment of weakness when physical ability gave out?

just some thoughts.

i Commented on Maundy Thursday

Realizing LOVE

The concept of spiritual martyrdom brought up in class yesterday intrigued me. While reading Silence I continually tried to reconcile “Whoever denies me before men, I will deny him before my Father in heaven” (Matthew 10:33) and “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay day his life for his friends.” (John 15:13). However, Malory put into words a thought that had been on the tip of my tongue since the beginning of this dilemma. The only biblical precedent for sacrificing oneself for the good of others is found in Christ. He died for sinners- not just the repentant ones- all of them. Jesus was willing to risk separation from God for our salvation. I personally think his most agonizing suffering was when he was hanging on the cross, the weight of the world’s sin covering him, and God turned his face away because he could not look on our sin. “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Mark 15:34). At this point Jesus’ perfect connection with the Father was severed because God could not be in a relationship with sin. The agony embodied in this verse never fails to move me- truly this was the moment when unconditional love was realized. The priest spent the majority of his time in Japan seeing himself as the Christ-figure, a Savior, and exalting himself above the other believers because of his title. However, it wasn’t until he lost his title that he truly understood love. When he was willing to give up the symbols and appearances of religion that had constituted his faith by trampling the fumie, he was also sacrificing his knowledge of faith –all for the life others. He became like Christ when he lowered himself to the position of a sinful believer instead of a priestly martyr. Those others had already apostatized, so what was the point of risking his faith for them? This is where spiritual martyrdom comes in- Christ gave up his perfect relationship with Christ and died for those he knew would one day reject his gift of grace. This is where we see the theme that we are not saved by religious symbols but by faith. Undying, unwavering, incomprehensible faith. The priest’s faith is what gives him hope of redemption and resurrection. Although Endo doesn’t say, I think according to how the priest lived afterward, he did still have faith. “Sharing in the suffering of Christ” for the priest was not physical, rather it was mental and spiritual martyrdom of his previously held notions of religion, eclipsed by the realization of love in the figure of Christ.
“No doubt his fellow priests would condemn his act as sacrilege; but even if he was betraying them, he was not betraying his Lord. He loved him now in a different way from before. Everything that had taken place until now had been necessary to bring him to this love. ‘Even now I am the last priest in this land. But our Lord was not silent. Even if he had been silent, my life until this day would have spoken of him.’” (191 emphasis added)
P.S. commented on Anna’s “Pursuing Truth…”

Maundy Thursday

On September 25, 1992 I was baptized exactly 6 months after my birth, I had my first communion in first grade, my confirmation in 8th grade, and I still enjoy Holy Eucharist on Sunday. Although, there are major differences between the Roman Catholic faith that permeates Silence, and my own Episcopal/Anglican background I do think I really understood some of the struggles within the novel in a different way. This comes in part from the fact that I have seriously wondered some of these same questions since attending a private Bible church Christian school calls into question much of what one has always believed- but I digress.

I could write a paper about the sacraments and the beauty of the symbols, however, I will instead simply define the word, (as per Episcopalian Catechism, although I believe the definition is quite universal) "A Sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace". Let me debunk for a moment the misunderstanding that all 7 sacraments are necessary for salvation, this is impossible because one of the sacraments is ordination and one is marriage and clearly not everyone is a priest nor is everyone married.

The most beautiful picture of physical earthly representations of Christ to me is the Maundy Thursday service. At the end of this service the priest and altar guild strips the altar. In the dark during the reading of Psalm 55 every thing that would make the church look like a church is taken out. This service is supposed to incite the parishioners to imagine life without Christ and his sacrifice on the cross. As the lights raise, everyone is quiet and somber as they leave for the end of Holy week. In Silence, I believe as the stark reality of the church and Rodriguez's denial of Christ personifies the Holy Week experience both in the text of the Bible and exemplified in the liturgical worship.

PS Anglicans ARE Evangelical.

I commented on Anna's "Pursuing Truth in the Most Unexpected Places"

Pursuing Truth in the Most Unexpected Places

A new appreciation of honors has welled up in me. Never has the saying, “Pursuing the Truth, (the John 3:14 Truth) been as tangible to me as it was today. Honors always pushes me to develop a taste for great literature by reading great literature and Silence is one of those works. Over the past couple of days all my classes have tied in to my spiritual life. Verses I read in the morning were mentioned as I took notes in my afternoon class. How cool is that! The verse mentioned was Matthew 22:37-40, “Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” I wrote the verse in my journal Monday morning. I was trying to memorize it and I made up handy illustrations to go with it to help me memorize. I took it seriously enough however, little did I know it would take on a whole new meaning the next day.

You can imagine my excitement when the verse was mentioned in class today. You can also probably empathize with my disappointment as I started to understand how the verse applied to the Priest’s situation. The priest was almost caught between the two commandments. He was faced with the decision. Would he love God, and watch people die or would he, seemingly, turn away from God and love his neighbor? What a terrible situation. Eventually he chooses to trample despite the fact that he is risking eternal damnation. This of course leads you to the verse, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (Luke 15:13). As I was talking over spiritual martyrdom with Amanda I realized, oh my goodness this is the very situation Jesus was faced with. Yes, it may seem obvious and we did talk about it in class but at that moment I truly realized what the Way the Truth and the Life faced. He faced abandoning God in order for me to have a chance at a relationship with God. He faced spiritual death in order for me to spiritual life. That is heavy. That is beautiful. Keep plugging guys. We'll journey through sources and sources, and pages and pages, but it's all worth it when things suddenly make sense in the most unexpected places.

Samurai Vs. Catholics

Fuedal Japan, 1637: three Catholic priests go to the "Land of the Rising Sun" to aid the struggling converts and to investigate the defection of Jesuit missionary Christovao Ferreira. Hostile to Western influence, the samurai afflict the Catholics with brute force, while the converts are unable to do anything except suffer the evils that befall them.

It seems to me that the samurai in Endo's Silence view Catholicism the same way Americans view kudzu: as an invasive agent to be rooted out and sent back where it came from. Here, the war between samurai and Catholics is not a war of equal powers but a war of attrition to see if Japanese Christians will outlast persecution.

As history would later show, they would not. The Shimabara Rebellion would come, and Catholicism, due to its foreignness, would fail to last in the "mud swamp" of Japan (though perhaps it may one day take a new form that is more palatable to the Far East).

Click to enlarge.

EDIT: I commented on Nick Hampton's "Debating with Myself???"

Silence

I read Silence in just a few days, however there are many things that linger in my mind. I was able to look through the class and know a few people who want to go over seas into full time ministry. It really hits home. The question stands, "How can one apostatize?" Would I ever do that? It hits hard. we want to say we never would, but truth be told we will not know unless faced with that circumstance. What about the people that the priest heard screaming? The only reason they were hanging still was because he would apostatize... I pray that our faith in God would help us make the right call, I know what I pray my answer would be. What do you pray your answer would be? It is one of those things I feel like we have to decided before hand to hold to, just like purity. You have decide before you get in a relationship to stay pure. Before being in a situation where you must decided to hold to your faith or renounce it you need to know where you stand. I could keep writing because these are only a few of the many questions I actually had. However, these were the biggest one that kept my mind running.
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20
Silence is a matter of perspective...

PS -Amanda G.

Finding the Why

Although I still have not completely finished Man's Search for Meaning, the central idea that Frankl brings about is one that has resonated with me for a long time. We are made who we are by the hardships we endure. Its a curious thing, but it really seems to me that this book brings secular legitimacy to James 1:2-4 "My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing."

This is one of the hardest and most important lessons we will ever have to grasp as Christians. In some scenarios, we can take joy because we know that this temporary hardship will bring something better in the long run. However, in Frankl's situation, even that would be a stretch. I think that there are two sides of this coin. When we suffer, and the long term benefit is clear to us, then the struggle is simply to persevere through the suffering and take joy that the benefit is to come. On the other hand, when we reach those times in our lives when we genuinely dont see a light at the end of the tunnel, I would venture to say that the struggle then becomes simply to endure. In that act, in those times of absolute desperation when it seems like we're barely holding on, I believe that Frankl and James would both agree that in that act, you are strengthened more than any other time. To quote Nietzsche, it is in those times that we are driven to grasp our "why" and thus, our very meaning in life.

p.s. I commented on Susan's

Suffering and Equality

I know that everyone in the course of life is going to suffer. But are we supposed to suffer is the question. I believe that in order to truly experience life and to get the most out of it one has to suffer and suffer greatly. To not suffer would be the same as watching the KONY 2012 video and not feeling convicted or reading the crucifixion of Christ and not feeling the least guilty about a man that committed no wrong being murdered for no reason. Whether you believe that Christ is king or not you have to feel sorry about his death and the brutality of it.

Look at equality from the perspective of the Bible. Dr. Foley told this story in chapel yesterday. The one of a vineyard owner who hires some men in the morning, at noon, and in the evening. When time for payment came around he paid each the same amount. I think this is at least kind of similar to the chef in Frankl or at least that's what it made me think of.

I commented on Cody's

Why?

I cannot explain the plethora of emotions that I experienced during and after reading "Man's Search for Meaning", but I can say that I've recommended it to almost everyone who seemed remotely interested. Honestly, the biggest thing that I drew from the book wasn't a quote from Frankl, but a quite from Nietzche that he used on page 76.

"He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how."

Even though this is a very simple phrase, it just struck me deep. It got me thinking about people that I have met, and things that they have accomplished. Things that I never would have imagined possible, but they were determined because they had a "why". I thought about things that I've done that were only possible because of my "why", whatever it might have been at the time.  It also got me thinking about what my "why" currently is, and to be honest I was surprised at how long it took me to figure it out.  Of course, I'm not going to share my "why" here, because that would be too simple. Knowing my "why" might hinder the recognition of your "why", and we wouldn't want that, would we?

So what did we learn today? Secondary sources sometimes steal the spotlight? Socrates was on to something when he asked "why"? Ben is a terrible person for not sharing his "why"? All good answers. Tune in next week for the next exciting installment of "Why Me?" Starring Benjamin Folse, Evan Rachel Wood, Tim Curry, Helena Bonham Carter, Ewan McGregor and Kevin Bacon.

P.S. I commented on  Josh Spell's blog "Life is Beautiful" (Which is an AMAZING movie by the way, if you haven't seen it, you need to!)

P.P.S. I actually just recommended this book to another friend of mine while writing all of this.

Supposed to Suffer?

The night before honors, I was talking with Talmage in another class I have with him, and I made the comment that I "enjoyed" the reading. He looked at me funny in his Talmage way, eyes wide and mouth slightly agape, and said, "I can't say that I agree. I wouldn't say I enjoy this reading..." Realizing what I had said about the material, I had to backtrack. So, do not take me for one of the sadists that we read about in Frankl, but hear me out...or read me out.

I did "enjoy" the reading, or like the reading...whichever you prefer to use. I learned a lot. And after watching Twitter updates and Facebook updates, I felt like I was the only one that felt this way. Maybe I am emotionally incapable of feeling what I am reading, though I doubt this is the case. I cannot say that I suffered while reading it. Truly, it makes me sad. I see what is before me, the pictures are clearly in my mind. But it does not cripple me, it does not leave me hopeless. Yet I still felt somehow guilty that I had not suffered while reading this while so many did.

But the fact of the matter is, even Frankl writes in a way that he seems almost distant from it himself, at least emotionally. I believe this is a coping mechanism once more. I believe this book is one of his final acts of reconciling the past. He has come to the point that he can write about his experiences objectively, but I believe that is because he has approached a new meaning by the time he writes this.

I have spent a lot of time in 1 Peter here lately. He speaks on love and suffering in a big way, in ways I cannot explain, but ways I have been able to share with others. I cannot explain it, you would have to read it for yourself. But I am not hopeless, I am encouraged. Reading about the drive people had in their circumstances--circumstances I may never know, it gives me hope in a strange way. Man's Search for Meaning furthered some lessons I have been learning, not studying. And learning means something to me, far more than any amount of study will. Yes, there is a difference.

COMMENTED ON RACHEL'S

Jesuits are not to be eaten?

     I just want to start out saying I love this book. Three reasons why? Okay then, here it goes. One, it has revealed to me how "religious denominations" mean nothing. Two, I totally was thinking I was reading book about persecutions much more recent; aI was surprised to see how I could relate to people who lived further in the past. I didn't even know there were missionaries to Japan in the 1600's. Three, I love the action and thrilling pace of the book (I also love that this is something based on reality).

    Just within the reading the prologue my heart was already breaking. I felt as if I knew these people, we were close friends, and then I had to watch them die. Then as I read on I realized that these people are Catholics, Jesuits, denominations that I have never trusted( no offense to anyone). These people, these are the ones my heart is breaking for.
    I really found myself relating to Sebastian Rodrigues.  No, I'm not a monk, but I am do fill called to be a foreign missionary.  At first I was judgmental of Sebastian, thinking he's prideful and rude (especially when he complains about the potatoes). Then he talks about how he feels compassion for the Japanese, and how he is embarrassed at his weakness compared to the Christian Japanese' courage. I can easily picture myself transitioning the same way Sebastian does. So I can relate to Jesuit monk? I guess Jesuits aren't just for eating. (Candide humor)
  All and all I love this book and can't wait to finish it! I especially love that I keep turning a page, and reading something happening in the 1600's, I never knew such intense persecution of Christians existed in Japan at that time. This book keeps me reading, and I can't wait to hear discussion on it!

Man's Search for Suffering

I want to note what seems to be a recurring theme in Man's Search for Meaning. Frankl seems to be telling us that Without suffering, our lives are meaningless. We discussed that suffering accompanies meaning in our lives on Tuesday. If we do not suffer for our beliefs, then we have no meaning.

I was convicted of this when we talked about it in honors. Here we are sitting in comfy little America, watching Kony 2012 videos, and feeling like social activists by clicking 'Like' on a status. We 'support' our favorite candidates by checking a box, not getting out and promoting their cause. Maybe, if we can spare $10 a month, we might use it to feed some random child in a third-world country. At the end of the day, have we really acted upon our beliefs?

Now don't get me wrong, I do not disapprove of any of these things. In actuality, I like the fact that these things exist. I am merely pointing our that our meaning gives way to our complacency. We don't feel like taking the effort to act upon our beliefs. We have lost our passion.

I'm not going to tell you what you should do. I'm not going to tell you what should happen. You know that. It's just something I've been struggling with, not only this week, but for a long time now.

~Cody Martin~

P.S. I commented on Brittany Hilbun's post: The Just Martyr

The Just Martyr

Just taking it back to "Man's search for Meaning" I really wanted to talk again about our discussion on Martyrdom. First of all, you don't have to be murdered for what you believe in to be a Martyr. By definition, a Martyr is simply witness, and there is no greater witness to a cause then someone who dies for it. We consider these people to be revered and brave. Unfortunately, many people like to discount our zeal for the furtherance of the gospel (even to the point of death) not something special. We call Abraham a great hero of faith because he was obedient even to the point of almost killing his son. Yet, those who are not under the Christian persuasion would look at that with apaul. They would reply something along the lines of : "Well the 9/11 terrorist did what they did because they were trying to be great Knights of Faith, and they really believed what they did would give them a great reward and favor with Allah."

It is only now that I am finning to true paradigmn. Sure, these terrorist were Martyrs. He's a witness. But is he just in doing so? A Martyr in Cambodia who gets his tongue cut out and is beaten until dead because he won't stop telling people about the love of Christ is, and I say boldly a just Martyr. Can you really not see the difference? The Martyr from 9/11 willingly and intentionally took the life of thousands and thousands of people for his cause. The Martyr in Cambodia willingly let his life be taken for his cause.

Now what about Abraham? Yes, Abraham sought to willingly and intentionally cause physical harm to his son. But he did so knowing that God would provide, even if it meant raising Issac from the dead. Do you understand? He knew Issac would be okay regardless of the situation!

Unless someone can show me that the high-jakers truly believed with all their heart that all those people they murdered would be "okay" I will attest in every way that they were unjust. But, I don't see "kill all the infidels" as something to help any arguments against this.

Do I Trust the Jesuits Now?

I am interested to see where Silence will go. Not just because I like to read but because what I ‘m reading is not what I expected. I expected the book to be about persecuted missionaries in the early 1900’s or Japanese Martyrs –not Spanish Jesuits in Japan. Yes, now that I think about it, Jesuits probably did go to Japan, because they went as missionaries to many places around the world. But, because I am used to thinking of Jesuits in a bad light (The Conquest of the New World, Eat some Jesuits, etc) I was shocked to find that two Jesuits are the main character cast in a good light. They have been through a lot just to get to Japan. They are heroic figures and I am used to comical figures or enemies made out of them. I wonder where Endo will go with the book? Why does he set his story in this place? I appreciate the suspense. I am still inching around them carefully and probably over analyzing the two main characters. I Watch what they say and sometimes criticize. But I am not far enough in the book to say whether or not they are heroes in the end. I suppose I will see and, until then I will have to get adjusted to the characters.

Just to be honest in the beginning in case I sound like I have completely lost my mind, I have not read Man's Search for Meaning. I can't even say that I haven't finished it, because I haven't even touched a copy of the book.

However, despite not having read the book (because I'm guessing the summary of a wikipedia article given to me verbally before class doesn't even close to count) yesterday's class was probably the most thought provoking, potentially meaningful Honors classes I have been in, and I can't even really express in words why. What I can verbalize, though, is that the idea of the meaning of life is not something I struggle with. I know that my life's sole purpose is to honor and glorify God. The methods by which I am to do this are not always clear, but I have rest and contentment in knowing where my meaning lies. And honestly, I believe that this meaning is the ONLY meaning that will terminate the further search for meaning in one's mind, making it the only true meaning. That is not to say that work isn't important, nor is it to say that earthly relationships are not important, but there is still a level of searching when a person defines his life's purpose by one of these things.

I have wrestled with the idea that maybe my answer is too easy, and maybe there is more to it, but it kind of hit me today: it is not that the answer is too easy. The answer is too simple. It is in no way an easy answer.

P.S. commented on "What is the 'meaning of Life'".

Silence

The first chapter in Silence really creates a sort of gray whirlwind. The descriptions of the people in the overly crowded cities, the description of the christians being persecuted... It was all so grotesque and depressing. Why is it that we are not aware of these things? We don't think about it in our day today lives as we lay out on the beach, or cram for tests--but there are starving, dying people all over the world. There were people in the Holocaust who died horrible, inhumane deaths. For some reason, we are able to think about those things in the abstract and they won't affect us. Even when we see pictures, or commercials, or even movies we start to become numb. It's almost like we have to put part of ourselves in something before we can really start to struggle with it--and then ultimately care. In a way, struggling to read about Christians being tortured in Japan, struggling over the issue of simply recanting has made me come out with a true answer. It's like Talmage said about Man's Search for Meaning: don't read it unless you are willing to struggle with it. In that struggle I think we find meaning. Along the lines of what we were discussing last class, I think the meaning we derive from various struggles may not always consistently be the same thing, but in a way they feed into the greater meaning of life.

Commented on Life is Beautiful

Soup

Today, I decided to get some broccoli cheese soup. As I scooped the soup into my to-go cup I thought back to Man's Search for Meaning when Frankl discussed the cook and how he gave equally to all and how some "staff" treated some of the prisoners. I think that part of the reason everyone was so quiet on Tuesday (hopefully, had NOTHING to do with a lack of reading) was because 1. Dr. T was talking and I think everyone is a little afraid of him now since our discussion pre-SB and 2. Frankl has to be processed and digested. I find myself drawing back to the thoughts posed and reflecting further. Little things like the soup moment that could have passed completely unnoticed seem amplified. The faster we live and the more wrapped up in our selves we become the less we notice those little things and significance. Those who have been slowed and restrained often can better assess significance and meaning.

Concentration Camps and the Waste Land

My thoughts are very scattered tonight. Frankl was fascinating to me, I liked it. But I keep drawing these parallels between the Holocaust and The Waste Land because we're filming tomorrow. The fascinating thing is that Frankl seems to really believe that selflessness- or the outward focusing of the self towards something else, gives life meaning. This is true in a concentration camp- but it is also true in the Waste Land.

I play a character who imagines herself playing a game of chess, my costume includes a fur coat and pearls. And I see what Frankl means- that my life is meaningless whether in a fur coat or in a concentration camp- if i am focused on myself. T. S. Elliot would agree. "O Lord thou Pluckest me out."

I wish I could write more, but I'm cramming a paper for another class.

I commented on Adding to the Noise

Looking Into the Heart of Dark, the Silence (Od' Und Leer Das Meer)

"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being."
-Carl Jung

Due to various time constraints, this particular blog won't be as long as mine normally are, but I still have some good stuff to say. I know that the students of Brit Lit II are currently reading Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, and if you'll give me two seconds to talk about it I'll tell you it's one of my favorite books. Naturally, I've noticed some interesting parallels between that and Shusaku Endo's Silence. For starters, both protagonists, Marlowe and Rodrigues, choose to travel by water into a dangerous and hostile foreign land and rescue a former collegue that may have failed his duties and gone rogue (Kurtz and Ferriera). Their fellow seamen are strange and unsavory, and the actual waterway is dark, winding, and filled with militaristic dangers. There is a station in between their starting and ending points, where they encounter complications. There is an oppressive "ideal" regime (British King/Japanese Shogun) and the subservient savages that are acually quite misunderstood and underestimated(Congo natives/Japanese serfs). In HoD, Kurtz actually did turn rogue and became arguably more savage than the Congoese people he manipulated. I don't know if the same but opposite fate will be true of Father Ferriera, though, but I look forward to finding out.

Thank you for reading, I hope it was informative! Feel free to comment as you please, I commented on Susan Berner's The Second Phase: Relative Apathy.

The Second Phase: Relative Apathy

Frankl states in in "Man's Search For Meaning" that the second phase of a man's psychological state in a concentration camp is a sort of emotional death he called the phase of relative apathy. It's like experiencing so many emotions at once at such an extreme level that after a while, it's just too much, so instead a person can't feel anything anymore. On page 23 Frankl writes "The sufferers, the dying and the dead, became such commonplace sights to him (a prisoner) after a few weeks of camp life that they could not move him anymore." I cannot image what it would be like to see so many horrible things, and to go through so much pain that I couldn't even feel sorrow for those who were hurt, or long for my home anymore. I think it is a good thing that Frankl talks about these psychological problems people face in the concentration camps, because in all of the other stories I have heard about the physical problems and had to fill in the emotional and psychological parts for myself. However, the author of this story attacks it form a different angle in order to make people understand just a little more what it was like to be a prisoner in a concentration camp.

I commented on a blog title "What is the 'meaning of life'" but I don't know who wrote it!

Susan Berner

Just Open Your Eyes

The whole time I was reading this, the song, "Life is Beautiful" by Sixx:AM kept repeating in my head. It is, in my opinion, one of the more inspirational songs that I have ever heard. The song was written after a member of the band got addicted and one of his friends passed away from an overdose. He finally realized that life has greater meaning then sitting around and getting hooked on drugs every day. The lyrics are incredibly powerful.

"You can't quit until you try. You can't live until you die.

You can't learn to tell the truth until you learn to lie.

You can't breathe until you choke. You gotta laugh when you're the joke.

There's nothing like a funeral to make you feel alive.

Just open your eyes.

Just open your eyes and see that life is beautiful.

Would you swear on your life that no one will cry at my funeral?"

That is only the first verse and chorus. The words are true. We need to suffer in order to live. If everything was perfect then there would be no need for life. We grow and learn through our experiences. Suffering is painful and it is not easy, but there is also a sense of empowerment after the suffering has ended. Suffering will not end until we each pass into the kingdom of God where we will live eternally in Heaven where there is no suffering or pain. But our suffering and pain helps us to grow and find our purposes. It took the suffering of an entire country during September 11th for my cousin to find his calling in the army. Sometimes suffering is what pushes us to reach our full potential. I got my final push to be a veterinarian when I had to hold my beloved cat's head together in the car as we rushed to the emergency vet. It hurt me deeply to see my cat on the verge of falling into death. We do not suffer just to hurt. We suffer because we need it to help us realize the deeper meanings in life.

P.S. I commented on His Beloved's post, What is the "Meaning of life"

Adding to the Noise

>>>Finish the book before reading further; there may be spoilers.<<<

In Silence, it is noted that the hidden Christians, when found, must trample an image of Christ Himself to signify their submission to the country. Some do carry out the rejection of the image, while others take their punishment.

I have a problem with both of these actions. They are both centered around an idol. Even if they trample the idols, this is not truly trampling Christ or even His ideas.

Another thought: 1 Peter 2:20 suggests that one is to endure unjust suffering. As Christians, we are not to flee from the punishment (government/established law) nor succumb to the immorality. If we choose God over an unjust law, the law is still broken and we must hold ourselves accountable to the punishment. Even if our cause is just, we are not permitted to riot or undermine for change.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

[I commented on Joshua Spell's "Life is Beautiful."]

What is the "meaning of Life"

Frankl. Well, I actually enjoyed this. I feel the main topic of this entire reading is suffering/meaning.
 "If you do not suffer, you don't have meaning. So is our only meaning in this world to suffer? If that is the case, I WANT OUT!!! Ok, that was definitely a joke. True, we can not avoid suffering because everyone will have to go through it. It is a part of life. Some of the questions that we talked about really got me thinking. One specific question I just want to expound upon is "why would we say that meaning is not the same for everyone? Why can't "meaning of life" be defined in a general way?" We discussed that every person has a different meaning of life because we all have different goals. There is a basis from where one draws meaning. So no, every single persons "meaning of life" is not the same, we each have a different purpose, however we all have one thing in common and that is that we do have meaning. If we all had the same general meaning of life, I feel there would be no sense of hope.
   Speaking of a sense of hope, I also found the question: "Why does Frankl say that the prisoner who has lost faith in his future is doomed?" portrays meaning of life as well. If we lose faith in a future, we lose hope. If we lose hope, then we have no meaning in life. It becomes doomed. Nothing.
P.S i commented on

  

SILENCE! Night.

(I love the Achmed skit the comedian Jeff Dunham does, and I thought this title was slightly… calmer than “Silence, I kill you!”)
I was reading Silence and something that really stuck with me was how Sebastian describes the Japanese’s reception of Christianity-- I mean the common people, not the sadistic leaders. Sebastian says, “The reason our religion has penetrated this territory like water flowing into dry earth is that it has given to this group of people a human warmth they never previously knew. For the first time they have met men who treated them like human beings.” Early on in the passage, he says that the people in the village are poor farmers. I got the feeling that they had been really taken advantage of by their national leaders, and when the missionaries started coming over, they saw for the first time hope. Hope that there was someone who loved them unconditionally and who, most importantly, cared. 
That section left me wondering, is this how people feel now when we go out to minister to them? Are we bringing water to their thirsting hearts? This weekend is Cardboard City and earlier in the day UM students are going out to minister to the homeless in our area. This is such a great reading to be doing now. How many of the people we will see are in the same positions as these farmers and how many will feel hope for the first time in ages? Someone could come to know Christ just because you cared enough to sit and talk with them for a moment. In that moment, you could give them the biggest dose of kindness they've had in a long time. Food for thought.


P.S.: I commented on Rachel's "Soup"

Life is Beautiful

While reading Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl, I was reminded of a film shown to my International Studies class in high school: Life is Beautiful, the saga of Guido Orefice, a fictional Jewish man who finds purpose and meaning amidst the Holocaust's terrors.

Guido's story, though not as somber as Frankl's, is just as poignant. He observes prisoners mostly devoid of hope, but for the sake of love, he endures the concentration camp and gives hope to his wife and son, also imprisoned. It was love that drove him to go on each day, even though the pain was great.

Frankl relates a similar experience in his book:

Hiding his mouth behind his upturned collar, the man marching next to me whispered suddenly: "If our wives could see us now! I do hope they are better off in their camps and don't know what is happening to us."

That brought thoughts of my own wife to mind... But my mind clung to my wife's image, imagining it with an uncanny acuteness...  Real or not, her look was more luminous than the sun which was beginning to rise.

Like Frankl, Guido "grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and human belief have to impart: The salvation of a man is through love and in love" (Frankl 37).

Life is beautiful not because the world is pristine- indeed, it is marred with bitterness and unspeakable cruelty- but because there is a glimmer of hope in the eyes of a child, untainted in innocence, and a memory of a wife, to whom her husband once clung in hidden joy. Life is beautiful because love is found in the rough. The hint of light that shines through the darkness is reason enough to live.

EDIT: I commented on Will Drake's "Adding to the Noise."

Good Hunting

Oh how I love a good hunting story. The Bear reminds me of old hunting stories told by my grandfather in his many experiences. This story hit home to me. I hunt, and it was fun to read about the scenarios that went on throughout this part of The Bear. From the calling of the dogs to the rush that comes from hunting the game that has made a reputation of itself, not much has really changed between the 1800s and now as far as hunting goes. Sure, we have far advanced our arsenal, like scopes and cameras, but that only better captures the stories of "the big one". Stalk hunting, at its finest, can connect you with nature and with a untamed feel. This wild chase has been described by some as feeling like part of a nomadic tribe, where the hunter/gatherer philosophy was at an all time high. Needless to say, I enjoyed the Good hunting of Isaac and his companions...


p.s. I commented on jannah lyons post

    So I find myself, once again, remembering at the last minute that I have not posted my blog post. Anywho... I must confess I did not get to actually read much of 'The Bear".  However I did enjoy what little I got to read, and found the story very interesting to hear. I had some very nice classmates help me out :)

   "The Bear" seemed a bit confusing, but then again what Honor's Lit. Assignment isn't somewhat confusing? What I took from the story was that there was a man, Isaac, who did not want to take responsibility for his inheritance. That Isaac also wanted to live a life more imbedded in the natural ways, he wanted to learn to hunt and survive like the Native Americans did.  The is also this bear, Old Ben, who is like the oldest bear, the legend of the forest. Their is almost something human found in him, he's not some ordinary animal, a man must have a level of respect to even see Old Ben. There is Sam Fathers, Boon and Lion.  Through the whole story the author deals with issues of slavery, reconnecting with nature, ownership, and (from my view) responsibility.
     I think Faulkner wanted his readers to question ownership. Can humans really own anything? Can we own the land, animals, other humans, our spouses, or even our children? Why do humans feel comfort from owning things? I think through nature he wanted to show his readers, we don't have to own things, that we can live peaceably without titles or deeds. Also think that he felt we don't need modern technology to solve our problems, which is why he killed off "Old Ben" with a knife instead of a gun.
   I hope this doesn't confuse to many people myself. Does anyone else agree with me? Or offer different perspective?

P.S. commented on Rachel's post

Bear

Callie and I read and read Saturday night trying to understand the confusing work of Faulkner. Then while trying to link together Isaac's name with where it may have come from we had a small revelation. We discussed Abraham's promise land, and that as well as Isaac having an illegitimate brother and the other obvious similarities the BIG one is that Isaac's descendants receive the "Promise Land" after being slaves in Egypt for a little while (*only a couple of generations). And Ishmael does not receive the promised land. And just as quickly as the Israelites receive being to live in this new land flowing with milk and honey they find themselves being punished for neglecting to recognize who brought them to the land and who truly owns the land. This is exemplified as they are carted off to other places (Like Babylon) and then brought back to their original settlements, and today the land of Israel is still brutally fought over by the descendents of Ishmael and Isaac. What an interesting comparison between the middle east land and the land in the United States, however, it all really comes back to the question discussed in class. Can we really own land? Can we really own anything?

Sure, we can walk around with a computer believing that we own it, but how easy is it to lose the computer? Someone could steal it, it could break, but I think in a lot of ways it comforts us as humans to believe that things beyond ourselves can belong to us...

I am pretty sure that was a stream of consciousness rambling.

And I can't figure out how to spell descendents!!

Rabid Run-ons ;)

My opinion coming into class today was that I did not like Faulkner’s stream of consciousness writing because it was hard to follow, and the English language has rules about run-on sentences for a reason. However, the discussion we had in class about the reasons behind this writing style helped me to understand and appreciate it a little more. If you compare Faulkner’s style with poetry, you can see the unformed, uncontained beauty of his ideas. Poetry has some form whereas this style has none, capturing an essence of the wilderness of nature and the human brain on paper. Our brain works this way, but rarely do we write this way because it is so hard to follow. I believe that was Faulkner’s point. We aren’t supposed to know exactly what Ike thinks about all this. Faulkner doesn’t come out and tell us, he gives us the thought process behind it. We can’t follow his thought process but it definitely sparks a personal train of thought. I don’t know if you have ever written in stream of consciousness- I thought about doing it for the blog, but I knew it would be really random and incomprehensible- but it is fun. It captures an essence of humanity that otherwise goes unexplored: how the human brain doesn’t just think along one line of here and now but is constantly pulling from past experiences, senses, hearsay, knowledge, emotions, plans, dreams, to-do lists, worries, relationships, passions… all “talking” at once at any given moment about whatever topic is paramount. Some people organize their thoughts more easily than others, so they don’t notice the semi-chaos taking place in their brain. I, however, have trouble organizing my thoughts into orderly categories unless I write them down. So, the stream of consciousness method gave Faulkner a freedom to go places with his writing that would have been out of place or disjointed otherwise.
P.S. commented on Callie’s “So Much Allegory”

Language as Related to Sin and Our Sin Nature

So maybe this doesn’t exactly pertain to the discussion we had in class, but it kind of does. In class today, Dr. Mitchell made a comment about sin, and I can’t remember what that comment was at the moment, but it led to a discussion after class between Regis, Dr. Talmage, Dr. Mitchell, and I. Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Talmage are of the opinion that language is intrinsically linked to sin. I happen to agree with them.

So the question is, when does the sinful nature develop in a person? The answer, when language develops. Now this is where the theory gets interesting. When does the knowledge of language develop in a person? Is it the same time as we are held accountable for our sins? I believe that our knowledge of language develops before we held accountable for our sins. I could be VERY wrong here. But this is my opinion.

We have knowledge of language and the ability to sin long before we understand what it means to sin. I babysit a family back home with an 18 month old who, last time I was there, was not yet speaking in an understandable way. I observed her interactions with her siblings, mother, and me while I babysat her and was surprised to see that, while she couldn’t speak, she was able to sin. She could understand what we told her to do, but she chose to disobey us. Because she couldn’t speak yet, sometimes it seemed like she couldn’t understand what we told her to do, but after much observation, I saw that she could.

Children begin to understand what you are telling them much earlier than is apparent. It’s the reason babies are able to learn, and use, sign language from about the age of 6 months. So the question is: when does this knowledge of language, turn into a knowledge and awareness of our sin nature? This is a question I can’t necessarily answer. But it’s a question I shall definitely be pondering for a while.

I know this doesn’t necessarily relate to our readings or discussions in class, but I thought it posed some interesting questions. I also thought there were some interesting ideas brought up.

I will see you all in class Thursday and I hope everyone has an incredible Spring Break!

Until next time

~Meghan

P.S. Commented on Josh Spell's post Life is Beautiful

So Much Allegory

The bear is definately one of my favorite pieces of literature we have done in Honors. I love the poetic nature of Faulkner's prose.

I would like to comment on the rich allegorical nature of Faulkner's work. Every little detail with faulkner has a meaning, significance. There is no choice that is made without a reason behind it. Take for instance when Boon asked Ike for a dollar while they were in town. Ike initially was reluctant to give Boon the dollar, but then he decided to. Faulkner could have summed up the whole moment in this one sentence, but instead he goes into great length as to how Ike would not give him the dollar, but then is reminesing about some past event which changes his mind which results in him giving Boon the dollar. Everything in The Bear is like this, there is always a reason as to why something is done the way it is done, Faulkner always provides an expanation. Moreover, there is no part to the story that does not relate to Faulkner's true purpose. Even the bear's footprint fading away into the dirt is given an allegorical meaning. Faulkner speaks of this fading as a "healing," suggesting his belief that letting nature take its course is the best, the therapeudic remedy to all of the problems of the world. Moreover, this theme is continued throughout the whole work. When the Bear is killed Sam Fathers falls over and a few days later, just "quits." It is as if when Old Ben, the symbol of nature and his whole way of life dies, Sam Fathers no longer has any reason to live, or put another way, the death of the Bear sucked the life and purpose out of Sam Fathers. There is no end to the allegorical meaning that we can pull out of Go Down Moses.

PS. I commented on Joy's "Bad Title I know"

Bad title I know - Blog 6

So I finished reading the Bear and must say that it did not end the way I thought it would. The story had many details that can catch you up. I thought it was interesting though because I looked at the word healing like Dr. Abernathy said and it is not the same type of healing we would think of. The tree had decayed into the ground and the tin can had been covered with what was natural. The end of this story was a bit boring compared to the start. Not to mention everyone is dying and going slightly mental. I actually liked chapter 4 despite its tediousness. Overall it was an alright story. I just hope I am ready for this quiz! See you guys on Tuesday.

PS - Amanda G

Moral of the story: get pumped about heaven

I know my post last week was about The Hedge, but there are a few other ideas that I've been thinking about that might make more sense to me if I put them in writing. I understand that the reading was not necessarily a Christian allegory, but for my purposes, it will be.

The question we were asked at the end of class is really what got me thinking about this idea. "Would you be happy on the other side of the hedge?" When I first thought about this, my answer was indefinitely yes. However, if I get down to some of the details about that situation, my answer becomes a little foggy.

The garden, in this case representative of the garden of eden or of heaven, was characterized more than anything by its lack of progress or even purpose. The road began in the garden and ended in it, and was seen as altogether pointless because of that. However, there are several questions I began to struggle with when I thought about if I would be happy in the garden or not. Its true that in the garden, all the struggle, pain, and hardship of striving to progress would not exist, but is that because it is a better place or simply because those within do not strive for such ends?

To answer this, I think that both are true. Because of that, I think an interesting perspective to take on this reading was that Forster was making an allegory about the human perception of heaven. As Christians, we sometimes doubt that heaven will be all it's made out to be. We see this possibility of the rest of eternity spent with God, and, I'm ashamed to admit, we can only focus on the fact that its just a really long time and that anything, no matter how amazing, can get old after too long.

I know that sounds really bad so I'll try and wrap this up. Like I said when talking about Heidegger, I think our problem is our perception. We are only humans and thus can only grasp things within our understanding. It would make sense then, that a concept like an eternity with and infinitely loving and wise God would be far beyond our understanding. This sounds almost like a cop-out, but I believe we sometimes doubt whether or not we would like it on the other side of the hedge, or whether heaven will be that great, simply because we truly can't comprehend the possibility that it will be infinitely greater than anything we could imagine. Knowing that, the whole argument pretty much becomes moot. Once we get to the other side of the hedge, we'll know what we've been missing, and God will have been right all along.

ps i commented on Amanda's

Oh hey, Faulkner. We meet again.

My first encounter with Faulkner in As I Lay Dying was less than pleasant. The Bear was a little more BEARable, but not by much.

I didn't really get much out of this reading besides man's attempt to control nature. Then once nature is conquered, we realize it was not our's to conquer in the first place. Isaac (and Faulkner) follow the Native American ideology about land ownership and respect for nature. Old Ben was majestic and powerful and seemed to have authority over all nature. Isaac had opportunities to kill Old Ben but didn't because he respected him.The hunters even seemed to think they had an understanding with him, as if they could negotiate with a bear!  Isaac believed that nature was for the benefit of everyone and should not be owned by any one person, and hunting Old Ben with the intention to kill was an attempt to own and conquer him.

Commented on Lane's

The Bear...

"He seemed to see it entire with a child’s complete divination before he ever laid eyes on either—the doomed wilderness whose edges were being constantly and punily gnawed at by men with axes and plows who feared it because it was wilderness, men myriad and nameless even to one another in the land where the old bear had earned a name, through which ran not even a mortal animal but an anachronism, indomitable and invincible, out of an old dead time, a phantom, epitome and apotheosis of the old wild life at which the puny humans swarmed and hacked in a fury of abhorrence and fear, like pygmies about the ankles of a drowsing elephant: the old bear solitary, indomitable and alone, widowered, childless, and absolved of mortality—old Priam reft of his old wife and having outlived all his sons."

I think this passage really goes along with the theme of our recent discussions. In the allegory 'The Other Side of the Hedge,' there is a stark contrast between the road of progress and the garden of tranquility. Faulkner likewise contrasts the 'men with axes and plows who feared it because it was wilderness,' with the raw power and mystery of the bear. Though it almost sounds like Faulkner is a hippy at first glance, one can see that he is getting at the real beauty of the earth, the original intent of and power of wilderness. It's as if he is ok and is promoting the wilderness. Both Faulkner and Forster seem to have similar stances on progress, they perhaps have a different view of the alternative. Forster's garden is vastly different from the kind of forest Faulkner portrays.

So I would like to offer the difference between the road, the garden, and the forest; I call forest.

--Commented on Tori's, yo.

Is the "Grass" Really "Greener"???

Would you be happy on the other side of the hedge? This is question that I thought about for a couple days after discussing Forster’s story in class last week.

To answer this question, I look at our society today and see that the people in it would probably never be satisfied on either side of the hedge. On one side, Forster shows people running a rat race to try and find something great at the end of the road only to never get anywhere which would make people of our day extremely disappointed. After crossing through the hedge, we see people who are stagnant and never get anything done. These people seem happy and relaxed, but this also would not be an acceptable lifestyle in our postmodern time.

Therefore, no matter what side someone from our day is on, chances are, they would not be thrilled with either option.

PS I commented on Cameron White’s “Isn’t It Ironic”

Through the Hedge, the Moat and onto....

      GAS PRICES ARE STUPID! That is why the narrator left the Road! Well not really, but I just needed to get that off my chest.
      So anyways from the reading, I got that the Road represented life, our fast-paced self absorbed life. The Hedge in a way represented Christ, and the Moat represented Baptism. However to me the other side of the hedge, represents heaven in a way. It seems perfect and endless, also time stops there. The pedometer the narrator carries cannot work on the other side of the hedge.
      My question is does the other side of the hedge represent the garden of Eden or heaven? I know that it represents where man first started off. It is the origins of mankind, our urge to 'walk' represents some downfall. We leave 'paradise' the walk a road which never ends, it continually loops and doubles over. We leave a lush green land of plenty, for a dusty dry burdensome road. We yearn for our own discovery, only to discover what we left behind.
   Maybe this is confusing but this is some of what I got out of it.

To Narnia!!!! Through That Hedge!!!

Was I the only one who thought a little bit about Narnia when the narrator was going through the hedge? Pushing through the coats that turn into trees to get to the back of the wardrobe. Pushing through the branches to get through the hedge. I'm just saying I see a little similarity there. Then when they both get through to where they're going they find lands that are the exact opposite of where they are. After being pulled out of the water the narrator finds himself in a fertile green land opposite of the dusty cement sidewalk he was on before. Lucy finds herself in a land of ice and snow that is the opposite of the green lands that she was living in before. The man finds himself having to adjust to people not constantly being in competition with each other while Lucy has to learn to deal with talking animals. There is no direct correlation from one to the other at all but I thought they did share a little in common in a strange way so I thought I would share it with everyone.

I commented on Justin's post

.................

I almost always end up doing my blogs on the class discussion we have, but I do want to talk about The Other Side of the Hedge. I liked that there were some sort of Biblical illusions that where possible, with the garden being much like The Garden of Eden. I guess what I took out of it was that it wasn’t necessarily supposed to be strictly Biblical, but that it had those elements without that being its sole purpose. I think the main focus is the idea of progress and how it’s this never ending cycle. Humankind can’t really escape this need to continually progress, and that’s what the narrator proves when he returns back to the road. In the garden there is no progress and that’s why when he enters his pedometer stops because there is no real progress to track. There is mention that there was a gun that someone brought in and it wouldn’t work, and I thought it possible that it was meant to subtly reference the same concept that progress can’t be made in the garden. What I’m getting at is when you shoot a gun there’s an end and a purpose to it and I think that’s why it won’t work there. That’s just my take on what happened.

The Bear is hard for me to follow, I’m not opposed to hunting by any means but I don’t fully understand the lingo. With its whole hunting theme it’s just not my cup of tea, I first started it and I was reminded of reading The Nick Adams Stories in high school and I absolutely hated that semester of English where we read all these hunting, fishing, stereo- typically masculine stories that, might I add, had very few female characters at all. Sorry to go off about Nick Adams but I really hated that little unit we did… just know I have a very serious nickname for them that I shall not say here.

-commented on Meghans

I loved our discussion about The Hedge and how Ms. Bear discussed the allegories that lie within it. The irony of how we can search our entire lives for something "more" and when we find what it is we think we are looking for, we realize it still isn't enough. The fact that we have a desire to search endlessly instead of being content is, in my opinion, the definition of original sin. When we sin, it is our way of saying that we are not content with the way our lives are at the present. The desire for contentment can only be satisfied through a relationship with God, and those who are inside of the Hedge seem to be realizing this, while those on the outside constantly run to find more and more of nothing. If we could find contentment with what God has given us, we could live our lives with a more definite purpose and sense of joy. I think that living with joy and contentment is really how God created us to be, and that we have perverted this is the ultimate sin.

P.S. posted on Cameron White's

Going On a Bear Hunt!

    I have to be honest, I didn't really like “The Bear” (not “The Bear” as in  Dr. Bear who is quite cool, but the “The Bear” as in the reading by W. Faulkner which is not-so-cool). After a few pages, it started to remind me of when I had to read The Call of the Wild in 9th grade: extremely boring and reminding me of the other more interesting things I’d rather be reading, like The Hunger Games! So instead of typing about surviving in the wilderness, I’m going to type about No Exit, which I thoroughly enjoyed! 
I think I mentioned in a previous blog how I like it when things from different areas of my life line up with something I learned in a class. Last Sunday at North Mobile, Pastor Ed started talking about how we are always looking for something else to fill the void that only God can fill. That made me think about when we were discussing “No Exit”. How each of the three people were looking for someone to affirm what they had done while they were alive. They were all looking for someone to tell them that they mattered even though they were dead. The pastor said that unless you are profoundly sure of your own worth, you will always be looking for someone or something to affirm you. The only way to gain that certainty is through the love of God. I know that Sartes probably wasn’t a Christian, but I think he’s kind of opening his readers mind to a greater truth. It is impossible to find your true worth through human beings or actions. It’s like Inez said to Estelle, “Suppose the mirror started telling lies?” You could never truly trust another human to tell you of the true you. The only One who could do that is the one who built the model and wrote the manual-- the Creator. Sort of feels like I’m rambling, but that’s what was on my mind tonight.


P.S.: I commented on Jamie's "The Road vs. The Other Side"

Seeing God in The Bear, at Least in My Mind.

“Because he recognised now what he had smelled in the huddled dogs and tasted in his own saliva, recognised fear as a boy, a youth, recognizes the existence of love and passion and experience which is his heritage but not yet his patrimony, from entering by chance the presence or perhaps merely the bedroom of a woman who has loved and been loved by many men. So I will have to see him, he thought, without dread or even hope. I will have to look at him.”

Originally I had thought to focus on Faulkner’s use of descriptive words in The Bear, of which there are many, since I spent all night last night writing about descriptive words in poetry. But then, this passage caught my attention, and stuck with me. The emotion he seems to be experiencing me, reminds me of the emotions we experience when we as Christians think about meeting God. It seems that he is yearning to see the bear, even if he isn’t going to kill it. It’s almost an obsession with seeing the majesty of the creature.

It’s the same with us and God. We long to see God, and yet we fear Him because His majesty is more than we can comprehend. Yet, like and unlike the boy, when we think about seeing God there is no dread, but there is hope. We hope for something we know nothing about, we hope to see our creator. The boy made the decision that he HAD to see the bear, but there was no assurance he would. We as Christians know that we WILL see God one day since we have accepted the gift He gave us by sending His Son to die for us.

I realize that this is probably not what Faulkner was trying to get at with that passage, but these are the thoughts that popped into my head when I read the passage, and they refused to leave me alone. I’m looking forward to discussing this tomorrow, because this is a very intriguing story that will be fun to delve into.

Until next time,

~Meghan

P.S. I commented on Will’s post “Control”

Control

While there is a plethora of meanings in "The Bear," one seems especially important. Faulkner places an evident difference between the narrator's thoughts when living in nature and when observing man's creations. In this passage, he is experiencing nature:

The boy listened, to no ringing chorus strong and fast on a free scent but a moiling yapping an octave too high and with something more than indecision and even abjectness in it which he could not yet recognise, reluctant, not even moving very fast, taking a long time to pass out of hearing, leaving even then in the air that echo of thin and almost human hysteria, abject, no sense of a fleeing unseen smoke-colored shape.

(Chapter 1)

This is one long sentence. He uses this style quite often, but it definitely in stark contrast to the form used when addressing the human accounts and records in chapter 4. It is also an obvious difference when compared to the dialogue so often used between human characters. This parallels the issue of human control that Faulkner is driving at throughout the short story. Humans desire to cut down and dissect nature in order to control it.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

P.S. Commented on Hunter's "William Faulkner's Sausage Festival!"

"BIG" "FAT" "UGLY" BEAR

I am not really up for the challenge to decipher meaning behind "The Bear", in fact I have to be honest I did do a little internet research to help me understand exactly what this bear thing is all about. And after all that internet research I can't say that I am a whole lot more ready for understanding Faulkner. I felt a lot like I was running through thick sticky mud. It wasn't that it was so unpleasant to read as much as it is a thick and murky and sticky and there is a lot of it. Further, I find/found (my tenses are getting CRAZY) it hard to draw conclusions after reading this piece. However, I suppose everyone who made an attempt at reading "The Bear" this week would really understand and begin to wonder if I am not just writing nonsensical phrases so as to lengthen my blog post....OR to make Hunter laugh. But you are all wrong, I am using this extremely long introduction to think about what I am really going to write about-

I have never had a desire to hunt. My sister likes to shoot things. I think this in some ways is due to some sort of teen angst that I missed out on, but none the less her and my father share a kindred enjoyment of guns and such. In Faulkner's "The Bear" hunting is pivotal. The characters are only explored during their time hunting. The "narrator" begins very young and progresses into a young man. I believe Faulkner uses this common avenue to paint a vivid picture of simplistic life which as the years pass on becomes more and more modern. In some ways the reason they are able to kill the Bear is because there isn't room left in the world for such a tall majestic unknown. In some ways our culture has knowledge at its fingertips and we no longer marvel at the majesty of the unknown.

I commented on "The Road" by Mallory Searcy

It's always a little hard to blog when there hasn't been a class discussion but I will try!

Despite all the hunting lingo in "The Bear" I have really enjoyed it. When I say enjoyed it I mean I was pretty much biting my fingers during the part when they finally catch the bear and all the drama therein.

That being said- I'm not sure how to respond as far as the literary sociological significance at this point. This definitely seems to be one of Faulkner's cleaner readings in my experience with him. In addition to that experience, he seems to be interested in the human phychi and what the interaction with humans (or lack there of) seems to do to someone.

One interesting thing I noticed was the interracial relationships that were displayed. This seemed like this would have not been common and also, it was hard for me to distinguish who was who. To me, all of the characters treated each other well. Knowing that Faulkner was a white man who spent a good portion of his life in Mississippi, which as we know is where a lot of oppression to our black brothers took place, it is surprising to see the black men of the story in such a equal and positive light.

commented on Rachel's

Isn't it Ironic??

Before I say my peace about "The Other Side of the Hedge", I would like to give a shout-out to Ms. Bethany Bear for leading us in a very productive and thoughtful class discussion. It would be poor desicion and lack of vision to not have her on board as one of the Lit. Professors. Kudos, Ms. BB.

As far as the text goes, I noticed something about it that I didn't the first time I read it. Isn't it ironic how the turn of events played out for the narrator? He starts off by giving us the impression that he was happy that he did not end up like his brother. He claims to have walked more wisely. The idea to notice here is how the rest of the story plays out. When the narrator gets to the other side of the hedge, he continually sees the people of the other side singing. The fact that there was a man to help him through this new area for most of the remainder of the story leads me to wonder if this was intentional of Forster. Then at the end, we notice that the narrator is being aided by the very person he went left behind in pursuit of a "wiser" travel, his brother...

p.s. I commented on Susan's Life on the Road.

William Faulkner's Sausage Festival!

"Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood."
-George S. Patton

As of this moment, not a single person has commented on William Faulkner's The Bear so I guess that duty falls to me. Yes, duty, now that is the appropriate word, isn't it? For those of you who have actually been reading this piece, masculinity is front and center for the entire duration of the piece. Maybe I've been misreading it, but I have barely seen an ounce of feminimity in the entire story, and with good reason. The story is about a boy being instructed on how to hunt-that's the story on its most basic level. He learns to go to the tree stand on his own, how to handle a gun, what not to do in the woods, etc. He also learns about the various creatures that live in the woods that the protagonists call home and the dogs they use to help them hunt. But of course, that's just the surface level-what I see is all about what it means to be a man and the measure of a man. Of course, what the heck is that even supposed to mean anymore?

Consider what the current perceptions of manhood are. TV shows portray a man as either a business and pleasure minded scoundrel (Mad Men) or, on the opposite, completely lame and spineless (Samantha Who?). There's the infamous commercial for Dr. Pepper 10 in which a group of militant men race through an action packed jungle talking about how manly their drink is and end the commercial with the words "Dr. Pepper 10-it's not for women!" as though manhood is some exclusive club. Manhood is equally dividied musically, with thugs and sex fiends on one end and more courageous and selfless heroes on the other. What is the measure of a man?

The main way that Faulkner expresses masculinity is through his language. It's very dry but very descriptive, and he doesn't skip on a lot of details. To me his writing style is like an old leather bomber jacket-wrinkly, smells funny, durable, and many stories to tell. It will never fail you, it is always dependable, and there is a strong, silent dignity about it that's hard to replace. That also serves to describe Sam and the hunters that teach Ike in the story. They're battle hardened, they're capable, and what drives them the most is a sense of duty. They want to teach Ike how to hunt so he can carry on the tradition. They want to protect the land and follow its rules because it's their home. There's no need for romantic or soft-spoken language in here, because the men in this story don't hold Ike's hand when they're teaching him to hunt, but they are determined to make sure he follows through, because that's duty. If loyalty is the Biblical hallmark of womanhood, duty is the likewise hallmark of manhood, and though Faulkner may not be writing with that specifically in mind, the prose speaks the truth.

Thank you for reading, feel free to comment as you please. I commented on Anna Rhodes' Let's Go Off-Road!

Let's Go Off-Road!

History goes through time in waves. Ideas enter the general consciousness one minute and in the next they are gone. Progress is one of those ideas and is the central focal point in Forester’s Over the Hedge. One aspect of the poem that struck me was the main character’s mind-set of progress. He almost seemed brainwashed. He felt that he must continue to move on. He only stopped walking because he was so tired; his stopping was “shocking” to him. Lost of all motivation he laid on the ground praying that he might give up. He could not seem to give up, but there was something inside of him that wanted to. Once he was in the garden, he still did not want to give in. It was not until the very end when he took a drink from the garden, that he finally accepted the idea of life off the road. This is pivotal. The character not only turned away from the never stopping mindset of the road, he was faced the new idea of success found in the garden that he could choose to accept of refuse. In the garden something is worthy just because it is. The traveler was faced with the decision to stay on the road, which he was familiar with, or stay in the garden with a new idea of success to get adjusted to.

The allegory reminds me so much of our world today. We are constantly moving forward, yet we don’t seem to understand those who aren’t moving according to the idea we have of success. The daughter who has to stay home and take care of her sick mother—is she successful according to the road? People like her are those who aren’t on the road. Does that mean she is not successful? What would those on the road think about her? And what would the garden people say?

This leads me to the question: What is my definition of success? What makes life successful? It’s easy for those of us living in the real world today to get caught up in the hype and dust of the road until we find ourselves at the Hedge too.

P.S. I commented on Callie's Blog

just call me indecisive... but not really ;)

I really enjoyed our discussion in class on Thursday about The Other Side of the Hedge. Ms. Bear asked us to think whether we would rather be on the road or inside the hedge, but I don’t think I could choose. I don’t want either! Obviously, the hedge is more restful but there isn’t any direction to life. On the other hand, the road just leads in circles and you are constantly striving to an unknown goal. The road, after seeing that it leads nowhere, is really not an option. However, if we didn’t know that it was an unrewarding path of futility, I think many of us would choose the road. It has been ingrained in us to work for something, anything, and everything. Perhaps that’s why some people have a problem overcoming pride to accept salvation- they are still trying in some way to work for it, or to make God love them more.
In the poem, it also speaks of the hedge as a barrier. I think many people lose the joy and peace of salvation because they start looking at all the rules, and faith becomes legalistic and a list of what you can and can’t do. Yes there are rules, but when you desire God before anything else, then doing right isn’t something you have to think about, it’s a natural overflow of the heart. In this way, the hedge shouldn’t begin to feel like a prison, because it’s what you want to do- not what you have to do.
On a final note… I liked Ms. Bear. I do not like “The Bear.” I couldn’t find anything to blog about with that... and the run-on sentences are driving me crazy! Ok, I’ll be done with that rant and this blog so I can get back to reading… Class tomorrow should be fun :)
P.S. Commented on Mallory’s The Road
*my comment explains further why I wouldn’t choose either of Forster’s options

Life on the Road

In E.M. Foster's The Other Side of the Hedge the man on the road mentions his brother in the very beginning. He says, "At first I thought I was going to be like my brother, whom I had had to leave by the roadside a year or two round the corner. He had wasted his breath on singing, and his strength on helping others. But I had traveled more wisely, and now it was only the monotony of the highway that oppressed me." This quote got me thinking, what kind of horrible world would I live in if helping someone in need was considered a weakness, and expressing joy through singing was frowned upon. Then I thought, it's that sort of the opinion that the world is headed to now? While there is still good in the world, there seems to be a lot more bad. In a lot of ways we are already like the people running around along a road that leads to goodness knows where. Fortunately, that is hope that for Christians that one day they will get to the other side.

I commented on Jamie Kilpatricks's post

Road Vs. The Other Side

Would I rather live on the road, or the other side of the hedge? I have been wondering for a while now. I'm a science girl. I love looking for answers and finding new ways to do things, so at first it would seem only logical that the road is where I belong. Could I ever be truly happy in a world where there is nothing to accomplish and nothing to discover? The more I thought about it though, the more that I was sure that, if faced with the decision, I would most definitely choose to live on the other side. Maybe I'm crazy, but I honestly think that I would be happy. The idea of living in a place where I didn't have to worry about success is really appealing to me. To look over and see a boy running just for the sake of wanting to run or to hear a woman sing just for the sake of wanting to sing is an amazing thought to me. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but the other side of the hedge sounds pretty good to me.

p.s. Commented on Callie's "Man's Search for Meaning... in a Hedge"

The Road

At breakfast this morning my youngest brother told me about the allegory he is studying in his English class. I told him we just studied a little bit of allegory in Honors but I don't like it. Then i realized, I was probably making a general statement about Allegory when what i really meant was "I don't want to live on either side of the Hedge."

At the end of class on thursday, Ms. Bear asked us to think about which side of the Hedge we would want to live on. I still contend with what Will Drake said in class, that our culture has trained us for the Road and we would be unsatisfied through the Hedge. But i also think that i wouldn't want to live on the road either. I drew an example of what i imagine the road and the other side of the hedge look like, but it was in Mac's equivalent of Microsoft paint, so I don't know how pretty it is. Regardless, the point of the illustration is that it is a terrible, mindless circle. There really isn't any point on either side of it. There has to be something higher, something more, something Other Than. Otherwise, it doesn't much matter which side we are on. We either sit and do nothing, or we run and do nothing. sounds fairly miserable to me.

ps- i also added the moat (in blue) for good measure.

I commented on amanda gaster's blog:)

Man's Search for Meaning...in a Hedge

In The Other Side of the Hedge, Forster really presented an interesting worldview. Those "of the road," though they sought something greater and better, were really getting nowhere. There whole idea of progress was just an illusion in which they were trapped. However, the life on the other side of the hedge does not look much more appealing than the first. The people just sleep under the stars, living a simple life like "cattle." They are simply Being, and with this they are quite content. The problem that the main character had with life "on the other side of the hedge" is that it is not going anywhere. The people are content with life as is and thus they are not seeking greater ideals or improvement. Also, in class we discussed how one might think life on this side of the hedge rather boring.

I find this view of the other side of the hedge to be very interesting. Man constantly searches throughout his entire life for meaning, purpose, something greater. There is constantly talk of the gods, and of utopias and heaven - a place where we will all be content and satisfied with life "as is." However, when we actually see such a society drawn, such as Forster's "other side of the hedge" we automatically begin to look down upon it. The people to us seem ignorant for not wanting to advance their position in life; we have fears of the boredom that must be present in such a place. Why such a great contradiction? It would seem that there is a great conflict within man as to where meaning/ contentment lie.. for he would like to be content with life as is, but on the other he feels that meaning cannot be found where he is but only as the product of hard work.

I commented on Joy's Reminiscence of Thurs