Centre or fringe?

by Narkissos 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  As JWs we were weekly told about making "Jehovah," "the Kingdom," "spiritual" or "theocratic interests" the centre of our lives.

  Many of us bought into it and really tried hard to do so. Committing oneself to full-time service was thought of as a natural way of "putting Kingdom's interests first" and focusing on what was "most important".

  Forget a moment about the specific WT crap. The same kind of earnest commitment is actually shared by a lot of people -- priests, pastors, monks and nuns, missionaries, political militants, charity volunteers, health and social workers, even artists or researchers -- who chose to make their "vocation" out of an "ideal". Other people generally admire such an "idealistic" commitment and some of those engaged in a somewhat idealistic career might tend to look upon the "profane" whose interest in any ideal appears to be only "marginal".

  In time, however, some of the "professional idealists" start noticing that professionalism somehow spoils the fun, and begin to envy the candid enthusiasm of the "amateurs". The interest seems to elude the centre, irresistibly occupied by prosaic day-to-day business, however "important," and persistently slides to unrelated events, people or interests in the fringe. Try to focus on the "essential" and you lose it. Forget about it and it re-emerges in the most unexpected places. The first will be the last?

  This is certainly part of my experience. Does that find any echo in yours?
• 

  ezekiel3

  Sounds a bit like "the love you had a first"? (I never understood this since I was raised in the "truth")

  And yet if you look at the center or the fringe of the Org you do not see the idealism you speak about.

  The "fringe" is the goatee-wearing, rap-music-listening, worldly-guy-marrying type - the "weak".

  The "center" is the policy-pushing, KH-building, reviewing-your-public-talk-during-the-Service meeting, time-counting type - the "strong".

  Neither seems the idealistic crowd that joined in the pre-75 boom.

  EZ3 (of-the-prolific-hyphen-class)
• 

  talesin

  I'm thinking of social workers, since I've worked in the field, and know a lot of them.

  Many of these folks start out very keen, and they have high ideals. Unfortunately, most get the idealism flogged out of them by the very system in which they work.

  Also, it's been my experience that most healers need to heal themselves. Going into a helping profession is often a way to work out one's own issues, and most don't realize they are doing this. After 5-10 years, they become burned out by all the giving, giving, giving, and end up either doing a marginal job or getting out of the profession altogether.

  And that was my story, too. Now, I am on the fringe, and work as a volunteer. What you are saying has a lot of truth. It's much easier to maintain that enthusiasm and joy in the work when you don't have to endure bureaucratic bs, and also be continuously bombarded by the emotional trauma this kind of work entails.

  t
• 

  MegaDude

  It would seem that once an organization becomes founded, the good ideals and motivation that led to its founding become secondary, and the organization and its survival and growth become the most important thing. It's a typical characteristical flaw in human behavior and it happens in every group or organization in my experiences, not just religious. I see it in every professional group of people.
• 

  FairMind

  Narkissos, your intellectual way of writing was hard for a old man such as myself to follow. However, if you mean that objective thinking and action are not as much fun as spontaneous or emotional based reaction I would agree.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  I think "spiritual things" are strongly based and experienced in our emotions - with our reasoning just making sense of it, and maybe even keeping us in check. So maybe trying to focus on the spiritual, is like someone trying to focus on being more "spontaneous". You're bringing in too much of one kind of faculty and end up stifling the one that counts.

  Personally, I've tried to do "what is right" and to be charitable, but everytime its my rational side moving me to do it its not very satisfying. It sort of sounds selfish, because how I feel shouldn't be the reason why I do it. But all I'm saying with regards to this discussion, is that the other times where I felt I should do something and did it without focussing too much on this or that point (so as not to make it more rational than it needs be), I felt like I was closing in on the "spiritual" state to be in.
• 

  the_classicist

  I knew someone who was great at playing music. He could teach himself just about anything (and he even taught himself the piano in a few months).

  But instead of going into music like everyone wanted him to, he went into the sciences last year. I guess he saw how many musicians used to love music, but never really "made it" so he wanted to take on the study of the sciences as a career and play music almost as a hobby.

  I guess he sees what you do. Personally, I don't have anything that I pay a tonne of attention to, at least not that I am aware of. I don't have any passions or interests. So I guess you could say, life has simply gone to the fringe for me. (of course, there is politics, which I find immensly interesting).
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  yes, same here. when i was a dub, i "enjoyed" field ministry way more as a "amature" publisher that just went out in service more. when i started pioneering is when i got depressed. i also kind of despised the extra attention i got as a "professional" in the hall. but as we all know, it was ALL a farce of sorts.
  
  
  but your thoughts on amature vs. professional really makes sense. i enjoy some of the things that i am involved in now SO much as an amature, i hope that i can always remain an amature. but once you become proficient at it, it becomes very tempting to try to begin making a living from one's amature passions. when that happens, it's harder to keep the joy.
• 

  Rod P

  Narkissos,

  There is the "Intellectual Gospel" and there is the "Social Gospel".

  With the "Intellectual Gospel" we might be immersed in the central and priority themes of the cause we are serving, but after a while it becomes just too heavy a burden to carry, and we need a break from all this "heavy" stuff. Others may admire the focus and the capabilities of such an individual, but will also never "join his club". Kind of like being a "nerd", and the stigma that carries.

  The "Social Gospel" on the other hand, is much easier to live, much lighter and entertaining, and, let's face it, we all want to have fun. Life just shouldn't be so serious all the time. And any philospphy that can't be taken out into the sunshine and had a good laugh over it, isn't worth keeping. We humans are social creatures; we need companionship, friendship, acceptance, interaction. Without it, we become unhappy. This is not about deep thinking and intellectualism.

  I was with a group of people in Vancouver who belonged to Mensa. This is the club reserved for the brightest, the smart ones, the intellectuals with high I.Q.'s. They have chapters almost everywhere. You may have one in your area. Anyway, when they had their little get-togethers, typically on a weekend, they would play baseball and drink beer. It had absolutely nothing to do with being intellectual, and more to do with just having fun and getting loaded. Still, off in the corner was this small group of the "brainy bunch" who would sit there and debate a great many imponderable questions and topics (eg. particle physics, existentialism, etc), often over a game of chess. Under their collective breaths you could hear them complain about how the rest of these "beer-guzzling socialites" were spoiling the whole purpose and mission of Mensa. At the same time, they found themselves unhappy and off to the side, isolated (except for their own tiny group that just didn't fit in).

  There is the story of the young man who went on a quest for truth and enlightenment. He bought all kinds of books and research materials on all kinds of subjects and philosophies and religions and topics. He read and read and read. He studied until it hurt. He spent his whole life in introspection. After many years of doing this, he noticed one thing. He was very, very unhappy. "Why am I so unhappy." he asked himself. "Why is life such a burden? Why don't I have all the answers? Why am I still searching?....." The questions were endless. He felt like he was carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. Finally he decided that he was going to get rid of the thing that was making him so unhappy. He gathered up all his books and his papers and threw them all in the garbage. He decided for the first time in his life, to just live. And for the first time in his life, he found he was happy. So let us put that in our collective "intellectual pipes" and smoke it!

  Life is what happens to us while we are busy planning for it.

  Rod P.
• 

  Markfromcali

  In time, however, some of the "professional idealists" start noticing that professionalism somehow spoils the fun, and begin to envy the candid enthusiasm of the "amateurs". The interest seems to elude the centre, irresistibly occupied by prosaic day-to-day business, however "important," and persistently slides to unrelated events, people or interests in the fringe. Try to focus on the "essential" and you lose it. Forget about it and it re-emerges in the most unexpected places. The first will be the last?
  

  This is certainly part of my experience. Does that find any echo in yours?

  This brings to mind the idea of beginners mind from the well known zen teacher Shunryu Suzuki. The expert, professional idealist basically has a mind that is more structured and rigid than a beginners, therefore the possibilities are limited whereas the beginners mind has many possibilities, being completely open.

  Another aspect of this is reflected in Dogen's words: "To study the self is to forget the self." Given the above it would mean to forget this learned, rigid mental structure. And of course this does not mean you forget the practical knowledge and abilities you've acquired, it is just the identification with these things as self that is forgotten. When none of it is taken as self, then you are both free from the structure and free to use it at the same time. In effect people end up believing in an ideal and they are limited to those defined boundaries, whereas functionally speaking it is far better to have that flexibility.

  It's like a child's outlook of wanting to be a fireman or some other role that seem like a good one to strive after, but the role is only the appearance, doing the work is something else. So the question becomes who does the work? Before you learn how to be a fireman, there was still someone that has to learn. But this isn't about acquiring knowledge, it goes back to that beginner's mind that is open to all possibilities. We remember this when we forget this acuired sense of self.