September 10, 2007

• I failed to make myself clear.

  Oh, the irony, the poignancy, the needed reminder to watch my words!

  Yesterday, I wrote:  “Charity is a form of contempt.”  What was I thinking?  The most charitable thing I can say is that I was unconsciously trying to exemplify these words I quoted from Simone Weil:  “A mind enclosed in language is in prison.”  But rather than try to weasel out of it that way, I will try to explain what I meant. 

  My error was pointed out by mailboxhead in this comment:
  

  Your first paragraph seems to me a good idea to live by… I have long been of the belief that giving to charity is not necessarily good, because something given has no value. If one were to truly love their neighbors, they would ask of their neighbors that they make something of themselves without the charity of others…

  It is very early in the morning, and I fear that I may not be making much sense…

  Well, luv, it was very early in the morning when I formulated that thought that I expressed so poorly, and I know that I did not make the sense I had meant to make.  I had forgotten that the main usage of “charity” is synonymous with philanthropy, and that philanthropy has degenerated in the common mind, from the original impersonal love for mankind and promotion of human welfare, into charitable giving, and in this society that often means responding to public appeals that line the pockets of the charity’s administration and their ad agency.

  Real philanthropy, such as that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing in Africa and elsewhere, has the power to save individual lives and enrich world culture.  Yaay for charity, hurrah for giving of one’s bounty to those less fortunate than oneself, three cheers for robbing the rich to give to the poor, and I am totally behind comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. 

  My door is open (literally: there’s no lock on it, not even a latch) to the occasional homeless friend or acquaintance who needs to share my leaky roof for a while.  He can sleep on the broken-down old couch, and I will cover him with one of the blankets Greyfox scrounged from the dumpster at Felony Flats.  Whenever Greyfox scrounges food or other useful items for which he or Doug or I have no use, we pass them along to others who may use them.  There are times when the hand of charity can make the difference between life and death.  Sharing enriches me as much as it assists my fellow beings.
  
  My cursory online search this morning could not turn up a definition of “charitable” that expressed the nuance I was attempting to give it yesterday.  The closest I could come was, “a kindly and lenient attitude toward people.”  While I don’t want to be unkind, I do know that lenience implies superiority to and authority over others:  “lightening a penalty or excusing from a chore by judges or parents or teachers.”  A charitable or lenient attitude toward one’s supposed “inferiors” is inconsistent with the unity consciousness and universal unconditional love I seek to practice. 

  My charitable urge to “help” a correspondent out of her delusions and dysfunction was presumptuous and condescending.  Furthermore, it would be pointless, unproductive, and unkind to try and do so unless she asked for my help.  Of course, I know that even if she were to ask for help, what she would actually want would be reassurance, which I could not give without being dishonest.  Ah, well…  Living in society can be complicated, can’t it?

  Anyhow, mailboxhead’s comment reminded me of Ayn Rand.  Here’s the standard disclaimer I neglected to issue on yesterday’s Simone Weil quotes:
  Opinions expressed below are those of Ayn Rand and/or fictional characters of her creation, and are not necessarily those of SuSu, her sponsors, or the Xanga gods.

  Why do they always teach us that it’s easy and evil to do what we want and that we need discipline to restrain ourselves? It’s the hardest thing in the world–to do what we want. And it takes the greatest kind of courage. I mean, what we really want.

  It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.

  The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap.

  When I die, I hope to go to Heaven, whatever the Hell that is.

  We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

  Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

  The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

  The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.

  People create their own questions because they are afraid to look straight. All you have to do is look straight and see the road, and when you see it, don’t sit looking at it – walk.

  If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.

  To say “I love you” one must first be able to say the “I.”

  The worst guilt is to accept an unearned guilt.

  The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me.

  

  • 1:32 pm
  • 4 Comments