Pierre Teilhard De Chardin: Love, Evolution, Higher Consciounsess, and Convergence

Pierre Teilhard De Chardin is a great example of the ultimate seeker.  Not content to let science or religion stop at their various dogmatic sticking points, he takes things further, much further.  He constantly questions how we can expand not only our minds, but the mind of humanity as a whole.  That collective consciousness we can see reflections of in other intellectuals such as Carl Jung.  But Chardin’s “consciousness” is different than Jung’s.  Whereas Jung sees archetypes in the subconscious that are inherent to everyone, Chardin sees a CONVERGENCE towards a higher human consciousness, ultimately to the point where we can find the totality of love, or in other words, divinity/God. 

I have always hesitated to use the word God in describing my own conceptual construction of a Higher Power, but I don’t believe that we need to subscribe to Chardin’s Christian philosophy to see the logic behind what he presents.  Chardin’s thought, despite all the high rhetoric, is relatively simple to understand.  He takes evolution, which he fully believes in, and broadens it.  No longer do religion and science have to be separate.  Chardin things big, he questions, he seeks, and it is there that I find common ground with his philosophy.  The idea of the soul is portrayed as energy, and physicists are starting to come to the same conclusion.  Consciousness IS energy.  So far, it is the ultimate energy as exemplified in humanity; the being that has the ability to KNOW that it KNOWS.  Reflection.  Evolution has achieved consciousness through complexity.  The being reflecting back on itself through a "crossing over" or one of those points in evolutionary history where a sudden breakthrough has occurred.  Sartre and the existentialists would refer to it as the “pre-reflective cognito”.  However, the existentialists fall short by stopping at the human which at base has nothing as a ground.  NO.  We, as humans, are simply a stage in the progression of evolution; a higher stage to be sure, and a revolutionary stage, but still one level in the process; a process that continues to complexify, unify, and center in on itself.

Everywhere around us, we can see this progression of evolution, and Chardin emphasizes that the more humanity increases, the more we will be pressed in on one another, both physically AND psychically.  Eventually we will converge into an as yet inconceivable higher consciousness, and perhaps millions of years away, we will reach the apex of that consciousness.  To think of it another way:  We as humans are individual (albeit more advanced) molecules combining to create an even more complex and unified convergence past the simply human.  We are but one stage in the process.  Your life as a “molecule” is meant for something higher. 

The patterns of the universe are there for us to see.   Starting with the most basic components of everything that is, the atom, we see the expansion and complexity, through trial and error, that creates greater convergence and intelligence.  There is a unity in this complexity, as more and more individual parts unite to create something greater.  It is the same pattern of unity that we see in all the elements of love.  Connection.  Unity with other human beings.  Acceptance of differences as contributing to the whole.  All of these elements play a key part in the direction of the universe, and where we as humanity are headed. 

The existentialists have failed, as far as Chardin (and I) are concerned in that they present no higher purpose; they present nothing at all.  Literally.  If we have no higher purpose, what is the drive to keep going?  There is not mass suicide among existentialists, so they must see a reason to go on, yes?  Chardin refers to it as the “Activation of Energy” inside of us that shows clearly the divinity/love at play.  It is what we can call the zest of life.  The existential anguish is not a realization of meaninglessness or nothingness, but a level of awareness which presents something unfamiliar, something not yet finalized in its formation.  There is still more trial and error, and most importantly THE UNKOWN to deal with.  However, believing in this higher force, the energy that moves all that is, the energy that is love, is what gives us hope, keeps us moving, knowing that we are contributing to a greater expansion of consciousness and unity. 

I have begun to accept that love IS my idea of “God”.  But I had never heard it articulated in this manner.  Evolution is love in the material world.  It is a unity that progresses into something higher.  As reflective beings, however, we carry a greater ability (and Chardin argues, responsibility) to carry this evolution higher and higher.  It IS up to us, as free-thinking beings to make the most of it.  What will we do with this unique station we’ve been given in the evolutionary process?  Destroy ourselves, or continue the progression to the ultimate convergence that is waiting for humanity?  

Consistency in American Foreign Policy

The fact that Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer’s book is now 14 years old only serves to illustrate how accurate he was/is about US foreign policy in Latin America and elsewhere.  His details about long-standing US support for torture/terrorism were not surprising, but his information presents a couple of important perspectives that I haven’t heard in the discourse around our foreign policy concerning Latin America in particular, and the world at large generally.

The first is a bit of history on the origins of Liberation Theology, which has a negative connotation for many.  Nelson-Pallmeyer shows that Liberation Theology did not grow directly out of Marxism, but rather out of a concern on the part of the Catholic Church to get back to perhaps the most basic message of the New Testament Jesus:  Concern and love for the poor and dispossessed.  This kind of concern, in practice, always finds itself naturally opposed to oligarchs and the wealthy.  Reducing disparities in wealth is not good for business, and therefore not conducive to keeping a hold on power.  The School of the Americas served as a tool to make sure that this power of the elite was not lost to the "evil" Catholic priests and nuns who sought a better life for the poverty stricken in Latin America.  The fact that the beginnings of Liberation Theology coincided with increased interest in its secular counterpart, Marxism (seen exemplified in the Cuban Revolution) is no accident.  There was vast unrest throughout Latin America, much like we’re seeing today in the Arab world.  Liberation Theology and Capitalism don’t mix well, and the useful/timely association with Soviet influenced Communism created a convenient narrative, and a target for Latin America death squads, helped by the rhetoric of the establishment in the US (both political and religious as well as economic).  For US citizens who have paid attention, this should serve as a call to look at the ways the Western World will attempt to manipulate the economic/political outcomes of a restless Islamic Arab world freshly rejuvenated to take back control of their lives. 

The second perspective is that Western mind control often incorporates admitting to past atrocities or errors in foreign policy once the old practices are no longer useful.  In the case of The School of the Americas, Nelson-Pallmeyer showed several examples of major media outlet criticism of the horrific track record of its graduates.  His argument is that since America’s foreign policy uses for the School were becoming less important by the mid 1990’s, it fit into the American myth for the media to condemn past mistakes and illustrate the “changes” that were being made to ensure that these actions (i.e. the same foreign policy) didn’t occur again.  Never was it necessary to perhaps right those wrongs, but if it made Americans sleep better at night knowing that their government was correcting any wayward elements, then it was not only ok to print, but encouraged.  After all, our government couldn’t have a population too concerned about human rights.  Things could get out of hand.  Meanwhile, our foreign policy continues (with a slight face-lift) just as before.  Different look, maybe a different location, but the same old atrocities, and eventual "apologies" for those atrocities that "obviously came from a few misinterpretations".  

Throughout the book, Nelson-Pallmeyer calls the US to acknowledge its past in Latin America, and to not merely criticize events after the fact, but to work towards reparations and the reduction of blowback.   This sounds great, but is futile in our current system; one that is not transparent enough or even capable of being honest.  To tell the truth and attempt to make things right concerning American foreign policy would create more cognitive dissonance than what our national consciousness is capable of handling.  

The Story of TASSC Founder Dianna Ortiz

I remember, on the ride back from the panel discussion, mentioning to our local DC director of TASSC that it seemed so pointless for Katherine Gallagher of the Center for Constitutional Rights to continue to pursue indictments against American officials in foreign courts.  Gallagher and the CCR have been attempting to prosecute members of the Bush and Obama administrations for their involvement in torture carried out during the 10 year “War on Terror”.  There is a legal opening pertaining to torture that allows international jurisdiction.  But does it really matter?  What is the point of attempting to take down members of the most powerful empire on earth?  Who would enforce it?  The panel discussion was held on June 1 in Washington, and featured the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, himself a survivor of torture from Argentina. 

The pointlessness that I felt, and heard in Gallagher’s tired voice, was the same feeling I had while reading of Sister Dianna Ortiz’s attempts at obtaining justice for her torture in Guatemala in 1989.  She had, unfortunately, been in the wrong place at the wrong time, and had fallen under the dark umbrella of “CIA assets”.  She takes us through an account that undoubtedly has been repeated thousands of times:  the reality of walking through the dog and pony show that victims receive when coming up against a government bent on protecting its controversial “interests”, regardless of who the victims are. 

The US government commits torture today.  We know that now, and official documents state this fact.  I doubt that there has ever been a time when the US has not supported torture in some way.  Any amount of reading and critical thinking will raise questions about our domestic and foreign policy and will uncover nightmares if one digs far enough.  Ortiz own investigation and interviews of Guatemalan and American officials, along with the work of her lawyers and the review of declassified documents was enough to tell her that there was some serious American support of torture and murder going on in Guatemala, and that was continuing to go on when the book was published in 2002.  That is without seeing the many additional classified documents about her case that remain closed to the public. 

Ortiz was subjected to abduction, burns, gang-rape and the forced torture/murder of another woman during her ordeal in 1989.  Her story is only one of thousands quite similar that have come out of Latin America and all over the world.  The question in my mind when reading accounts like this is what can we do about it?  It was the same question that Ortiz struggled with, and the “doing something about it” was for a long time her only motivation to continue living. 

As I was talking about the panel discussion with our director, it seemed to me that the most effective action we could take begins from the ground up, not from the other direction as Gallagher was attempting.  Maybe Katherine Gallagher and others like her are doing some good by continuing to be active on the international level.  However, reading a book written by someone like Dianna Ortiz, and listening to similar tearful accounts in my daily work at TASSC, puts a human face on all of the madness that our government practices in the world today.  It is hard to be involved in this work.  It drains a person emotionally and physically, and will drive one insane with anger if they allow it.  However, the victims more than anything need someone to be there to listen; to validate; to point out the way to healing and purpose.  To simply stand beside them as they try to piece their lives back together.  This is where the real difference can be made:  at the grassroots.  We practice the principles of love in our world through the individual contacts we make.  As power grows, it moves further and further from humanity.  To return to that humanity, we focus on the micro, on the person, the individual.  Then we see our own humanity reflected in the other, and realize, like Ortiz, that power doesn’t have to be all pervasive.  Faith in humanity can be restored in others by the way we choose to live our own lives.  

Thought Control or Free Speech?

Throughout my courses at Eastern Mennonite University this year, one principle has been drilled into me in every class I took.  This ranged from philosophy to history to conflict analysis.  The message was to always look for multiple ways to read any academic literature when analyzing a situation/conflict/issue/historical account.  This is the logical/rational method, and it’s the same method used in the scientific approach; that is: coming up with different hypotheses. 

This academic approach has endured a head-on collision with journalism and government reports ever since 9/11, and has been re-kindled this week with the reported killing of Osama Bin Laden.  The reporting of the events have been consistent for the most part on the macro level, and this included the Arabic outlet Al Jazeera, and none of them have varied from the report of the Obama administration.  By now, I’m sure most of you are aware of the main facts, although the details continue to change daily about how Osama actually died, who was present and whether or not he was armed.  That is, if you accept the fact that Bin Laden was actually killed in the first place, or who the man even was, where he was, and if he was even alive to be killed (not to even mention the lingering questions around 9/11 itself). 

But despite the simple presentation of the facts (whatever they may be), there is a great deal of virulent discourse happening towards certain free-thinkers, and undoubtedly it’s because we are no longer in shock, and people have had 10 years to think things over and develop some legitimate questions about parts of our one-sided national story that don’t make sense.  This is exemplified over the past couple of days with the tweets of Pittsburgh Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall, who is being castrated in the media for mainly two tweets:

1.  "We'll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style."

2. “What kind of person celebrates death? It's amazing how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak."

To me, it sounds like Mendenhall has not only had a certain level of healthy questioning about the actual events of 9/11, but has a genuine compassion for human life, even the life of a portrayed “enemy”.  Jesus, Muhammad, Gandhi, Buddha, Krishna, and all the great love traditions teach this same great truth.  But to feel so pressured to conform to a command to celebrate the death of a labeled enemy, comes dangerously close to feeling like we’re living in Orwell’s Oceania. 

Whenever a major announcement concerning the “safety of America” happens in this country, we are expected to cease all thought and profess total allegiance to the flag and the President.  It apparently never occurs to most that power structures could be hiding some facts, because at the moment a major news network makes an announcement, permission is given to have thinking outsourced to outlets whose sole purpose is to make money or control public perception in any possible way, and the more sensationalism, the more fear, the better. 

Mendenhall now faces the possibility of endorsement losses, the certainty of receiving threats (he’s already had some), and continued incitement of hatred towards him from the media.  Mike and Mike on ESPN were doing a stellar job at this these past two mornings as I was watching at the gym [Let me take this time to say that normally I don’t follow sports, but this isn’t a purely “sports” issue].  “Unpatriotic”, “Insensitive”, “Ignorant”, and “Uninformed” were just a few of the words being used.  However, they always backed it up with his right to “free speech”, but that he would “have to suffer the consequences for that speech.”  But then how is that free speech?  If Mendenhall has been black-listed in the media because of his right to free speech, stands to lose his endorsements and reputation, and even the possibility of being released from the team, it doesn’t sound so free after all.  In fact, it sounds like the purges involving the stripping of power or social standing that I heard so much about in my recent reading of Mao’s China.    

This should be deeply disturbing to all of us, as it appears more and more that we are not truly free to publicly announce our opinions on 9/11 and Bin Laden in this current climate.  I’m thinking myself about what my deep questioning and refusal to conform would cost me if I aired my viewpoints in certain quarters.  Would it cost me a job?  Access to a certain academic program? Or simply violent threats from people if I was still on the radio professing these opinions?  Now I pose the question to you:  Is this the mark of a country with truly protected free speech, or is it the mark of a society that has developed thought control and an atmosphere of fear because, as Mike and Mike say “you’ll have to suffer the consequences”?

A Current Code for Living

Many of you have been asking how I've been coping with the recent tragedy of Sarah's death, and one thing I've loved about being at Eastern Mennonite University is the way that we can use the classes for personal reflection.  We were asked to write a "manifesto of life", and that was the perfect opportunity to take stock of where I'm at with everything and it forced me to look at what exactly were my sources of strength; the things that have kept me sane.  Well, here's a partial glimpse. 

This is a perpetually evolving manifesto of life as this specific context of writing will be different tomorrow, and might not even be remotely similar within the next few minutes.  At any time something climatic could happen; something which has once been described as a “rift in time”.   These are the periods of life where everything seems to stand still; where massive changes in direction occur.  These changes can be positive, negative, or a unity of the two.  Much of this depends on perspective, and therefore definitions; the terms with which we use to describe our world.  In fact, much of what we consider to be climatic or consequential is dependent upon definitions.  All of these definitions, upon closer examination of our perspective, incorporate some form of the conflict of opposites, the conflict that is basic to the universe and the meaning we ascribe to it.  There are choices to be made because of this conflict.  The idea that some choice is good and another bad is apparent, but why is that the case?  By whose standards do we govern our lives and by what view do we see the conflict?  Through the conflict of opposites, is there a universal thread that can be found?

These are the kinds of questions that occur when life is stripped down to the basic.  For most, it comes at a time of crisis, even if that crisis is simply an existential anguish as to the meaning of it all.  This kind of crisis is basic to human existence and will occur to you, or at the very least must be acknowledged in every human being if happiness is to be found.  This crisis is the conflict of opposites.  You must face it, unless you want it to make itself known at a time not of your choosing.  The crisis itself is comprised of opposites; an example being the fear yet potential for liberation of the unknown.  It is the point where one may feel like all that is left is their breath, and even that may be slipping away. But there is still something, even if it’s ugly, even if it has no map, even if no one cares. What happens next is a choice. You can choose to take the basics of life that are left and build around them. What you make becomes something on your terms. Why else does adversity create some of the best art? Adversity sheds that which has arrived from the outside; from the structural aspects of society, family, culture, religion, nation, ethnicity and any unquestioned belief system.

It is only when all externals are devalued completely that freedom can be found.  This is the freedom to seek, to discover truth, to recognize the universal; the love that pervades the universal; the love that most refer to as God.  This is the love that we recognize in each other.  It is the same love that prohibits us from valuing ourselves no more but no less than the other; the love that finds the non-dualistic balance in the conflict of opposites that is so crucial to a meaningful existence.  But this is also the love that demands risks; that has its opposite in loss or even hate. 

When we love, we are on the path to knowledge of the divine, because we begin to discover ourselves, and through ourselves we see the other and validate the other’s voice and purpose as inseparable from our own.    We learn that truth is inside, not outside, that society is a set of assumptions; of agreements that we have made between our various individual egos.  We learn that much of life is absurd; that the meaning which we ascribe to externals is utterly senseless at base.  Ultimately, we learn that we really don’t know that much at all, because most of what we do know has been handed to us by a non-rational environment.   

We have choices, real choices; choices which incorporate the questioning of everything, absolutely everything in life.   Outside of basic subsistence, question why you work, who you’re hoping to please, and why you’re hoping to please them.  Question whether it is more important to work towards an external or internal goal.  Question what working towards the external or the internal involves.  Make the choice that breathes life into you, not the choice that drains you of life.  Question all that you hold dear, but do that questioning using the light of love.  Question with the love that is justice; with the love that is compassion; with the love that is selflessness; with that love that practices the Christian Anarchism of Tolstoy; the nonviolent resistance of Gandhi and MLK, and with the love that would choose death rather than see harm come to the other. 

Choose to disobey in love, rather than conform to hatred.  Question why you pay taxes when your government uses it to kill and destroy others with a force greater than the world has ever known.  Ask yourself what is the absolute minimum you need to do to survive.  Then spend the rest of your time in discovery, both of yourself and the other. 

Choose to share that ultimate human love with a life partner.  Through that love, give of yourself fully and completely, and you’ll find that you’re ultimately giving to yourself.  To give that completely, you must know what you’re giving, so know yourself.  Find the greatest joy in the realization that the giving of yourself to the other is a sharing of the universal that comprises the both of you.  Realize that though death or temporal events may separate you, there will always be an element of your individual souls in the other.  Realize further that this intimate partnership is a micro example of the macro universal love.  It is but one element of the universal that comprises the very essence of who you are. 

As you move through life, the questioning and the choices you make determine your story, your individuality, your narrative, your approach to the conflict of opposites.   Living the kind of life that takes on the challenge of tough questioning is a process, not a static event, so may this manifesto and your life be forever evolving and moving forward, and may you constantly realize the rewards of an ever increasing awareness of self, others, ultimate reality, and the unity that brings it all together.

Purpose and Voice

This essay, written on January 1, 2011 serves as a marking of significance in my life as it was part of my application package for the renowned Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding MA at Eastern Mennonite University.  I received my notice of acceptance to this graduate program on January 19, 2011 at a difficult moment as my first and only wife, Sarah Elizabeth Morton Hartman (we'd been divorced since 2008) had passed away on January 15, 2011.  I sense that this will mark a turning point in my life's progression.

One of the most courageous things we can do is question the very foundations upon which our lives our built.  Some sociologists and existentialist philosophers have cautioned us that through this kind of questioning, we might find our entire world unraveling, with nothing but pure consciousness to show for it; meaning that consciousness is the ending point.  However, I take their thinking (which I’ve found to contain elements of truth) and go further with it, believing that the consciousness/soul/Atman is where we touch the divine; I extend the consciousness towards the universal or God.  The inclusion of the divine leads to other questions.  If I am to acknowledge the divine as the ultimate foundation of my being, what does that mean practically?  What have I been searching for in this process of discovery?  The easy answer would be that I’m looking for self-identity.  But I think that through self-identity, human nature inevitably looks to find purpose and voice. 

Purpose and voice brings in a host of other elements.  There must be someone to recognize this purpose and voice, whether that someone or something is transcendent or in the here and now.  I believe it should be both, but one cannot exist without the other.  In order to have voice, there must be a validation of that voice.  In order to have purpose, one’s validated voice must be combined with a community that recognizes the unique gifts of the individual.  This community must be filled with a spirit of mutuality and equanimity that can only come from the self-recognition of the universal in one’s self and the other on the part of each member of that community. 

 I fully believe that the lack of voice is one way to describe the hopelessness of the human condition.  Validation is a gift to others that cannot be obtained unless the givers know themselves.  When self-discovery happens, we see ourselves reflected in the other, and can eliminate the threat that comes from the unknowns of the external differences between us.  Conflict happens when we do not recognize the other as one of our own.  Therefore, when there is no validation, it can be observed that there are various methods with which people use to discover their voice.  From my viewpoint, it seems that much of this is a useless groping for externals in the various ways with which we try to “shout” through forms of power.  That power can be expressed in such areas as materialism, status, career, politics, war and violence. 

For me, I hoped to find my purpose and voice through the gifts that I’d been given in broadcasting.  I discovered at the young age of 15 that I was a natural behind the radio microphone, and I turned that gift into a career that spanned nearly 20 years.  However, there was an ever present restlessness at the heart of my being that never left me satisfied.  I was playing a role; I was an actor for the sake of a career and entertainment.  Playing that part for nearly 20 years turned life into an illusion.  Eventually the illusion started to chip away at my soul, and eventually led to the question of: “Is this all there is?”

The older I’ve become, the more I’m convinced that everyone goes through a crisis of some form.  This can be a trying period of external adversity in life that causes a forced re-direction, or it can be internal in the form of an existential anguish as to the meaning of it all.  For me, it was both. 

I’d begun to question my path in life during my time living amongst the excesses of Las Vegas.  I spent 10 years there as a radio personality, but all the while I was looking around me and couldn’t help but see the pain and despair of the lifestyle with which I’d immersed myself.  At first I recognized it in others, but more and more I began to recognize it in myself.  Everywhere I looked, there were people hurting and in need of purpose and fulfillment.  This was not to be found in such a superficial environment where there was a total void of empathy, compassion and love.  I quit full-time radio, quickly went back, and then quit again.  I knew that I hadn’t discovered myself, but I had no idea from where to begin to look.  The fast-paced life which I was forced to live through my career allowed no time for reflection, and the questioning that the reflection would have required could have led to answers that would have cost me my livelihood.  This was my reality, and it quite possibly is the reality of many in our world, although I’m not narrow-minded enough to think that “livelihood” is universally equivalent to the Western career model.  Everyone has their own externalities which give them false identities.  However, I believe the problem is in fact universal.  We have no proper structure for people to reflect and discover their true purpose without the terrifying prospect of giving up everything that they’ve come to value, and that allows them to subsist.  We need validation through supportive communities, we need more peacemakers, and we need people who know themselves enough to practice the principles of empathy and justice.   

On July 21st of 2009, I experienced the final event in my personal external crisis.  In the year prior to that date, I had suffered a morbid financial collapse from the declining real estate market, a loss of opportunities in the increasingly homogenized radio industry, and a divorce.  That July day brought me closer to eternity than at any previous point in my life.  I inexplicably blacked out while driving at around 8 am that morning, and awoke 45 minutes later to the sound of paramedics and firefighters working as I was suspended upside down in excruciating pain from a shattered knee, right foot, and massive blood loss. 

That accident led to a 6 month recovery period that stripped away the attachments keeping me from discovery of myself.  Prior to that time, I had always known that I had a passion for human rights, but I never fully realized how to apply that to my life and broadcasting career.  I did some volunteer work at a mission in Las Vegas, and joined a non-violent Socialist organization after leaving Vegas, but none of those contexts provided the answers or meaning that I was looking for because I wasn’t starting at the beginning or immersing myself deeply enough in the mode of discovery.  The near-death experience changed all that. 

Now there was a degree of clarity that I’d never had before, because I had nothing to lose by asking the tough questions.  Certainty in the form of knowledge began to take shape in my mind as I read and reflected to the degree that I had subconsciously always wanted to.  I read challenging books about philosophy, nonviolence, equality, politics, social justice, comparative religion, the great scriptures of the world, and novels that gave insight into the human condition.  I reflected on my heritage; on the great work that my uncle Dr. Vernon Jantzi has done and is doing at Eastern Mennonite University; on the work of my cousin Dr. Terry Jantzi at EMU; on the work of my mother, Virginia Hartman, in clinical pastoral care and nursing and on the work of her sister Sharon Kraybill and my uncle Herb Kraybill through two decades of peacebuilding in Ethiopia.  I thought about my Anabaptist past and what that might mean for me in the form of a newly redeemed life developing out of a knowledge of where I’d come from.  

Through all of this, I have discovered that there is a common thread that unites.  We often hear that kind of terminology when discussing hermeneutics or canonical interpretation, but I have come to see that no religion has a corner on the truth.  Love is universal, and a love ethic cannot be truly practiced except through a life narrative that is congruent with that ethic in all dimensions.  Whether my role is a student, son, friend, peacebuilder, worker, mentor, intellectual, writer, broadcaster or activist for social justice, I must hold that role up against the universal standard of love, and must be consistent in practicing that standard in all areas of my life.  

This revelation has brought me to the place where I am now.  I have discovered a passion that I can only interpret as a calling to serve others.  I am grateful to the mentorship of Vernon in helping to guide me through this process.  He is just one of many who have been there for me over the past couple of years, but it is partly through his insight and encouragement that I’ve found myself at Eastern Mennonite University.  EMU has been a perfect place to continue my intellectual and personal development as it is consistent with the principles I’ve discovered through my own trial by adversity.  The more I learn, the more I see how everything ties together, and the more I believe that a life of helping to establish peace on this earth is one of the most noble and honorable professions that one can have. 

As I think about my future direction, I am drawn towards the reconciliation amongst believers of various faiths.  I see our world as one which is discovering new forms of identity and new ways of clinging to the familiar.  We have been in the midst of an unprecedented cultural and global reorganization, and many ways people are now relating (in my view) is through religion versus the brief historical sidetracking of nationalistic identity.  What saddens me is that I see these religious identities as being one, if not the main source of conflict.  This has perhaps been the case to some extent all throughout history (at the very least religion is just the latest version of tribalism), and it completely goes against the grain of what these various religions stand for.  There is a commonality amongst the believers of the world’s great traditions, and those commonalities are the highest principles of love, justice and peace. 

So, it is obvious to me that the foundation is there for us to build upon to establish greater unity in our world.  Through places like The Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University, there are effective practical methods being taught as to how to engage in giving people appropriate avenues to find their voice and purpose in order to avoid the conflicts that plague our time. 

I am particularly interested in the area of Western-Islamic relations as one of my initial introductions to human rights issues was the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  Furthermore, I have watched with great despair the development of Islamophobia in the Western world since 9/11.  I have worked at developing friendships with Muslims from around the world, and I have acquired a deep empathetic desire to facilitate dialogue in the process of allowing their voices, and all voices to be heard.  It remains to be seen what pragmatic application this desire and calling might have for my future, but I know that the next step is to obtain my MA Degree through the Conflict Transformation Program at CJP. 

Everything that has happened in my life has pointed me in this direction.  I am grateful for the adversity and for all that I’ve experienced as it’s not only given me incredible clarity, but it has brought me back from agnosticism and given me a degree of happiness that I’ve never had before.  I want to use the time I have left on this earth in the service of others, as that is the best way I know to honor the divine unity that I’ve found in myself and that is reflected in everyone I see in the world around me. 

An Encounter With Tolstoy

I took the past few days to read Leo Tolstoy’s classic Anna Karenina, my first full-length encounter with his work, and am ever more convinced that what makes a great artist is a great degree of self-knowledge.  The 19^th century English poet Matthew Arnold said on the back of my edition that the book was not to be taken as a work of art, but as a piece of life.  I think he misses the point of the kind of awareness that authors like Tolstoy possess.  Art and life overlap and are intertwined…how do we define one without the other?  How can we say we understand life without resolving conflicts, without understanding that those conflicts do exist, and without having the ability to “separate” from the absurdity of it all to recognize what reality is really comprised of? 
                A book as layered as Anna Karenina is hardly explained through any particular theme or genre.  Tolstoy believed in the novel as a treatise on life, and to reduce this work to a story of romances interlaced with episodes of “realism” would be to miss the point.  My first thought after finishing the last page was that the romances were used by Tolstoy to point us towards the larger love that IS.  The tragic element of the love myth is emblematic in the main character’s fate, and the base desires of the libido are interspersed at various points throughout the book.  The search for the higher love of the universal is best portrayed in the philosophical yearnings of the character Levin, Tolstoy’s alter ego in the novel, and the character that I most identify with as well. 
                The great artists must have a deep understanding of life, first of themselves, and then of others.  Understanding of self leads to understanding of others through those embodied interconnections that are what makes us human.  Through being able to clearly identify those incoming and outgoing signals in relation to our own humanity means that we can also understand the other.  When Tolstoy addresses death in the book, he uses this embodied understanding in the character of Kitty dealing with Levin’s brother.  Levin had all the intellectual knowledge in the world about death, but it took the understanding of the reality of death, apart from the abstract, for death to be dealt with.   Kitty had the ability of empathy, that element of love, which was essential in the context of the situation.  Levin was only to develop that ability later, and through a different path…which was illustrative of one of the many subtleties that Tolstoy incorporates into his writing. 

                Anna was searching; she was going through the normality of life.  However, Tolstoy made the book real in the sense that Anna, as the main character, was the one person who we thought had a handle on “who she was”.  Anyone would have been attracted to Anna, and everyone was.  However, as much as Anna seemed to transcend the absurdities of society, and to be able to see right through it, she was still looking at it from a vantage point that left nothing to be seen past it.  We saw this with a lot of the characters, and this was one of the fascinating elements that Tolstoy incorporated.  “Realism” as the style of this type of writing was apt as the book took us down many paths where I thought I knew the character, only to be confronted with some element of their personality that blindsided me.  Tolstoy gave us the idea of the character, and let the reality develop on its own and in its time. 
                This was a book that was written over a period of four years.  We can see Tolstoy’s view on life developing, especially at the end of the book, with the existential and spiritual crisis that we find Levin articulating.  Levin eventually discovers his peace, as did Tolstoy in his own life.  From that point on in Tolstoy’s life and writings, he further incorporated his convictions of nonviolent Christian anarchism…or resistance to power structures through a life lived with the highest principle of love.  Love as power, and not power as power was what Tolstoy believed in and exemplified. 
                I became fascinated with Tolstoy from a course on nonviolence that I took at Eastern Mennonite University this past semester.  Hearing that Tolstoy had a huge influence on Gandhi and MLK made me resolve to dive into his works the minute I had the chance.  Through further research, I can see that Tolstoy went through the same restlessness that I’ve gone through in my own life, and that many of us go through.  Ultimate meaning for him meant seeing himself in the other, and seeing the divine or the universal in all of us and through all of us.  This continues to be the common thread that is always presenting itself to me, and that I find in scriptures, philosophy, metaphysics, art, literature and music.  Perhaps it’s the paradigm I’m incorporating to view life, but it’s the only paradigm I’ve discovered that makes sense. 
                There is a line that runs through the philosophy of Tolstoy as portrayed in Anna Karenina.  It is a line that Levin discovers at the end of the book, and is grounded in Levin’s heritage.  Levin acknowledges the narrative structure of the individual life, and starts to make sense of his own story just as the book ends.  This is what can be said to be the discovery of voice.  Tolstoy certainly found his, and recognizing what he discovered as the foundation of his voice is the key to understanding Anna Karenina, and is the key to understanding life.