Catastrophizing like Jesus

Everyone keeps saying that we live in crazy times, which may be true. It may also be that we are living in a self-fulfilling prophesy times. Maybe we all think we are living in crazy times and thus we live in crazy times. Either way, it may a good idea for all of us to just take a deep breath, relax and take it easy for just a bit. 

Not long ago Samantha Bee and Glen Beck sat together and ate a sugar version of each others' heads. In the interview (which has a few crude comments), Bee and Beck talk about the role they each have/are playing in current culture. Specifically, what I would like to draw to your attention is when Beck speaks to his and Bee's part in catastrophizing things (the section of the interview is in queued up in the following video): 

I guess, since we are not going to migrate away from social catastrophizing anytime soon (although I pray this would come sooner than later), might I suggest we look to the way Jesus "catastrophized" in his day.

Mark 13 (sometimes called Mark's "little apocalypse") is a response to a question that Peter, James, John, and Andrew ask Jesus. They said, "Tell us, when will these things [the destruction of temple] happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?" 

The response from Jesus is an apocalypse and thus is full of symbolism. In fact when we read this section we are more apt to not understand than to understand. Mark 13:3 makes the note that when Jesus shares his little apocalypse, he does so privately with just a handful of disciples. He reserves this teaching to the inner circle. He knows that people may be prone to panic and disillusionment and so in order to minimize the wide-spread panic that comes with anyone catastrophizing the situation, Jesus speaks in private. 

I have not had much in my political leanings that align with Beck, but he and I may have an agreement - being an agent of catastrophe is something that does not add to the public good. And so if we feel a need to catastrophize things, perhaps we can consider this example of Jesus.

Bronze, Silver and Golden Rules (pt. 1)

The “Golden Rule” is something of a universal in all religions and philosophies. It comes in a variety of presentations. The way the Golden Rule was presented to me was: "Treat others the way you would have them treat you." Not a bad rule indeed; however many times when I follow it I get into trouble.

I am a person who really appreciates having a fierce conversation with someone because I think that the conflict that comes from such conversation is creative and useful. Others are not a fan of such intense conversation or conflict. So when I engage in a conversation with someone and follow the golden rule that I was taught, I can get into trouble. While I want to be treated in conversation as a “sparring partner”, many others in my life do not desire this. While I am treating them the way I wish to be treated, they think that I am being a jerk.

There are countless examples where I am treating someone the way I wish to be treated only to discover that the other person perceives me as less than compassionate.

This is where I would say that the golden rule taught to me may be more of a silver rule. Not a bad rule, but it clearly has shortcomings – I might even submit there is a “bronze rule”: Do not treat others the way you would not have them treat you.

This “bronze rule” is the “silver rule” in the negative. So sticking with the example, I do not desire to be disrespected in conversation. So at the very least I need to not disrespect the other person. This “bronze rule” is helpful to guide us to do “no harm” but, like all other probations, it does not guide us to “do good”. Thus the “silver rule” (Treat others the way you would have them treat you) is helpful to guide us to action.

However, both the “bronze” and “silver” rules are egocentric. That is to say, it puts my needs above your needs. I want conflictual conversation. I do not want to be disrespected. These are not “bad”, but they put the self at the center of the action.

The next post will attempt to share an alternate presentation of the Golden Rule that steps away from egocentrism and into a more compassionate posture of living.

Looking into the eyes of others is a drain

Eye contact is a powerful and complicated practice. We know that eye contact can impair functions such as visual imagination but it turns out eye contact may also impair our ability to speak.

According to research by Shogo Kajimura and Michio Nomura, they found that participants were slower to generate complex verbs when looking into the eyes of someone on a screen. Their conclusions were not that eye contact impedes our ability to formulate verbs, but instead,

"They said the results are consistent with the idea that eye contact drains our more general cognitive resources – the kind that we need to draw on when some other task, such as speaking, becomes too difficult to be handled by domain-specific resources. That’s why the more complicated the story you’re telling (or excuse you’re making), the more likely you are to need to break off eye contact.

Looking away when we’re talking is something most of us do instinctively as adults, but this isn’t necessarily the case for children. Past research has shown that young children can benefit from being taught to avert their gaze when they’re thinking."

Scriptures speak about a variety of humans unable to look into the face of God for various reasons. This metaphor of our inability to look into the eyes of God , may very well speak to a biological limitation we all have. For reasons that I don't understand, looking into the eyes of another person drains a lot of cognitive energy, which may explain why many days of listening to people share their souls I am exhausted - I may be looking at the face of God and it overwhelms me.