In Winter

I've seen the oppressing slant of light on a winter afternoon. It's like that old man in the Dickens story, hunched over beneath the bell tower, feeling every strike of The Chimes in his cold, crooked bones. This week I have to put on my coats. Is it pleasurable? I'm not sure. I'm driving cars. Thinking things. Drinking liquids and being warm. In a phrase, things I haven't done.

This is the contrast that I've drawn from being home, but it's really not a contrast, because it's the same earth and the same human beings. Besides, the world is small. Where do you live? I'll find you a friend. It's two two and a half hour flights. 12 hours total from house to house. I counted.

It's a strange thing, thinking about the concept of whether or not to write about multiculturalism. Should it just be an unstated fact? Yesterday I was in Guatemala. Today, I am in the United States. My mind switches as fast as my tongue.

Things here are at least superficially nice. There's certain motions I've really missed. The cold and it's sedentary amigo are not two of them. The caffeine-tapered melancholy mornings are, especially when it moves me to write. What things do you miss?

There's a certain slant of light,
On winter afternoons,
That oppresses, like the weight
Of cathedral tunes.

Heavenly hurt it gives us;
We can find no scar,
But internal difference
Where the meanings are.

None may teach it anything,
'Tis the seal, despair,-
An imperial affliction
Sent us of the air.

When it comes, the landscape listens,
Shadows hold their breath;
When it goes, 't is like the distance
On the look of death.

-Emily Dickinson

Competing Goods -Palo Viejo Dam

Church Leaders Join Fight Against Italian Energy Giant in Rural Guatemala Over Construction of Palo Viejo Dam

This story was written by a friend and fellow co-worker of MCC here in Guatemala. No other story could so poignantly demonstrate the disparity and disclarity of all that I have struggled with and talked about in this blog: the differing and relative claims to "reason" in the world, and their respective utilitarian claims to (and measurements of) the common good.

"Why do you consider our demands unreasonable?" It's a hell of a statement. To question the rationality of an action in such a poignant way reminds us of the deliberateness of flattery.

Who holds authority? Who shall give or withold the permission? Governments and magistrates, tribal leaders and priests: one person gives, the other withholds. A person is a person. a=a, therefore a is not greater than a, and a can never be greater than a, because a cannot be against itself. So when a is against a, and you need a judge, the universe groans, then is silent.

Who holds the authority? Really this is the fundamental problem. Do you or don't you believe in an ultimate authority? To me, it seems as though this case is exhibit A of the reality that no universal system of values exists within the scope of human cultures. What happened in the meetings? The two sides tried to reach an agreement, tried to reach a point at which their given values coincided in the Venn Diagram of "everybody wins," but what happened? They couldn't do it, and they walked out.

Why? The executives of ENEL believe in greed. It would have saved them a whole lot of fuss and ass-grabbing if they would have just said it. The conversation could have gone like this- "We believe in greed" The opposing side would respond- "we believe in community" "In this particular case, it is apparent that greed and community are in direct conflict with one another. Therefore we cannot come to a consensus."

On the part of ENEL, they wouldn't have been any worse off if they had simply stated greed as one of their fundamental principles. Why? Because even with bad publicity, even with governmental restrictions, money still wins. Money moves things forward, and no one can stop it. You might be able to say that greed is wrong or bad in certain contexts, but there's an easy answer to that. The executives at ENEL couldn't care less about right and wrong. They are out to get theirs, and when they're going to use it to get more. This is a value, but without the direct intervention of a judging authority, the deist God stays in the clouds, silent, absorbing humanity's differing claims to right and wrong, stroking his beard at them and saying "Hmph, maybe so."

Christianity may stand unequivocally on the side of the poor and dispossesed, but the executives at ENEL have an easy solution to that- they aren't Christians. If you ever want to completely dismiss a moral obligation, it's really not that hard if you've read your philosophy. Maybe the executives at ENEL will say that people everywhere should have a right to electricity. After all, you and I both use it. Where are we going to get it from? It's a question of ethics. There's no compromise because there's no ultimate authority. Thus Tomayto Tomato. It comes down to who can get things done. Money gets things done.

Ultimately and unfortunately, if God's not going to act (either because he's not there or he's not getting involved) the people have to. And really, what is the only thing the people can do? Fight. Only at the barrel of a gun can you truly force someone's hand, and even then it's arguable.

This is real. This story, in particular, has struck me blind. It has further confused the already fluttering notion of human values and how they are formed, and it has left me wondering whether any reasonable defense of justice, right or wrong, or anything of that sort could ever be constructed. As usual, I find that I tend to live assuming this reality, hoping desperately in my heart of hearts to one day be proved wrong.

Blog Neglect

I thought I'd write something about blog neglect. Everybody knows the feeling of blog neglect. You may have had the experience of a throng of ambition, artistically driven, losing gas like a Cessna, and crashing into the volcano. There comes a point when it becomes poignant to ask, "Why do so many blogs fail? Why don't people update them?" Specifically from the standpoint of someone attempting to document a particular experience or period of travel, what changes in the mind/body that inhibits the thing from moving forward? What is the reverse acting force on mental activities? Infinitely more complicated than laziness? Or if it's just that simple, where does laziness come from?

Maybe we can use my experience here in Guatemala as an example. It's been something like 2 months since I've written anything here. Yet it's not as if I haven't had any exciting experiennces to write about. On the contrary, I've had plenty. In fact, the environment in which I find myself is in fact so beautiful that I often find myself distracted.

So distraction is one legitimate reason for blog neglect. But distraction from what? Distraction to what? The presumption is that the work of blogging is in some way superior to the work of the "distraction." Or maybe it's not a matter of one being superior to the other, it's simply that one requires more intentional mental effort than the other. Maybe "x distraction," [maybe we could say the natural state of the mind- whatever you think about when you're not trying to think about something esle] is like the unshackled Leviathan- it's the enemy. We've gotta reign in in, control that mind, channel all the energy towards an enlightened self-interest, otherwise it's gonna turn this party off the chain. Or maybe it's the Epicurian notion of peace- don't distract me with problems, pain, things to think about. They make my mind hurt. Maybe it's like that. But where is the scale with which we can weigh these competing goods?

Blog neglect, good or bad? Do I have more of chance to live life? I think that's what the Romantics would say- one more hour looking at the trees. On the other hand, anybody who's ever done anything meaningful seems to acknowledge the inevitability of shutting the door, trashing the view.

What do you think about blog neglect? Are blogs even a reflection of real life?