dear miss n. thrope:

i had a conversation last week about misanthropy that has resonated with me. a handful of my dearest friends voluntarily describe themselves as misanthropes, but i must admit that i don't necessarily buy into their seemingly candid self-analysis. this is not due to a distrust of my friends' judgement or awareness of themselves, but rather, the fact that the contrary is evidenced by their behavior... as well as their apparent tolerance of mine. i would call myself an anti-misanthrope. pollyannaish? no. panglossian? no. optimistic? not exactly. my standpoint is misunderstood so frequently that i feel the need to indulge myself...

Misanthropy is a general dislike, distrust, or hatred of the human species, or a
disposition to dislike and/or distrust other people. The term is also applicable to those who self-exile themselves or become loners because of the aforementioned feelings. The word comes from the Greek words for "hatred" and "man, human being". A misanthrope or misanthropist is a person who dislikes or distrusts humanity as a general rule.

so, i can read this definition and understand it. but the question that springs to my mind is 'why?' ultimately, the active and deliberate abhorrence of humanity seems like a terrible waste of energy. however, to take it one step further, it implies judgement. one may infer that in order to cast a definitive and condemning judgement on humanity, one must place him or herself in a position of opposition. and who really has the perspective to fairly do so? who really has the right? is this arrogance in the supreme?

we don't really need to reiterate the atrocities perpetrated by the human race, nor the terrible situations that occur daily...in our homes, our classrooms, our offices, or on the street outside. we don't really need the evening news to drive home the point that we're typically more interested in hearing about the armed robbery that occurred than the random act of kindness that saved someone's life. obviously, a misanthropic attitude is easily perpetuated.

but to me, there's a distinction that must be made between a condemnation of human nature and the recognition of humanity's potential and its capabilities- both good and bad. i do not condone the optimistic dismissal of our faults and negative tendencies, but i would prefer to live in a world in which they were not accepted as the status quo. i have seen, experienced, and learned enough about the reality of the world to know i would rather embrace the positive characteristics we possess as a species.

broadly speaking, in embracing a misanthropic attitude, what reason do we ultimately have to care about anyone? if we are all varying degrees of miserable, what motivation exists for us to strive towards something better? and where is our inspiration? indeed, we would be fighting NATURE. (involving religion inevitably complicates the issue, but this strikes me as an infuriatingly augustinian ethos. it is interesting that among my 'misanthropic' friends, i know only one who actively prescribes to the christian faith. so, if not saved through god's grace from a sinful predisposition, then by who? or what?)

furthermore, if we accept that we are all burdened with a flawed nature, where does that leave us as individuals? if not in an opposing position of judgement, where does the lone misanthrope fit into the picture? how does the individual escape the curse? and if they do not, what renders them capable of rationally judging humanity as a whole, since he or she is included within that whole? as a result, this seems to be a ridiculously solipsistic philosophy. (of course, i suppose the reverse may also be true.) yet, the point is that we suddenly find ourselves trapped within a self-perpetuated, incentive-less hell.

following this line of reasoning, the misanthropic attitude undermines our respect for the human condition. this, to me, is key. if our empathy for others is tempered by our distrust, how does that affect our own behavior? under extreme circumstances, how much easier is it to pull a trigger? to cheat on your taxes? to lie to your spouse? how can the distrusting be trustworthy? and vice versa. again, it's self-perpetuating...until it spirals out of control. and then, with this denigration of humanity, why must we ask how we've been conditioned to value the morbid and sensational over what we dismiss as hallmark sentimentality, the earnest? we are like the romans at the coliseum... and who can blame the religious fanatics for their frantic search for a savior.

to put it simply, i think that's a pretty miserable idea. (and the more i think about these things, the more i sheepishly realize that i am only scratching the surface of any meaningful discussion on the subject.) i suppose that i am some breed of humanist (albeit in my limited comprehension of the term). i'd like to think i possess a respect for the human condition in its breadth: our triumphs, as well as our failings. but more importantly, i have FAITH in humanity, though not necessarily with any certainty or expectation that it is on the right course. above all, i have faith in the ACT of hoping for something better, for i believe that, more often than not, it will yield a positive influence... though no promise of results. i believe in personal atonement through progress- to me, analytical observation is far more productive than judgement. why not own our flaws and move on with the intention of growth? luxuriating in a distaste for others seems myopic, selfish, and short-sighted... and ultimately to the greatest detriment of those who prescribe.

in my 28 years, my outlook on human nature has changed very little, despite the barrage of evidence to erode my faith. i do not presume to take credit for character traits i have inherited or those embedded in my makeup by my parents- surely, both have played a significant role in my development. still, i have never been capable of holding a grudge for very long, for i find that it takes more concentration and energy than is reasonable... and in my experience, more than the act of forgiveness. the act of tenaciously clinging to a grudge implies that i count myself innocent of perpetrating whichever transgressions have been inflicted upon me. and in some instances, that may be true, but i am certainly not blameless- and who am i (or anyone for that matter) to assign a value to pain and suffering? yes, this attitude certainly renders a person vulnerable in a variety of ways, but the choice to forgive should be made with one's eyes open. the simple act of looking inward and empathizing teaches us far more about ourselves than the decision to condemn... and regardless of whether the result is ideal, the lesson nonetheless remains. in either case, i submit to you that the unexpected gifts and lessons (not to mention friendships) are often well-worth the risks.

i think i know my friends. i may not fully understand what they mean when they call themselves misanthropes...but i KNOW they don't practice this variety of misanthropy. so, the next time you're around me and someone makes that claim, i'll be the one grinning....and clapping my hands in anticipation of tinkerbell getting her wings!

the rainbow connection

rainbows. on wednesday, i was having a very bad day. no, it wasn't due to humberto and the impending deluge...other things were weighing on my mind.

so, i drove home with the expectation of a quiet evening on the couch to calm my nerves, and on the ride homeward, the clouds had parted in one corner of the sky to reveal a rainbow. and i think to myself, 'how can i be in a bad mood or feel sorry myself when i see something like this?'

how can a rainbow suddenly lift my mood? how can the appearance of the rainbow not put a smile on someone's face? why is this?

is it because it happens so rarely? is it because it is beautiful? a natural phenomenon? or is it what rainbows represent? or is it perhaps a reminder of a simpler time in our lives...when we doodled rainbows and suns and birds and hearts with big crayola crayons? (i was just coloring rainbows, per her request, with my dear 5 year-old niece a week ago.)

so, having just looked 'up 'rainbow' via wikipedia, i read:

In Greek mythology, the rainbow was considered to be a path made by a messenger (Iris) between Earth and Heaven.

In Christian and Jewish scripture, the rainbow is interpreted as a sign of the covenant between God and man, and the biblical God's promise to Noah that he would never again flood the entire Earth.

Historically, a rainbow flag was used in the German Peasants' War in the 16th century as a sign of a new era, of hope and of social change.

just what i imagined. it only makes sense that people have associated rainbows with heaven. but why? because they were once unexplainable and thus, attributed to the divine? because they are in the sky? i don't really think so. i see them and it's a different feeling that stirs in my breast...

faith.

when i see a rainbow, i think of faith. i think of my faith. faith not only in the divine, but faith in people...in situations...in things like love and goodness and truth. how can i be a realist (and periodically, a closet cynic) and yet, have so much faith in my life?

when people ask me about my favorite movie, i can say, without a doubt, that it is 'contact.' they are sometimes baffled by my answer as a thespian, as it is not known for being particularly artful. and then, after a moment's thought, they figure it is because of the sci-fi connection...which admittedly, plays a part. but i love that movie because it is about faith. it is about believing something so profoundly in your heart that you KNOW it to be true. to know god exists. to know aliens exist. to know you don't know everything. to know you could be wrong...but that it doesn't matter, because the act of having faith and expressing faith is quite possibly enough in and of itself.

so often, we allow ourselves to be swayed by the everyday trials...the routine...as well as by our fears, our jealousies, our petty concerns. how often are we stopped in our tracks by true expressions of faith?

i was watching the movie 'pay it foward' a little earlier. and dismiss it as sentimental or preachy if you must, but it illustrates such a wonderful idea. the concept is so simple and yet, so profoundly beautiful. to have faith in change. to have faith in people and to make an act in the good faith that the effort, the love, and the generosity will not stop with you. utopian? perhaps. but with only small steps, we may make big changes. it's the little things, as well as the big things.

there is one moment in the movie in which a junkie talks a woman down from a ledge. holding out his hand to this hysterical woman, he tells her that all he could think about was his next fix until he saw her about to jump. and he calmly says, "have coffee with me. you can save me. please...save my life."

yes, this is surely drama made for the movies. and perhaps we won't be saving someone's life. but maybe with that unsolicted smile to the stranger on the street, you have made some small difference. is that something to dismiss? we could all critisize ourselves for not doing more...not giving enough to charity, not volunteering enough or spending enough time in productive service of others...or simply not always being so considerate or kind. but a smile is not so difficult, is it? perhaps these small things might eventually coalesce into something indeed life-changing or live-saving.

[apparently, an attempt to implement this principle is being made by this organization: http://www.payitforwardfoundation.org/get_involved.html]

so, to address my original question...rainbows. to me, rainbows represent faith. and despite the fact rainbows have been explained by science, maybe i choose to believe they are a sign...in fact, on wednesday, i KNOW the rainbow was a sign. knowledge (scientific and otherwise), observation, and pragmatism are certainly valuable. there is no doubt that faith should come with questions...to be sure, it should be the questions that strengthen your faith. and yet, i have faith in my sign. don't let your own magic be taken away...

willingly and joyfully

i am agitated.

for the last few months and especially the last few weeks, i feel like i have been in a good place. i am starting to think outside the box...or i should say, my box. i think, in the last year, i have grown so much as a person, and i can't help but be proud of myself. but with that, my outlook on so many things has changed. i have thrown so many preconceived notions about myself out the window...what i want in life, who i want, how i want my life to be. i am learning what it is to be self-sufficient. i am no longer sure that i want to get married. i am no longer sure that i want children. i am no longer sure i know what i want. and i believe i am coming to peace with this. or am i?

i had a conversation tonight with a friend that was jarring. nothing that was said in this conversation came as any surprise, but what did surprise me was how i felt about it. this person is lovely, and we have been seeing a lot of each other lately. and every time i see this person i smile, each time having learned new ways in which he is special. he is a free spirit. and i like that. i like that his mind moves in a dozen different circles...that he is eager to evolve and move onto the next adventure. knowing this about him, i resolved to enjoy him while i was lucky enough to have him in my life. i saw nothing beyond today...this moment. i sought no definition. i needed no boundaries.

somehow tonight, we got on the subject of relationships and inadvertently touched on questions of loyalty and honesty. i stated that loyalty was important to me...probably the most important aside from honesty. not that i can humor myself as being completely pristine in either area...though i strive to be. in any case, his reply was that he wasn't sure he agreed with the idea of 'monogamous' as a definition. mind you, we were not speaking about ourselves, but in a theoretical sense. i asked him to explain. he stated that if it came down to the difference between being in a defined monogamous relationship and meeting someone new and having to end the relationship in order to pursue the new possibility...or being in a relationship in which you had the freedom to explore the new possibility without the confines of traditional definitions...he preferred the latter. to this, i questioned whether this was possible due to potential jealousies...to which he replied that his theory was his notion of an ideal world. i suggested that the primary reason people seek definition is due to a fear of that which can be lost. it's not that we need to define ourselves...it's that we take definition as a measure towards protecting whatever it is we enjoy or have come to need. a free relationship is fine and good until that which you love drifts into another realm, leaving you behind. leaving one's options open is wonderful until you are no longer the option the other desires. perhaps a self-actualized person could handle this....but to those of us average folks, the danger is daunting. so we rely on conventions.

with my new outlook on life, i agreed with this. while i am not sure i feel the same way, i see the value in this freedom. how much more does it mean to have all the options in the world and to choose one person? of course, this means infinitely more. or does it? is it always tenuous? on the assumption that one is not tied to one relationship, where does the exploration end? is it an active exploration? or is it the openness to pursue a possibility should something incredible fall into one's lap? is there ever a time when someone can rest easy knowing the hand of a loved one will always be within arm's reach? i see potential problems in this new model. not to suggest that those problems don't always exist...

it makes me think of marriage. what does that mean anymore? if we are speaking in ideals, a marriage should be a deal between two people to stick together through thick and thin. even in an ideal world, relationships are not perfect...you are not always in love with your lover...you don't even like your lover all the time. is this when a new possibility swoops in? perhaps...but i believe, in marriage, the answer should be 'no.' an agreement has been made to endure each other. i used to think that extending the right to marry to homosexuals was only fair...among other reasons, in order to allow them this one convention that helps enable two people to commit. i am not suggesting it is necessary...i am merely suggesting that, in marriage, it is far more difficult to split when the going gets tough. i see value in this aside from the other accepted benefits of marriage. however, this 'agreement' is being thrown around all too easily these days. what difference does it make to get married when, within a year, you could just as easily be married to someone new. in this present system, why not throw out the convention altogether? but where does one draw the line?

back to our conversation...my friend stated an instance in which his heart was broken and that the most vexing aspect of the situation was the thought that he had allowed one person to have such an affect on him. (in this case, i imagine it was a negative one.) and as he said this, i could empathize. i know what he meant...to let one person shake you from your roots. i let one person do this to me. he was by no means the only person i have ever cared about, but he was the first person to tear me down to my core. he was the first person, aside from my family, that i allowed myself to need. and i recalled something this man's mother said to me...that she would never allow herself to need someone else ever again. she said this and was in one of the more successful relationships i have ever witnessed. in retrospect, i have often thought of what she said...as part of my new world view.

so as we are talking tonight, my friend continues to describe his family member's devastation at her divorce...his own devastation after getting his heart broken...the subsequent boundary between his heart and those he has since dated. and his words are upsetting, though not due to my own lost love...or even the new one. it is due to my lost desire to need someone. the fear that i have closed myself off from my need. the fear that i will never allow someone to move me like that ever again. and it terrifies me.

i push these things to the back of my head, but a line from steve martin's 'shopgirl' lingers in my mind. 'so i can either hurt now or later.' and suddenly, my free spirit, my new outlook seems distant. 'i can either hurt now or later.' but then, isn't that always the case? isn't it always a possibility that you can hurt later?

i come home to my own bed and lay awake. another line from the movie resonates: "as ray porter watches mirabelle walk away he feels a loss. how is it possible, he thinks, to miss a woman whom he kept at a distance so that when she was gone he would not miss her. only then does he realize that wanting part of her and not all of her had hurt them both and how he cannot justify his actions except that... well... it was life." so true. we can hurt now or later.

and so, i sit here releasing my thoughts...hoping that i will be able to sleep when i am done. and then, my thoughts are with gibran. i know i have quoted him before...and i will again. these are words i hope to live by:

"When love beckons to you, follow him,
Though his ways are hard and steep.
And when his wings enfold you yield to him,
Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.
And when he speaks to you believe in him,
Though his voice may shatter your dreams as the north wind lays waste the garden.
For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you.
Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning.
Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches that quiver in the sun,
So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to the earth.
Like sheaves of corn he gathers you unto himself.
He threshes you to make you naked.
He sifts you to free you from your husks.
He grinds you to whiteness.
He kneads you until you are pliant;
And then he assigns you to his sacred fire, that you may become sacred bread for God's sacred feast.
All these things shall love do unto you that you may know the secrets of your heart, and in that knowledge become a fragment of Life's heart.
But if in your fear you would seek only love's peace and love's pleasure,
Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love's threshing-floor,
Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears.
Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself.
Love possesses not nor would it be possessed;
For love is sufficient unto love.
When you love you should not say, "God is in my heart," but rather, "I am in the heart of God."
And think not you can direct the course of love, for love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
Love has no other desire but to fulfill itself.
But if you love and must needs have desires, let these be your desires:
To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night.
To know the pain of too much tenderness.
To be wounded by your own understanding of love;
And to bleed willingly and joyfully.
To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of loving;
To rest at the noon hour and meditate love's ecstasy;
To return home at eventide with gratitude;
And then to sleep with a prayer for the beloved in your heart and a song of praise upon your lips."

i cannot resist letting someone move me...shake me. it is only natural for another person to be able to affect each of us in such profound ways...it is a question of natural law...it is a question of gravity. may i savor every moment of my collision with another...and may i bleed willingly and joyfully.

divine humor

ah....the byzantine chapel. the one at the menil. if you haven't seen it, you must make plans to do so. immediately. simply beautiful. the frescos are lovely, but the place itself is magical. in my opinion, much more so than the rothko. i walked in and the only light in the room was that coming from the two candles flanking the pews....excepting that on the frescos themselves. the rest of the altar was simply glowing...an other-wordly translucent white halo against the stark black of the walls. i walked in and sat in the back pew and just stared. and stared. i felt almost paralyzed. i couldn't take my eyes from the fresco just above the altar. from where i was sitting, you only saw the image of an angel...an angel staring back at me with a face of sublime peace and gentleness. did i feel like the angel was looking at me? yes, i did. which is why i sat there silently for what must have been a half-hour. and in that time i felt so calm and satisfied.

how can one deny the existence of the divine? it was in the air...in the birds singing outside the chapel...the water dripping off the leaves in the trees outside...the glow of the altar...even in the squeak of the shoes worn by the people walking by my pew. i don't know exactly what that means...but i feel it is true with every inch of my being. i sat there and stared and couldn't help but cry...just a little. but not tears of sadness, but those of joy. of appreciation. i thought of my family...of my friends...of my life...and i just felt so very grateful and blessed. and content. with all of life's trials, could it be any sweeter than this?

and then, someone's cell phone rang. one of those generic nokia rings. and the woman, embarassed, rushed outside...rifling through her purse to grab and silence the offending device. and it put the biggest smile on my face. and instead of being annoyed, it made me laugh. here i am, having this intense moment when someone's cell phone rings....breaking the mood. but not really. isn't that what life is? isn't it the little surprises and problematic occurrences that make it that much more fun? i think so.

after watching the woman rush out of the room, i looked back at the angel looming above in the fresco....and i couldn't help but notice a hint of a smirk on her face.