
** NOTE: For the past six or seven years, this blog has been mostly about the "current events" that engage my attention, and so it generally presents public issues. But nowadays I am freer to share some important private issues and changes that have been going on in my thinking the past couple of years. To that end, I present this initial entry:
On August 10 I presented four original songs, singing and playing guitar and keyboards at the “Songwriter’s Café,” an event held a couple times a month at Red House in Walnut Creek. It was a slow night as these things go, according to Peter Avery, the Red House coordinator. They usually have six acts, but only five signed up. And of that a couple didn’t even show up. Ryan, the RH host took the first set and paired me with Walty for the second set of four songs each. Walty is a great guitarist and singer who instantly contributed an excellent guitar solo when I happened to muse while singing that this would be a good spot for a nice guitar solo. He asked, “What key?” I told him “C” and he launched right in. It was so good I had him repeat it. This is the wonderful kind of magic that happens during live music that gives me such special joy. Now that this “debut” is over, and I didn’t get de-butted, I hope to become a regular at the Café, which will help me get through my catalog of songs written in the 70s, and may encourage me to write some new ones.
This experience only roughly approximates the public appearances I made over the course of over 30 years as a Christian Scientist, both as a “Reader” in the churches and as a lecturer. The content is decidedly different! So is the audience. In my previous appearances, as well as in over 150 written articles, I’ve only represented that religion, even while trying to rehabilitate its culture with a touch of contemporaneity. This time I'm representing only myself – albeit a self of the 70s. Back then I had considered myself a songwriter and generated a few dozen songs, which were quietly shelved once I became a practitioner and representative of the Christian Science point of view. There’s nothing specifically against artistic expression in that system, but the more public you become – as a practitioner, teacher, writer, lecturer, etc – the more constrained you can feel about displaying emotion, doubt, ambivalence, or anything too "personal." You’re supposed to represent the absolute and fixed verities, which admit of none of that “human” roughness.
I was 36 when I first thought of myself as a Christian Scientist. Since 2005 – and now that I think about it, probably before – I have evolved away from that set of beliefs and have found myself mentally (but certainly not physically!) back to where I might have been if that 30-year detour hadn't happened. I'm creatively alive again, if not entirely free of the kinds of problems that at the time probably induced me to take up a religion that eschewed the kind of world view that would be characterized as “sensual.” For example, the opening line of the first song I performed at Red House went:
Here I sit smoking my last cigarette, it’s been a long, low night and it ain’t over yet.I don’t smoke anymore, not cigarettes anyway, but I’ve had plenty of long, low nights in the past 30 years. The difference this time is that I'm not ashamed to admit it in public, since I don’t consider myself an example of the kind of idealized human being that is supposed to result from believing in the absolute perfection of the true “spiritual man." Once in a while, when confronted by something scary, I do detect a mental twitch that in the past would have been called “prayer,” a desire to turn to some Agent above and beyond the present challenging situation that could lift me out of trouble. It’s the “skyhook” mentality that Dennett so clearly demolishes in “Breaking the Spell.” I now believe in what he calls, in “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, “cranes,” as opposed to skyhooks – in other words, progress built step by little step, adding to work that has already been done. The way evolution does it.
It’s what led me to my present state – a label for which still eludes me. I am not an “atheist” in the narrow sense of someone who eschews the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god. I eschew all divine agents. So "non-theist" might better characterize me. But that states it negatively. Maybe better would be “naturalistic humanist.” But that sounds overblown. And the term "Bright" seems a bit contrived, although I would align with their description of a person with:
- a naturalistic worldview
- free of supernatural and mystical elements
- ethics and actions based on a naturalistic world view
I heard Steve Shapiro speak once on the subject of “goal-free” living. That’s probably what I am doing these days. I have no goal, lead no movement, pick no fights, and bear only a grudge or two – the pain of which is receding more every day. And yet I feel open to explain to anyone what I am discovering since breaking free of the spell that there is something more than what exists here and now, or what can come into existence by just fooling around with it. This is sufficient. Just give me time and a bandanna, especially time.
1 comment:
good to have you writing about you.
Post a Comment