The Conception of Evil in the Play Macbeth

The following inferences may be made from the play concerning the nature of evil:

 

 1.  Exists absolutely, independently of  human perception, recognition, or acknowledgment.

 2.  Is personal, spiritual and hierarchical

 3.  Seeks human agency for expression, but must have human choice to gain human agency

 4.  Operates through lies and deception, ultimately deceiving and betraying the human agent

 5.  Leads to destruction, defilement, and remorse

 6.  Is limited by a greater good and by human choice

 7.  Is able to control nature on limited scale

 8.  Is able to affect interpersonal attraction and damage

9.  Is unable to create anything; although, it imitates creation by perverting what has already been created

10.  Respects nothing but self or coercive power and control—ultimately, only self prevails (the author of evil itself)—selfish, autocratic, narcissistic

 11.  An evil act by an individual can produce evil consequences for innocent others—especially those under the authority of the actor (for example, a king)

 12.  Evil tends towards excess, is over-indulgent—mostly to the detriment of the agent—accelerates and intensifies beyond rational/ beneficial boundaries

 13.  Unable to give without some form of personal return or benefit

 14.  Functions most effectively in covert (darkness)

15.  Associated with pain, despair, unfulfillment, anger and death

 16.  Antithetical to light, goodness, purity, kindness, godliness

 

 

Manifesto of the Worldwide Myopic Movement

“Crossing Bridges When We Get There”

 Now, therefore, without the slightest pause, we will presume to speak for the entire worldwide Myopic Community in establishing this as our common Manifesto and Creed.

Manifesto: It is our full intention at this moment to live the rest of our lives entirely for the moment, while defending Myopia as a legitimate and respectable lifestyle.

Simply stated, Myopia is a celebration of action in advance of thought. As everyone knows, serious reflection can, at times, become troubling and inhibiting. The Myopic impulse, on the other hand, bubbles up from the divine inner child inside each of us. Every impulse is equally legitimate, as long as it is sanctioned by the herd. Anyone can merely look at the herd out there today and recognize that they are all surely on to something. The challenge for each individual, therefore, lies in shoving one's way out to the front and staying there. There is an Elite Group at the head of the herd that lives in a state of perfect self-actualization.  We know this on the authority of television, itself. Those who lag behind may never share the lofty camaraderie of the current Elite leaders of the herd.

Our Creed is simple: If you encounter a laggard, run over him. There may be some place for traditional civility, but it is always in the clubhouse after the game has been won and the bets paid. While in the frenzied heat of imitation, never take your eyes off the butts of the Elite. Try to stay right behind them, and slam on brakes whenever they do. There is shame only in inaction and indecisiveness. Disdain moralizing in any form, except that which champions competitive drive and self-confidence.  Any action can be justified before the herd if it is argued with enough force and self-assurance, the true spirit of the herd. Keep your friends freshly culled. Associate only with those who confirm your beliefs or with those whose conflicting ideas you may easily overwhelm through bluster or intimidation. Never let up; faster is always better. More is always good. Be there. Do that. Seek driving excitement. Seize every moment.

The current ground-swell of myopic enthusiasm is drawing increasing numbers each year. All who feel oppressed under the brutal strictures of common sense should join today before thinking better of it. Local representatives are easily identifiable.

The Laughing Lesson

What were we to do?

The frantic flock would only grow next day

and we had barely stretched
 
their few bitter crusts among the fire huddlings.

They were surely held with a holier hunger.

Who, then, but Simon to remonstrate,

“No manna has fallen here

but these piles of donkey chips

we see scattered round about.

Shall we compose a blessing now for these?”

Thomas clearly took offense.

Andrew caught his laughter 

before it burst again through his nose.

Only then did we remember the Master,

and our sheepish eyes crept to find His face.

       No scorn listed there,

but with a sigh,

He closed his eyes and shook His head from side to side.

Then, repeating Simon’s name,

as Simon lived to hear Him call it,

      the Master laughed.

With His head drawn back and His eyes still closed,

as when He held that limp little girl and prayed

His face lifted toward heaven

and tears glistening in His beard.

He laughed, knowing, as He always did, the outcome.

       “If a son asks for a fish, will the father give him a snake?”

The Master laughed with us.

His tough, darkened olive arms

crossed over His naked chest,

and when, at last, His glinting

reflection of shikinah joy

fell down again upon us,

the low lake sun danced from His eyes

into our hearts.

He filled us. We heard

       laughter in the praise of heaven.

The “Dazzle Factor”

In the wake of a several-years’ trend in declining attendance, we were sitting in a Sunday school teachers’ meeting last week, discussing in small groups why we thought people actually came to our Sunday school classes as first-time visitors. I heard myself say, “the Dazzle Factor.” This, of course, drew raised eyebrows. I realized that I had in mind the search I see many making for the next new thing, being driven by a wanderlust, a willingness to try the suggestion made by our church’s leadership that the Sunday school classes offer community and connection. Once the newness of the visit experience wears off, however, they are looking at a call for commitment and an invitation to go to work on “getting into the Word.” The Word carries its own reward and engagement, but it also requires skillful and artful handling on the front end, from those who teach it.

Then there came in the mail this week a beautiful program brochure/ chapbook from Beeson Divinity School for its Fall Community Worship Program, entitled Tell It Slant.  I, at first, thought I had misread the title. Why would anyone want to intentionally distort the scriptures (Revelation 22:18—19)? Closer inspection revealed that the title is an allusion to an Emily Dickenson poem:

Tell all the Truth but tell it slant—

Success in Circuit lies

Too bright for our infirm delight

The Truth’s superb surprise

As lightening to the Children eased

With explanation kind

The Truth must dazzle gradually

Or every man be blind—

The program the seminary is offering is an examination of the parables of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. Jesus was masterfully “telling in Circuit” the Truth in His parables. It is, indeed, the Truth, itself, which ultimately “dazzles” to everyone’s satisfaction, not the packaging and handling thereof.  So, we as teachers must redirect the seekers’ focus away from ourselves and toward the Truth. We are only able to  do that, however, by skillful packaging. Jesus, Himself, is our example.

Out, Out Brief Candle!  A Review of John Green’s The Fault in Our Stars

I have found it best to write responses to books immediately upon finishing them, while recollections and impressions are fresh. I am, alas, unable to do that with The Fault in Our Stars by John Green because this blog did not exist when I completed reading the book. This book was selected by our students last year as one of four they could choose from for our summer reading assignment. It has been immensely successful as a best-seller, and it has garnered much critical acclaim.

 I must say at the outset, I did not enjoy reading this book. I did, however, benefit from reading it because it allowed me to vicariously enter the physical, emotional and spiritual suffering of young cancer victims. (I only wish that sixteen-year-olds actually spoke as these do.) I am deeply concerned, however, with the book’s underlying nihilistic despair, or at best, its agnostic or even atheistic existential angst*(however hip and snarky it may be in presentation). The dust jacket boasts that this book is “irreverent” and “raw,” and it certainly lives up to that. On the positive side, however, the book does invite (indeed, it demands) readers to construct (or to access) their own belief systems regarding the significance of the individual, the meaning and purpose of suffering, and death and the afterlife. It is far less “insightful” in enabling readers to accomplish this, and may even be said to imply that such a task is, ultimately, impossible.

 Hazel is frustrated with the author of her favorite book (which has become a sacred text of nihilism for her) because he ends the book in mid-sentence to illustrate the death of its lead character from cancer (a postmodern trope as it applies to what happens with Hazel, herself, in this narrative). Augustus complains that this violates an unwritten contract between author and reader. Green, effectively, does the same thing with his book: after leading us on a fruitless quest for the meaning of life (a disappointing trip to Holland to visit the author and seek answers to what becomes of the characters in Hazel’s book), he leaves us with Hazel reading a previously unseen communication from Augustus, following Augustus’s funeral. The only hint that anything may have changed is the author’s switch to the present tense in Hazel’s final comments (Green makes much of this in his interview, cited below). This is strongly reminiscent of Matthew Arnold’s poem “Dover Beach,” in which, after bemoaning the loss of religious faith, he is left with only the consolation of a flesh-and-blood (unnamed in the poem) romantic partner (thought to be his wife). Hazel and Augustus may be said to have had some sort of epiphany in their relationship, which certainly did add meaning and purpose to their brief lives, despite the continuance of their suffering (Augustus has an unexpected relapse of his cancer after the romance begins). The broader question, however, remains: is this all there is? At one point, the two observe young children playing inside of a large skeleton sculpture in a park. As Augustus observes, “the symbolic resonances are endless.” Is this, then, the ultimate message—life is a brief game in a grim setting, with no ultimate meaning?

 A fascinating and highly informative (if  lengthy) interview with the author may be found at the following address:

http://johngreenbooks.com/questions-about-the-fault-in-our-stars-spoilers/.

 Jesus entered into human suffering in a personal way. He did not eliminate suffering, but he overcame it and made a way for it to become redemptive. In John 16:33, he said “In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.” Some excellent books have been written recently to address what philosophers call “The Problem of Evil,” (a systematic response to this problem is called a “theodicy,” and several such well-known defenses have arisen over the years) and one of the best is by Randy Alcorn (an excellent author, in his own right), If God is Good, Why do We Hurt?  (available used on Amazon for as low as $7.00):

 http://www.amazon.com/If-God-Is-Good-10-Pack/dp/1601423411/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1374947640&sr=8-8&keywords=randy+alcorn

 And, of course the ultimate solution to The Problem of Evil is found in the afterlife He made possible.

 ___________________________________________

*Note: These terms are defined on my website

 

 http://hooverhigh.al.hch.schoolinsites.com/?PageName=TeacherPage&Page=16&StaffID=177873&iSection=Teachers&CorrespondingID=177873

HeartWorks 2.0

That changing and arranging much a part
of keeping my computer on its task,
may illustrate the process of my heart
an engine of a nobler purpose, fast.
For though its ownership’s not here at stake
and though its purpose I should never change,
wiser applications will be made,
and errors in the program are contained.
I’ll give no obsolescence cause to stall
the selfless interaction that I owe
to those into whose presence I am called
and those into whose networks I must grow.
This I’ve learned from staring at my screen:
within the perfect heart, change is often seen.

“Tolerance”

Proposition:  Tolerance is recognizing, understanding and respecting the ideas and beliefs of others WITHOUT SHARING THEM.  Tolerance is not an obligation to agree with everyone. A tolerant person is not required to abandon his or her own personal moral code.  A tolerant person may believe that certain actions, attitudes and beliefs are absolutely wrong or even immoral.  Any person who agrees with everything is absolutely wrong.  Those who do not allow other people to believe that certain actions or attitudes are immoral are, themselves, intolerant.  We may, therefore, respectfully criticize the actions or attitudes of others and still be tolerant.  We must always respect and care about the feelings of others, because human beings are, most times, unable to directly alter their feelings, even when those human beings acknowledge that their feelings are based upon erroneous facts.  We may, therefore, decide that a person is absolutely wrong and still not condemn that person for his or her feelings about the matter.

Question: Do you agree with this?  If not, would you be tolerant of someone who held this view?

My purpose in establishing this blog is four-fold:

1. To enter public discourse on topics I care deeply about, such as culture, politics and social policy.

2.  To develop my skill as a writer, and to model that development.

3.  To respond to the literature I am reading, and in responding, to better understand and appreciate that literature.

4.  In doing all of the above, to leverage the wonderful new power of electronic media.

This blog contains my personal opinions.  Because I am an evangelical Christian, my opinions are informed by my personal worldview as a Christian. This occurs in every area of my social, professional and intellectual life. Because I am a public school teacher, however, there are ethical and legal boundaries regarding my expression in the classroom of ideas that are specifically religious in nature. This does not mean, however, that I may not comment upon a matter from a Christian perspective, as long I do not seek to compel, or to coerce in any way, my students to adopt my own perspective. This I would never want to do, anyway. On occasion, I may also comment upon something we are discussing from a Biblical perspective without making specific reference to the Bible. It is my intention to honor the personal belief system of each of my students. In fact, I encourage each student to develop his or her own beliefs, drawing from the faith system of his or her own personal choice and also from the literature we will cover in this class. As it happens, the literature we cover in Senior English is, in most instances, expressly Christian (at least until the Romantic and Modern Periods). For example, we will objectively identify elements of Christian and Pagan thought in the first works of literature we examine from the Anglo-Saxon Period. Also, the literature of all periods is replete with allusions to the Bible. The literature of the Middle Ages (such as The Canterbury Tales) is understandable only if one has a familiarity with the practices of the Roman Catholic Church (and the history of the church in European affairs and the Crusades).  So, religion will be discussed in class, simply because it was extremely important to the people who were producing and reading the literature we will be reading. The point I am making about this blog, however, is this: in this blog, I take the liberty of expressing my personal beliefs beyond the boundaries of what would be appropriate for the classroom. I will never hold you, as a student, responsible for any of the content from this blog. You are however welcomed to visit this blog and to comment on any matter expressed herein.  I will always honor your opinion, while I may disagree with it, or I may offer suggestions regarding how you express your opinion.  I am specifically interested in helping you learn to express your opinion in a skillful and artful manner, whether I agree with it or not.

Here are some helpful links for guidelines in understanding your religious rights in a public school:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/08/02/associations-right-in-schools

http://www.freedomforum.org/publications/first/teachersguide/teachersguide.pdf

The title of this blog is taken from Ephesians 2:10, which reads, "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." The word workmanship in Greek is poiema, from which we get our word poem. The idea is that we are each created as a special work of God's art, and we, in turn, are expected to produce our own works of art at His direction. I like to also remember another passage found in Colossians 3: 23-24, which says that God can be honored in even the most mundane tasks we do, if we do them as unto Him. We are, each of us, artists and works of art.