Special to the Mirror by Michael C. Jordan
And man loved darkness rather than light- John 3:19
Man is responsible for the misery of mankind. This, of course, is not an original thought. “The Broom”, a poem written by Giacomo Leopardi (1798-1837) in the final year of his life, describes in beautiful lyric his angst over the tragedy of man’s inhumanity to man. He exemplifies our continuing attempts to place blame and to exact revenge on others for our misfortunes. He is disheartened by our apparent inability to recognize our true foe: The disasters inflicted on us by nature. Yet an optimist, he believed man would recapture the virtues of mutual aid and cooperation in his fight for survival. He wrote in this translation by Edwin Morgan:
It is a noble nature
That ventures to look up
Through mortal eyes upon
Our common fate, and tell with frank tongue
That hides no grain of truth
How frailties, evils, low estate are ours
By reason of being born:
One reveals his strength
And greatness in suffering, refusing to add to
The angers and hates of his brothers
(Worst harm of all within
Our human miseries!) but rather transferring
The blame of grief from man and placing it
In the true seat of guilt, the mother of men1
With the stepmother heart. She is the one
He calls his enemy! And since he believes
The brotherhood of men
To be, as indeed they are, united and set
Against this enemy yet, He takes all men to be confederates
Among themselves, embraces
Them all with a true love,
Extends and expects a ready, meaningful help
As agonies and hazards strike and pass
1 Nature, here alleged to be an unfriendly rather than a maternal force.
In the common war of man. And to be armed
Offensively against one’s kind, to strew
A neighbor’s path with spike
And block he sees as utter madness—like
A man hard pressed upon the battlefield
Who at the crucial assault
Forgets his enemies and begins a sharp
Contest with his own friends,
Spreading the panic of a whistling blade
That cuts its own troops down
When thoughts like these are known
To ordinary folk, as once they were,
And when that terror which first
Drew mortal men so close
In social links against unpitying nature
Has been won back in part,
By true recognition, then will justice, mercy,
Fair and honorable dealing
In the dialogue of cities, find another root
Than the presumptuous idle fables which
Have had to prop the common probity
Of men—if one can call
Error a prop of what is bound to fall.
Like Leopardi, I do not look to a supernatural evil as the reason for iniquity on earth. Those who aver that all evil comes from the devil are evading humanity’s own responsibility for it.
Today’s discussion regarding the lack of personal responsibility among men is only a result of the belief that there was once a time when man assumed personal responsibility. Many of us were raised to believe that if we worked hard, played by the rules, loved God, etc.…, we would be rewarded with successful lives…Poppycock!
While they were teaching us all the “Right things” (Leopardi’s props), they who we thought to be moral, upstanding, pillars-of-society…our teachers, clergy, parents, and all the other hypocrites who helped shape the lies of our lives…they were cheating on their taxes, coveting their neighbor’s spouse, or spending a great deal of time under their boss’s desk politicking a pay raise.
While they were convincing us of how righteous they were and suggesting how we should conduct our lives properly (more of Leopardi’s props), they were amassing money and power through fraud, deceit, and betrayal. The more people they could hornswoggle into believing that a good and pious life was the way to success, happiness, and salvation—the more fools they could create to become future victims.
I regard people as being basically good, believing that if treated with honor and respect they will be bound by their own morality to respond in kind. Unfortunately, my theory of reciprocity is greatly flawed. Some people are nasty simply to be nasty and take pleasure in creating and/or celebrating the misery of others.
After personally suffering numerous betrayals from all quarters, I still, like Leopardi, have not abandoned my core belief that men and women, if given half a chance, will do good before evil. Socrates said that only a deceptive heart sees deception, meaning that in order to perceive an evil, one must contain that evil. I would like to apply this rationale to myself in justification for not anticipating the times in my life when I was duped, but that would be arrogant.
The poem suggests that if born with a noble nature, “One reveals his strength / And greatness in suffering, refusing to add to / The angers and hates of his brothers.” I would like to believe I am so blessed, for I do not find value in harming people for fun or profit. Those who do, even though they may be in the majority, are in my humble opinion the most wretched individuals on earth.
Leopardi contends that nature is “the true seat of guilt, the mother of men / With the stepmother heart. / She is the one / He calls his enemy!” So man, unaware of his true enemy, adds to his brother’s already difficult life, and “…strew[s] a neighbor’s path with spike / and block.” These things are done by people who conclude that there is only so much happiness, success, wealth, love and power available and that by depriving another person of the harmony in their lives, they can liberate that harmony for themselves. Can a person add to his own self-respect by robbing it from another? No, but it would so seem by viewing mankind in action, one against another.
Our poet has faith in man’s eventual return to his once noble ways, “And when that terror which first / Drew mortal men so close / In social links against unpitying nature / Has been won back in part / By true recognition. Then will justice, mercy, / Fair and honorable dealing / In the dialogue of cities, find another root.” Let us hope his is right.
Our current pursuit of individual survival may be the driving force behind our self-generated misery. The actions we take to preserve our lives, even among our gentler people, are not always proper, but to make sport of generating physical, mental or emotional anguish in others, as some people do, is execrable. We are all subject to this social transgression sometimes as prey and sometimes as the predator. Having minuscule control over other’s actions— we must leave them to their own devices.
But pity the few who recognize nature as being humankind’s true enemy, for they are charged with a great burden. Once this truth is revealed to them they can hardly ignore their responsibility to change. The enlightened must forever focus on their obligation to establish and sustain a nobler role for their inner soul…
Michael C. Jordan retired from the U.S. Navy in 1995. Then attended Allegany College of Maryland, Frostburg State University, West Virginia University, and Fairmont State University earning degrees in Social Work (AS), Sociology (BS), Community Health Education (MS), and completed post-graduate study in Special Education. He currently teaches on-line Humanity courses for Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical College and moved to Cape Charles in July of 2016.
Discover more from CAPE CHARLES MIRROR
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A detailed study of history more than amply demonstrates that there is no such thing as a “common fate.”
That is a truism that any veteran of combat is likely to know quite well.
I go with the words from The Doors, as follows:
Riders on the storm
Riders on the storm
Into this house we’re born
Into this world we’re thrown
Like a dog without a bone
An actor out on loan
Riders on the storm
end quotes
How many armadas over history have found out the truth of that as they were blown hither and yon by a tempest at sea?
People who think “we are all in this together” are deluded.
We are not.
As to personal responsibility, which I am a strong believer in, having been raised that way in a much different time in America, where a different value system prevailed, those who disavow it still have it, because it is something you just can’t shuck, no matter how big the crowd you try to hide or submerge yourself in.
Great article, Michael!!
Thank you Nicki!
“And man loved darkness rather than light”
– John 3:19
God bless John, but that really should read some men, perhaps many in our day and age, and women, too, love darkness rather than light.
It was God, afterall, who created mankind with free will – the ability, if it can be called that, or the freedom, to make that choice.
Absent that choice, there would be no free will.
If one does not believe in God, and God knows, many don’t, then we are thrust back on the Newtonian Clockwork Model of the universe, which would have us believe that all actions subsequent to the setting in motion of the clockwork that governs the unfolding of the universe were predetermined at the time that the Clockwork was set in motion, so that those who appear to choose either light or darkness really have no say in the matter.
In that scenario, those who would appear to have chosen what is defined as “darkness” cannot be held to account.
So should they be condemned?
And this is a discussion that goes a lot further back into antiquity than the “The Broom,” the poem written by Giacomo Leopardi in 1837 wherein he describes in beautiful lyric his angst over the tragedy of man’s inhumanity to man.
Interestingly, those words and that angst were expressed just twelve years after what was called the “Era of Good Feelings” in this nation, that being from 1815 – 1825.
In “De Finibus,” for example, written over two thousand years ago, Cicero compared the philosophies of Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Platonism in some detail.
In the text, Cicero focused on the confusion caused by the ambiguity of some of Epicurus’ key concepts, particularly the way he defines “pleasure” (hedone) as the goal of life.
In our early history, “corruption” was defined as “love of ease.”
To those who believed in hard work in this country, that well could have been considered as loving darkness rather than light.
And when we here on earth trying to make our way through our days without causing harm consider “seeking the light,” perhaps we should keep in the back of our minds Icarus.
Just a thought, anyway.
“God bless John, but that really should read some men…”
Now you are correcting/criticizing Saint John!
Such hubris…get over your self Paul!
Well, “A friend!”
Long time no see, dude.
Where you been?
People have missed you, you know.
And what of me “correcting/criticizing Saint John?”
Who is this St. John that he or she is above reproach?
And don’t you know, “A friend,” that your St. John, who I have just corrected or criticized, is an invention of Constantine, a Roman emperor, for political reasons?
Speaking of politics, the “church” your St John was a part of, which you would know with your superior knowledge of these things, was very much a political body, as can be seen and attested to by the filioque clause/filioque controversy and the Nicene Creed, which was very political as subsequent history was to clearly demonstrate.
As you know, “A friend,” there are two separate issues in the Filioque controversy of Christianity – the orthodoxy of the doctrine itself and the liceity (legitimacy) of the insertion of the phrase into the Nicene Creed.
And as you remember, although the debate over the orthodoxy of the doctrine preceded the question of the admissibility of the phrase as inserted into the Creed, the two issues became linked when the insertion received the approval of the Pope in the eleventh century.
See, “A friend?”
Back to politics, which is why I don’t take anything your St. John was alleged to have said seriously, and why would anyone in his or her right mind, especially that part about “And man loved darkness rather than light?”
Since John’s writings or mewlings, depending on your point of view, were very much a part of that controversy, it can well be said that the ones John was talking about were those who didn’t believe him or take him seriously.
And that takes us to the third ecumenical council, held at Ephesus in 431, which quoted the Nicene Creed in its 325 form as opposed to that of 381, and which decreed in its seventh canon as follows:
“It is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.”
“But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized”.
end quotes
Politics, “A friend.”
And again, as you would know before anyone else would know, “anathematize” means curse or condemn.
Talk about folks being born and bred in a society that cruelly beats them down, hurts them, belittles them, refuses them from a very early age and crushes the soul to the extent that they are neither conscious of their own actions and/or just don’t give a damn, that would be it, would it not, “A friend?”
Getting back to your St. John, “A friend,” who is not a saint to me, and church politics, which quite frankly turn me right off, John’s subsequent history is obscure and passes into the uncertain mists of legend.
As to church politics. “A friend,” and again, knowing church history as well as you do, being held by many to be a saint yourself, along with the secular history that was contemporary with it, while the church fathers were teaching people all the “Right things,” they who people had to pretend were moral, upstanding, pillars-of-society, which they did so they would not be anathematized by the church, those hypocrites who helped shape the lies of our lives, while they were convincing people of how righteous they were and suggesting how people should conduct their lives properly, they were amassing money and power through fraud, deceit, and betrayal.
The more people they could hornswoggle into believing that a good and pious life was the way to success, happiness, and salvation—the more fools they could create to become future victims.
And boy, did they ever, but hey, look at me here, telling you things you already know far better than I.
So thanks for stopping by here, “A friend,” to share some of your ample supply of knowledge with us.
It is appreciated.
Dance my little marionette; dance as I manipulate your threads!
That’s a verse from “Thumbelina Dance,” “A friend” of the squids, I am told by those who know you quite well.
Talk about a blast from the past, alright.
Thanks for sharing, dude.
Since it is the 4th of July, “A friend,” the day the American colonists declared independence from the tyranny of an English king, it is only fitting that we revisit your comment above about hubris in the light of the seventh canon of the third ecumenical council, held at Ephesus in 431, which quoted the Nicene Creed in its 325 form as opposed to that of 381, as follows:
“It is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.”
“But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized”.
end quotes
Now, before I relate that to our freedom in America today to not have to adhere to the tenets of the religions of others, are you actually telling me, and by extension the world, since the Cape Charles Mirror is global thanks to Al Gore and the internet he invented, that you are actually naïve and gullible enough to swallow that load of codswallop about “the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa?”
Talk about a royal scam, “A friend,” or an imperial one, there it is, right before your eyes, and I bet you didn’t even see it, so slick it was, because nobody can see the Holy Ghost, “A friend.”
But those dudes would have the gullible like you thinking the Holy Ghost was right in there with them, laughing and joking and playing grab-*** and giving them noogies and wedgies and stuff like that, that you would expect from a bunch of frat boys at a frat party.
And here you are, telling me that I am courting hubris because 1) I don’t believe those so-called “holy fathers” were at all holy; and 2) I think the claim that the Holy Ghost was in there with them is a load of hogwash; and 3) because I don’t think your St, John, who incidentally is not my St. John had it quite right when he said “And man loved darkness rather than light.”
If you could come up with some objective proof besides their word that the Holy Ghost was in there with them, I would be glad to entertain it, but to date, all you have offered us is bupkes, if you know what I am saying, and bupkes just don’t cut it, as far as I am concerned.
Which takes us to February 18, 1788 in America, not quite twelve (12) years after the Declaration of Independence in July of 1776, and the famous “Elihu” Essay in the American Mercury, an early-American precursor to the Cape Charles Mirror, I would say, as follows:
It was an objection against the Constitution, urged in the late Convention, that the being of a God was not explicitly acknowledged in it.
It has been reported that an honorable gentleman, who gave his vote in favor of the Constitution, has since expressed his discontent by an expression no less remarkable than this, “that they (speaking of the framers of the Constitution) had not allowed God a seat there”!
end quotes
You’re a dude with ahead for metaphor and analogies, “A friend,” so do you see the similarities there between the third ecumenical council held at Ephesus in 431, where the holy Fathers were assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa, and the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, where they didn’t allow God a seat?
It is subtle, I admit, but if you think about it for a minute, I think a dude with your grasp on reality will see what I am saying, which is this:
Those in the United States of America who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall not be anathematized.
end quotes
A huge difference, is it not, “A friend?”
Thus, it is not hubris for me as an American citizen to question your St. John as to his veracity.
Yes, you can still anathematize me for it, but so what?
Getting back to “Elihu,” which I am sure you must recall from your seventh grade civics class:
Another honorable gentleman who gave his vote in like manner, has published a specimen of an introductory acknowledgment of a God such as should have been in his opinion prefixed to the Constitution, viz.: WE the people of the United Slates, in a firm belief of the being and perfections of the one living and true God, the creator and supreme Governor of the world, in His universal providence and the authority of His laws: that He will require of ail moral agents an account of their conduct, that all rightful powers among men are ordained of, and mediately derived from God, therefore in a dependence on His blessing and acknowledgment of His efficient protection in establishing our Independence, whereby it is become necessary to agree upon and settle a Constitution of federal government for ourselves.
This introduction is likewise to serve as a religious test, for he says “instead of none, no other religious test should ever be required, etc.”
end quotes
A religious test, “A friend,” such as the one you seem to be trying to impose on me in here, where you appear to be demanding that I take your St. John at face value, goes against the grain of a real American citizen such as myself, as we see further in “Elihu,” as follows:
Should any body of men, whose characters were unknown to me, form a plan of government, and prologue it with a long pharisaical harangue about God and religion, I should suspect a design to cheat and circumvent us, and their cant, and semblance of superior sanctity would be the ground of my suspicion.
If they have a plan founded on good sense, wisdom, and experience, what occasion have they to make use of God, His providence, or religion, like old cunning monks to gain our assent to what is in itself rational and just?
end quotes
Not to cause you offense, “A friend,” nor to make you feel bad about yourself inside, but aren’t you acting like an old cunning monk in here with your admonishment to me concerning criticizing your St. John, as if your St. John had to be everybody’s St. John, when that is far from the truth?
Getting back to “Elihu” and religious freedom here in America as I understand it:
“There must be (tis objected) some proof, some evidence that we the people acknowledge the being of a God.”
Is this a thing that wants proof?
Is this a thing that wants constitutional establishment in the United States?
It is almost the only thing that all universally are agreed in; everybody believes there is a God; not a man of common sense in the United States denies or disbelieves it.
The fool hath said in his heart there is no God, but was there ever a wise man said such a thing?
No, not in any age or in any country.
end quotes
That, “A friend,” is something that I, as a rational human being, take no issue with,
I don’t deny the existence of God; to the contrary, I just don’t think your St. John, who was into power politics in the early church, knew what he was talking about when he said “And man loved darkness rather than light.”
Do you?
Do you love darkness rather than light?
If not, you prove St. John wrong yourself, and even if you do love darkness rather than light, it doesn’t mean I do, or that I have to, which is what “Elihu” is saying right here, to wit:
Besides, if it was not so, if there were unbelievers, as it is a matter of faith, it might as well be admitted; for we are not to bind the consciences of men by laws or constitutions.
The mind is free; it may be convinced by reasoning, but cannot be compelled by laws or constitutions, no, nor by fire, faggot, or the halter.
Such an acknowledgment is moreover useless as a religious test–it is calculated to exclude from office fools only, who believe there is no God; and the people of America are now become so enlightened that no fool hereafter (it is hoped) will ever be promoted to any office or high station.
end quotes
Sadly, subsequent history in this country was to prove him quite wrong on that last – thanks to the stranglehold the Republican faction and the Democratical faction have on our government, a seemingly endless procession of fools have been promoted to high station in this country, but that is a separate topic.
Getting bacl to “Elihu”:
An honorable gentleman objects that God has no seat allowed Him.
Is this only to find fault with the Constitution because he had no hand in making it?
Or is he serious?
Would he have given God a seat there?
For what purpose?
To get a name for sanctity that he might have it in his power to impose on the people?
end quotes
You are doing the same thing in here, “A friend,” trying to flog me with your St. John, which takes us back to “Elihu,” as follows:
The time has been when nations could be kept in awe with Stories of gods sitting with legislators and dictating laws; with this lure, cunning politicians have established their own power on the credulity of the people; shackling their uninformed minds with incredible tales.
But the light of philosophy has arisen in these latter days, miracles have ceased, oracles are silenced, monkish darkness is dissipated, and even witches at last hide their heads.
Mankind are no longer to be deluded with fable.
Making the glory of God subservient to the temporal interest of men is a worn out trick, and a pretense to superior sanctity and special grace will not much longer promote weakness over the head of wisdom.
end quotes
Those are some words you should give some careful consideration to, “A friend,” as you go around trying to ram your St. John down the throats of those like myself who don’t accept them as either truth or fact, which again takes us back to “Elihu”:
A low mind may imagine that God, like a foolish old man, will think himself slighted and dishonored if he is not complimented with a seat or a prologue of recognition in the Constitution, but those great philosophers who formed tile Constitution had a higher idea of the perfection of that INFINITE MIND which governs all worlds than to suppose they could add to his honor or glory, or that He would be pleased with such low familiarity or vulgar flattery.
The most shining part, the most brilliant circumstance in honor of the framers of the Constitution is their avoiding all appearance of craft, declining to dazzle even the superstitious by a hint about grace or ghostly knowledge.
They come to us in the plain language of common sense and propose to our understanding a system of government as the invention of mere human wisdom; no deity comes down to dictate it, nor even a God appears in a dream to propose any part of it.
A knowledge of human nature, the aid of philosophy, and the experience of ages are seen in the very face of it; whilst it stands forth like a magnificent STATUE of gold.
Yet, there are not wanting FANATICS who would crown it with the periwig of an old monk and wrap it up in a black cloak–whilst political quackery is contending to secure it with fetters and decorate it with a leather apron!!
end quotes
Happy Independence from Tyranny Day, “A friend,” which includes the tyranny of your religion.
And mind the heat, dude, it is a scorcher out there – hotter than hell I heard one weatherman say, so be sure to stay hydrated, dude, and if you must go out min the sun, keep your head covered so your brain don’t get baked.
One of the best enlightening articles on the philosophy of man I have read in a good while. And to find it in the Mirror is added bonus. Thank you, Wayne for publishing and thank you Mr. Jordan for the writing. It is good that this blog has drawn prose such as this to its readers.
The dilemma of man has always been within himself. Even the very first murder (according to the story) was based on jealousy harbored as revenge and a sense of rejection. Evil played no real role, unless you count the basis of man’s emotions and ego as evil. The fact that the story pins the misdeed on his rejection by god makes for a curious side line. And absolves the ego?
Mr. Jordan, it is a known fact that in times of peril and grosses of man’s miscarriages, many good souls come to the fore to not only enact deeds of kindness, goodness and acts of courage, the very nature of the deed flies in the face of evil. The placement and growth of evil within a society can be a subtle thing, as transpired in Germany eighty-five years ago. And evil can draw a lot of good men and women into its sphere and swamp their integrity. The price Germany paid was high. However, there are many, many stories of courage and sheer disobedience to that evil that find the light of day, today. It is those stories that sustain me and encourage my sense of balance and obligation to humanity.
I am not sure of others. I know very little about what other people are born with. I have seen enough and am old enough to believe that there are some who are, as my mother used to say, “Bad Seed”. I am sure you know what she means by that. But, I also believe, that there are folks born and breed in a society that cruelly beats them down, hurts them, belittles them, refuses them from a very early age. Crushes the soul to the extent that they are neither conscious of their own actions and/or just don’t give a damn. But o whom does the responsibility lie? Because from these very same areas of damnation, also rise those who not only overcome the situation, but arise to the level or higher, than those much more fortunate than they. Life is a curios scenario…huh?
As for a recognizing nature as the true enemy (and by that I believe you and I are referring to Cain’s ego/emotions of my second paragraph), this is something I figured out long ago. To me, it is second nature to personal responsibility. And the philosophy I endure to live by. But, one thing I disagree with you about…Nature is not my worst enemy. I am. And as long as I am vigilant, the gates of my integrity remain guarded. Thank you again for my Sunday morning read. It was thought provoking.
Thank you Chas!
Michael, I hope you will forgive me for not getting in here earlier to heap praise on your writing above here.
It is because I am a slow reader when it comes to a very meaty topic such as this very definitely is.
I am just now getting to this part, which seems to be in the form of a personal confession, or perhaps revelation, to wit:
After personally suffering numerous betrayals from all quarters, I still, like Leopardi, have not abandoned my core belief that men and women, if given half a chance, will do good before evil.
end quotes
As so often happens with these streams of consciousness in here, especially when our dear friend and fellow American patriot has joined the discussion, that statement of yours took me back in time to these word from “The Boxer” by Simon and Garfunkle as follows:
In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade
And he carries the reminders
Of every glove that laid him down or cut him
‘Til he cried out in his anger and his shame
I am leaving, I am leaving, but the fighter still remains
end quotes
That to me is a crying out of the human spirit if anything is, and except for the name and a few other changes, that well could be you.
And the stream of consciousness does not end there, not by a long shot, as we can see from the first verse to that song, as follows:
I am just a poor boy though my story’s seldom told
I have squandered my resistance for a pocketful of mumbles, such are promises
All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest, hmmmm
end quotes
Isn’t that very much what you are trying to get across in here, the part about “All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest?”
Isn’t that really a statement about what the poets and the philosophers call the “Human Condition,” the characteristics, key events, and situations which compose the essentials of human existence, such as birth, growth, emotionality, aspiration, conflict, and mortality?
Human nature, which you are writing about above here, as is Chas Cornweller, refers to the distinguishing characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—which humans tend to have naturally, and the complex implications of such questions are very much dealt with both in art and literature – the question of what it is to be human, which nobody prior to this moment in time has been able to adequately express, although I think Simon and Garfunkle came close in “The Boxer,’ just as Neil Diamond did in “I am I said”:
Well I’m New York City born and raised
But nowadays
I’m lost between two shores
L.A.’s fine, but it ain’t home
New York’s home
But it ain’t mine no more
“I am”… I said
To no one there
And no one heard at all
Not even the chair
“I am”… I cried
“I am”… said I
And I am lost and I can’t
Even say why
Leavin’ me lonely still.
end quotes
Talk about a cry from the heart, that is it to me, anyway.
And then you said: Socrates said that only a deceptive heart sees deception, meaning that in order to perceive an evil, one must contain that evil.
end quotes
The Taoists say that a different way – look for the good in the most evil of persons, lest by only looking at the evil, you lose sight of the good in yourself.
And an old Native American man who adopted me as his son put it this way, at least to me:
Everyone is born with two hands, not just one; so when you get to using the one to slap yourself vigorously on the back while congratulating yourself as to what a good person you are, don’t forget your other hand is down there in your lap.
Which means that the capacity for doing good or evil is inherent in all living beings.
And that takes us back to “The Boxer”:
Asking only workman’s wages, I come lookin’ for a job
But I get no offers
Just a come-on from the whores on 7th Avenue
I do declare, there were times when I was so lonesome
I took some comfort there
end quotes
And from there, the part about “the whores on 7th Avenue,” we are taken back in time to St. John and these words from the Nazarene, to wit:
“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
As our dear friend and fellow evangelist Chas Cornweller would tell us, the term comes from the New Testament, John 8:7, to be specific, where Jesus defends an adulteress against those who would stone her, saying “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
That is what I take to be the meaning of your “Parables to the people of Cape Charles” above here.
As my dear friend Chas Cornweller says above here, “Life is a curious scenario…huh,” and believe me, I couldn’t agree with him more.
Thank you Paul!
Happy Independence Day, Michael and thanks for your service!
Thank you Paul!