For Whom

I was at a meeting recently – actually about three years ago now – at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The discussion was focused on what will happen to Cuba after Castro. All of the panelists believed that post-Castro the government there will be run by the (current) dissidents. I was surprised by the agreement amongst the expert opinions on the panel, in part because it didn’t match up with my (limited) understanding of Cuban culture. More than anything, I left thinking that:

Capitalism always thinks its right; its governments job to keep Capitalism in its place.

I love capitalism. I love capitalism, but it just doesn’t solve every problem. Capitalism is not necessarily a good model for education, science, the arts, or government. The purpose of government is the service of its people. All of them. The purpose of capitalism is the service of whoever owns stuff, or wants to own stuff. This is not everybody.

Capitalism is great, in part, because it encourages efficiency. Efficiency is necessary to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. But capitalism can’t tell us how to spend our money. Capitalism isn’t an ethos, or a system of governance. The founders established a system of governance that promises we will all have the opportunity to pursue the lives we want. They didn’t promise well get the lives we want, and they didn’t specify many of the details of the economic system we should use.

Increasing opportunity for achievement is the measure of a great society. For whom does the government toil? It toils for thee. The recent G-20 summit, and the peaceful transition now occurring in Cuba, make clear that the modern U.S. interpretation of Capitalism’s relationship to government is not universal.

Post-script: 4/13/09: It’s wonderful to see that our President gets this. HuffingtonPost just reported that Obama is (simply, quietly) easing restrictions against Cuba.

Part 2 of a small series on “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. You can see Part 1 here.

All Day Every Day

I love the romance of our founding fathers. “One if by land, two if by sea”. Dressing up as native Americans and dumping tea in the harbor to protest taxes. It’s very easy to get carried away with their romantic inspirations. A perfect example is the Declaration of Independence. After asserting the reasons for creating new political bonds, and establishing the method by which such assertion is made, the Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

It’s a good line. It’s a GREAT line. But I visited Thomas Jefferson’s pad – Monticello – some time ago, and was struck by the clever way that the slave quarters were removed from view. The main house is at the top of a hill, with a wonderful view. The slave quarters are buried in tunnels on the side of the hill. When he said – when we say – that our country is dedicated to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – what are we talking about? Who are we talking about? (I’m now wandering into Con Law territory, but come with me.)


I’m guessing everyone reading this agrees with the Brown v. Board of Education decision that abolished the ‘separate but equal’ policy, which segregated schools based on race. Every child deserves the same opportunity to learn. At what point might it be appropriate to stop teaching a child math, and start teaching them a trade? How do we define – ‘the same opportunity to learn’? How do we decide what we can offer, and to whom?

I visited Philadelphia some time ago, and got to meet F’s grandfather, who has now passed. He was in a nursing home. F’s mother stated that putting him in the home allowed him to have “some kind of quality of life.” Which made me think that there is no expiration date on the promise to provide life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The inscription on the Liberty Bell reads,

“Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof”,

which is very romantic. And then you remember that most of the Founders had slaves.
‘The promise of America’ is something that each generation defines, all day, every day.

Part 1 of a small series on “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

Religious roots to the modern relationship to the body

Rene DescartesWe generally take it as a given that the body and mind are separate. Whether the reader is conscious of Descartes Cogito, or simply accepts the precepts of western medicine, the modern human is conceived (at best) alongside, but not a part of, the human body.

My upcoming book looks at how conceiving of the human as separate from the natural world influences our relationship to the environment, and the current ecological crisis. As many, I tie the human/nature divide to the development of the mind/body divide.

Chapter Three of the book looks at religious roots to the modern conception. Here are a few thoughts from the first pages of that chapter, in which I look toward the influence of Christianity, considering its roots in Greek culture.

This chapter will focus on Judaism and Christianity and how the body is regarded within those traditions. While both religions carry complex relationships to the body, this chapter will focus on sex as justifying representative and compelling conclusions regarding the body. The writings of the Jewish Kabbalah  will be considered, alongside Christian Gnostic  texts and the writings of the Apostle Paul.

These two religions have carried dominant influence in Western civilization; our modern attitudes toward the body have been shaped by their influence. It would be appropriate to offer the possibility that Christian attitudes were more influential moving into the age of science (as will be examined in the next chapter.)

Understanding how prior centuries regarded the body establishes the roots out of which grew the tree of modern science. As will be seen through this analysis of the Jewish and Christian relationship to sex, humanities relationship to the body has been troubled through-out Western history. It is this understanding which allows for accurate interpretation of the aspirational statement made in Job 19:26,  “Yet in my flesh shall I see God.” The body has been conceptualized at a distance from a moral human presence on this earth.

Many facets of Christianity grew directly from Judaism – most simply the New Testament from the Old Testament. But regarding the relationship to the body, it appears that societal influences had a stronger impact than religious precedent. The Christian mindset appears to grow from The Greek God Hera suckling baby Heracles, wth Athena just out of viewGreek conceptions of the body. The relationship between Greek and Christian understandings is exhibited broadly, including in the following from Clement of Alexandria: “the human ideal of continence, I mean that which is set forth by the Greek philosophers, teaches one to resist passion, so as not to be subservient to it, and to train the instincts to pursue rational goals. [But as Christians] our ideal is not to experience desire at all.”  While many are familiar with the celebrated sensuality of Greek culture, there was simultaneously an isolation of control over the body from within the human conception. As Gnostic writings make clear, early Christians take the isolation of the spirit, exhibited in the Greek ethos, to extremes. According to Greek scholar Jean-Pierre Vernant:

“The body is the agent and instrument of actions, powers and forces which can only deploy themselves at the price of a loss of energy, a failure, a powerlessness caused by congenital weakness.But it is always Death, in person or by delegation who sits within the intimacy of the human body like a witness to its fragility. Tied to all the nocturnal powers of confusion, to a return to the indistinct and unformed, Death, associated with the tribe of his kin – Sleep, Fatigue, Hunger, Old Age – denounces the failure, the incompleteness of a body of which neither its visible aspects nor its inner forces of desire feeling thoughts and plans are ever perfectly pure Thus for the Greeks of the archaic period, mans misfortune is not that a divine and immortal soul finds itself imprisoned in the envelope of a material and perishable body, but that his body is not fully one. It does not possess, completely and definitively, that set of powers, qualities and active virtues which bring to an individual beings existence a constant, radiant, enduring life in a pure, totally alive state, a life that is imperishable because it is free from any seed of corruption and divorced from what could, from within or without, darken, wither and annihilate it. ”

Excerpt Copyright Robert Bettmann, 2008

Greek culture related the human to the divine, through their Gods. The bodies weakness and lack of ability is what separated the human from the divine. In the revelation and development of Christianity, there are some strong similarities. In the way that the Greeks assessed their bodies as a weak link in being ‘god-like’, so too Christian Gnostics constructed the human body as separating the human from the divine.

Human Body SystemsWhile one might say that religion doesn’t have much to do with science, our modern philosophy and science grew from these early, possibly less rational, understandings. The subsequent/simultaneous dividing of the human from the ‘natural’ inevitably followed. A prior chapter documents environmental theories that consider the impact of that division. Subsequent chapters look at somatic training methodologies that validate embodied knowledge.