Excerpt from my Memoir "Vignettes of an Exodus"

I used to idealize colonial America, the founding fathers, Pilgrims and most especially frontierspeople, cowboys, and white pioneers who “came west.” I still like them fine and I like them better than the established old european aristocracy which was so keen on premoginature at the expense of competency, lunacy, and efficacy. However they are no longer my idealized life. 

If I want to escape from the sterility of modern life with its hyper concern for safety, constant communication sources, and profound stability, I like to think about pre-historic, pre-agriculture, indigenous, hunter/gatherer, or tribal life. I realize you can’t lump a bunch of humans into this category and be anthropolgically sound, but for this reflection I can.

I used to romanticize about wearing a sunbonnet and tending a garden. Now, that sounds like drudgery. I want to cherry pick the things from what I fancy Indians did and think about that. I don’t choose to linger on chewing hides to soften them for clothing as Innuit women did. Nor do I want to wallow in buffalo blood as I endlessly tan the hides like my Comanche sister friends. Although I’m not sure how I would feel about these pursuits truly.

I don’t want to plow up the soil of 160 acres but I do want to wander the forests of North America, untouched by chain saws, freeways, and power poles. I want to forage for edible plants, and make my own house. I want dancing to be part of my spirituality. I want animal visions to be messengers of the beyond and to be in tune with every source of my food. I want to apologize to an animal’s spirit before I kill it; knowing that we are intimately connected. I want to drink straight from a spring and I want my cycle to coincide with that of the moon because I’m constantly privy to its light. I want to raise my children with my mother and sisters and look to elders for their wisdom. I want to wait for my man to come back from battle and comfort him with food and my body. 

I don’t want to go to the little red school house. I want the saguaros to be my teacher. I want my book to be the one inscribed by the stars.

Nor do I want to show up at the church steeple where some ideas from a far away land and the knowledge of another tribe have to be my guide. I want to learn from my own people, their stories, and their ways. I want my ideas about God to be something I absorb through watching the owl, navigating the river in a handcrafted vessel, and feeling the electricity of the earth pulsating through my feet. 

I don’t want to live within the wall of a house and have to ever maintain it and keep my children isolated within it. I want to hold my baby when she cries and feed her at will; keeping her close to my body as my instincts dictated; not force her to conform to an arbitrary sleep schedule. That my children could learn from play and play to learn, growing naturally into adulthood in the fold of a family clan. 

I want to harness my intuition to survive instead of going to Target. I want to learn the lore and patterns of creatures that are my foes, friends, and food. This is what I idealize. I dream of fashioning  a weapon that has been perfected slowly and passed down by oral tradition. I want to eat a food that I have intimately handled from start to finish. I want to bathe in the river and follow the chime of the seasons in my habits of life. I want to pick up and move if I need to and be able to assemble my belongings in one day. I want the earth to be my mother. This is what I dream of.

Instinctual Types Morality Shaming

I decided I wanted to learn more about Enneagram Instincts. I've read and studied quite a bit about the Enneagram over the past decade or so, but I haven't focused all that much on the Instincts. I recently discovered a podcast by The Art of Growth.

https://www.theartofgrowth.org/discoveryourtype?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwhIS0BhBqEiwADAUhc21WR5YYhkWss7rd2HqNGN3rt7PFqDwkmIIdsl2zaV2w1NUI7Cg3oRoC3FYQAvD_BwE

I found a season where they are really focusing in on the instincts - perfect.

I'm only halfway through the episode but it's really interested.

The instincts are presented in a way as having developed through our evolutionary biology, all having fundamentally important contributions to human survival. We all possess all three, but just as in the primary nine enneagram types, we will find ourselves dominant in one area. The goal is to bring these instincts up from the lizard brain to a more conscious awareness of how we employ them. Perhaps we need to harness more of one energy that we're not tapping into. This kind of reminds me of a book club I'm doing on the goddess archetypes and the active role we can have in tapping into energies that we need.

Here are the 3 instincts: These are my summary takeaways 

Self Preservation: tuned into comfort, security, rest, well being, resources

Sexual: tuned into risk taking, intense energetic connections with other individuals, attracting and charming others, close merge/bonding, referred to as "one on one" in corporate coaching

Social: tuned into hierarchies, groups, tribal roles, preservation of the group, to be honest, I haven't finished listening to this part!

What was standing out to me is the way that we can tend to morally elevate our own instinct as if it's intrinsically more valuable or better than others. My burning need to write about this is because it's been coming up a lot for me lately. I see how I've been the recipient of this type of shaming and the doler of it. (I mention in my bio that I invent words right?)

As a sexual instinctual type, risk taking is inherently something I both crave and contribute. (*For anyone slightly prudish out there "sexual" refers to one on one connecting energy, not the act of sex or being "sexy.") 

Risk taking is a vital part of my well being and if I don't have it, I begin to get depressed. This is something I'm only just beginning to acknowledge and figure out how to implement in ways that are not harmful, addictive, or toxic. My propensity to seek change, new experiences, new friendships, new groups etc. is something that's often frustrated me about myself and I see that I've been reluctant to accept. I also think it hasn't always met with approval by others and has been difficult to understand. However, I have felt encouraged in this by a few cheerleader people in my life and for them I am immensely grateful. Healthy productive risk taking was a part of my upbringing on a cattle ranch, and I'm so thankful that it was developed within me when I was young. I think it's extremely underdeveloped in most young people in "western culture" in meaningful healthy ways. 

On the flip side, I have experienced (mostly self pres) types giving me some flack for my propensity to want to live in the moment, and unwillingness to focus on things they think I should value more like: coupons, savings account, eating, sleeping, safety, and security. 

In my experience self pres types tend to moralize things like savings and prudence in ways that can make sexual types feel less than or somehow inferior. In the podcast, I love how they highlight how risk taking types might have contributed to the human story by being willing to brave predators and make changes that ended up being vitally important to the survival of the group. Ever since I read Keirsey's amazing book Please Understand Me, about MBTI, I've always embraced the notion of myself as a catalyst personality who tends to stir things up, be big picture thinker, and an agent of change. However, I have also simultaneously experienced type envy where I wished I could be more like the steady beaver types who were really good at routine and structure, and don't seem to mind doing the same things day in and day out. I think I largely disregarded the risk taking part of myself - also because I think it was shoved outside by my role as primary caretaker of my daughters. Now that they're getting older and more independent perhaps my subconscious risk taker self is shouting for more attention.

Some time ago I read something about Tony Robbins Essential human needs (listed below) and I was floored. It fits in so well with the instincts. The one that stood out to me at the time was #2. I felt it validated something deep within myself that was resisting all the incessant voices of safety, comfort, security, social status... Not that there's anything wrong with those things. Just I felt I valued them less than others and I didn't understand why I felt so resistant to it and I resented the implication that somehow focusing on these things has some kind of moral benefit. I want to take a moment to highlight how important it can be to distinguish values from morals. (another topic for another day)

1. Certainty: assurance you can avoid pain and gain pleasure

2. Uncertainty/Variety: the need for the unknown, change, new stimuli
3. Significance: feeling unique, important, special or needed
4. Connection/Love: a strong feeling of closeness or union with someone or something
5. Growth: an expansion of capacity, capability or understanding
6. Contribution: a sense of service and focus on helping, giving to and supporting others

I also have been guilty of feeling superior somehow to others. For example I have a disdain for focusing on micro money. It reminds me of the British elite. I might be completely broke, but I'd rather pretend to be wealthy and generous at all costs. I don't want to haggle. I don't want to have a conversation about how much you spent on lettuce. Sorry. I also may have been guilty of mocking people who are too concerned with comfort and safety. I have pitied them actually - viewing them as people who are perpetually on the sidelines of life, which I'm acknowledging is rude and unfair of myself. 

Worst of all, I probably struggle most with social instinctual types. I may be dead wrong, but somehow I see them as the instigators of heinous social traditions like the tyranny of Mothers Day and incessant birthday festivities. (and may I remind you, these harbingers of social togetherness and groupthink bring up these topics every single year.) But ultimately, I see how these VALUES  of theirs have their place and I want to extend the gracious hand of freedom to those who wish to engage in lots of group activities and traditions at every opportunity. (as long as they don't shame me if I choose not to prioritize those things.) 

When I go on these tirades about Mothers Day and birthdays, I always want to make sure that I always make exceptions to my protest if anyone gives me a gift that includes: wine, coffee, going out to dinner, turquoise jewelry, or an outdoor experience, or a hug, a massage, monetary gifts must be included in this as well. Also please invite me to your party especially if there's Mexican food and alcohol, dancing, and a lovely outdoor setting. (We can't all be consistent all the time.)

I'm curious at the emotions that this has stirred up for me. I'm eager to keep listening to the whole season on the instincts and hopefully I can cultivate more awareness and extend more grace to self and others. I want to challenge myself to tap into and appreciate the strengths and contributions of others that are vitally significant to me and the group.

How Jesus became Became God - Bart Ehrman

 

https://www.bartehrman.com/

Standouts - 

• scholarship and references
• personal insights about faith journey from fundamentalism - Moody Bible Institute to Wheaton I believe - seems the classic deconstruction journey to more liberal forms of Christianity to exiting the establishment.
• putting Jesus in the context of other apocalyptic prophets of his era. I think this stood out for me because I had always thought Jesus' resurrection ushered in apocalyptic thinking for his followers, but actually to understand that certain Jews of that era (and others?) were immersed in the idea that the world was soon to end makes many of Jesus' teachings - especially the more radical ones, clearer. 
• the Resurrection. He does a fantastic analysis of the different viewpoints surrounding how people could interpret the event - from mass hallucinations to contradictions in stories. Interesting he parallels the many supernatural sightings that have occurred - especially the Mary visitations. He talks about how dismissive protestants are of them - despite numerous interesting eyewitness accounts in various places. Protestants who are quick to defend the validity of the resurrection of Jesus testimonies penned decades after the fact. 
• The gospels - I never realized (or forgot) that the gospels were written after Paul's epistles! Paul's epistles are the first things penned some 20 years after Jesus' death. The first gospel (Mark) was put down between 40-60 years after Jesus' death. That explains a lot about the discrepancies between the various gospels and the way that oral tradition can be a difficult resource for an accurate journalistic account which the gospels are not. 
• the above two bullets are believed through an act of faith just as not believing is an act of faith - he references Pascal and does a great analysis of how his theory may be a bit of an oversimplification. 
• "The history of my own personal theology is a mirror image of the history of the theology of the early church. In early Christianity the views got "higher and higher" with the passing of time, as he became increasingly identified as divine. Jesus went from being a potential (human) messiah to becoming the Son of God exalted to a divine status at his resurrection; to being a preexistent angelic being who came into the earth incarnate as a man; to being the incarnation of the word of God who existed before all time and through whom the world was created, to being God himself, equal with God the father and always existent with him. My own personal beliefs in Jesus moved in precisely the opposite direction." 

The above section from the epilogue I found to be quite a fascinating synopsis and an example of the way the author weaves his story in with his research. 

Spider Webs are my new friend

 

Have I ever mentioned that Barbara Kingsolver is one of my idols? Have you ever felt like someone was living the life you want to live? I recently read an excerpt of her discussing her two homes: one in Tucson and a farm in Appalachia. Enough said.

Appalachia - such an awesome word:

Mountains and deserts.

She's like a way smarter more scientific me.

A writer. 

She's doing it. What everyone always told me I should do.

It's not too late. 

This book as usual, combines her biology lore with some fabulous characters. She switches back and forth between three main characters (3rd person) narrative. Setting is in rural Appalachia. There's a constant thread of environmental activism. ( Barb is an activist and then a storyteller.) 

It's thought provoking, funny, sensual as all get out, and unpredictable with realistic complex characters. She has a refreshing view of humans as just "one of the animals" which fits nicely with my new thought patterns.

She's inspiring me to be more conscious. For example she does this whole little essay on predators. If you take down the web, you're going to have an influx of flies. Why are we so stupid? We're spraying for all this stuff that nature has already figured out how to seek a balance in.

I'm going to stop taking down my patio webs. Just a tiny step in the direction of natural balance. 

Some religious expressions might be candidates for true revelation from a creator. Most are just human Constructs (Stark)

 

Sociologist on the origins of "the great religions." His self proclaimed unique perspective is that according to him most sociologists and anthropologists have approached religion with the lens that it is of human origin - a human need to explain the mysteries of life and try to come to terms with the unknown. He doesn't deny this motivation, but he also posits that if there is a god, and he obviously believes in an intelligent designer, then perhaps religion or (certain revelations in certain religions) are actually God's method of connecting with humans. 

The first part of the book is a very detailed origin story of primitive society religion, temple religions in ancient civilizations, rise of monotheism, Indian religions, Chinese gods and "philosophies" like Confucianism, Christianity (Judaism), and Islam. 

Some interesting standouts: He talks about religion and the rise of certain religions in economic terms. What makes a certain religion attractive to converts? How does it meet a certain need that a group might have - for example the attractive concept of an afterlife based on merit or belief that Christianity proposed. 

Not all religions, in fact it is a more recent phenomenon associated God or gods with some kind of moral standard or code. In ancient times, gods were to be appeased and sacrificed to, but had little interest in how moral humans lived their lives. 

He is of the school of thought, that because monotheism (Judeo/Christianity) proposed the notion of an orderly universe, that it spawned the rise of science and advancements that otherwise would never have been attempted. (This makes me think of the Schaeffers and the rise of civilization based on this principle or one similar.) This has some baggage for me - so I won't touch that. 

He does a brief summary which focuses on the possibility of miracles if a Creator God does indeed exist and he ridicules dogmatics who rule out the possibility.

"Through the millennia, many Gods have been invented, and many religious founders were either deluded or charlatans. (I agree.) It could not be otherwise when the matters involved are so important and so impossible to fully verify. (yes) But it does not necessarily follow that all religions are rooted in fraud, illusions, or wishful thinking. (hmm) To conclude this study, I shall suggest that quite aside from any traditional religious claims, there are objective grounds for accepting the existence of God as the more rational conclusion." (makes sense)

He doesn't claim or seem to be a devoted Christian, but he seems to favor Christianity as a more likely candidate for being "revealed" rather than merely a human construct. This is a little hard for me. I can't warm to the idea of a particular religion or people group or point in the history continuum having more access to God or his "mind" than any other time, even if in saying this there are certain religious practices that are more or less distasteful to me personally. 

I am thankful for example not to be one of the thousands tossed off the top of the Mayan temple in their annual blood sacrifice ritual. 

I tend to be more of the thinking that an individual's relative openness to truth and spirituality will dictate their ability to connect with something or someone beyond the material. This obviously reflects my firm establishment in postmodern western civilization in the 21st century. It also is a reflection of my temperament. I have a profound distrust for the collective. I idealize societal life that is pre-industrial and agricultural and I have a disdain for institutions. (the larger and more cumbersome they are, the less I like them.) I have no particular liking for ceremony and ritual and I'm extremely non traditional. (unless I get a day off work of course) 

 I can barely stand to celebrate birthdays (unless you give me a gift I love ha) and superfluous holidays created by hallmark or imposing do-gooders are distasteful to me. That to say, I consider myself open to miracles, spirituality, and the idea that God might be interested in me personally (thought I doubt it - any more than he or she is interested personally in a snail or a microbe.) I think God is interested in us as some type of cosmic experiment or creative piece of art. I do believe in energy and harnessing positivity and healing which is God given. 

I enjoyed this book and the perspectives. Thinking about religion anthropologically is nothing new, but there were some definite take-aways from this. 

Be the Chairwoman of your Goddess Committee

 

This is one of the best books I've read in a long time. In fact, I'm reading it again for a discussion group in June.

First published in the 80s, Bolen integrates her knowledge as a Jungian Psychotherapist to delve into the seven main goddesses from Greek mythology and how their archetypal energies play out in the lives of women - either as primary of secondary forces within a woman. The idea is to recognize which have had the most influence on you and which energies do you need to cultivate more in your life perhaps in different seasons. She acknowledges that men may relate to these as well - but she's since written a companion book Gods for Every Man.

She divides them into categories: 

The Virgin Goddesses: 

Artemis: Goddess of the Hunt; and the moon - personified as an independent female spirit. The archetype enables a woman to seek her own goals on terrain of her own choosing. (goal oriented, back to nature, sisterhood)

Athena: Goddess of wisdom and crafts, strategist, father's daughter. Depicted in battle gear, often with an owl. (strategy, practical, tangible results, often found shoulder to shoulder with men)

Hestia: Goddess of the hearth and temple, wise woman and maiden aunt (spirituality, hearth, circular figures, rituals, spirituality, homemaking, sanctuary.)

The Vulnerable Goddesses (relationship centric)

Hera: marriage, commitment maker, wife. revered and yet reviled - known for a possessive husband centrism leading to jealousy

Demeter: grain, nurturer, mother - mostly associated with Persephone abduction myth and her reaction to it. (provides nourishment) 

Persephone: maiden, Queen of the underworld, mother's daughter. (passage from victim to heroine) was abducted by Hades

The Alchemical Goddess:

Aphrodite: love and beauty creative woman and lover (enjoyment of love and beauty, sexuality and sensuality. demanding in creativity and procreation.

I'm still pondering on the sway that these archetypes have had on me. I definitely recognize that some are more prominent than others. For example I have a strong instinctual Demeter instinct that I've recognized since childhood. I always loved the Persephone myth and now I'm wondering why. Why did I love how the Phantom of the Opera took Christine down to his labyrinthal quarters. We all know that you should marry Raul, but yet you want to be kidnapped by Hades?

Enough personal psychoanalysis here...

Passion without Passion; Dr. Zhivago

 

I don't have a lot to say about this book. I think it could have been much better if someone took to the manuscript with some gardening shears and trimmed a bunch of wasted characters and scenes that had nothing to do with the central characters or storyline. This almost prevented me from reading it.

I'll be honest. The only reason, I stuck with it (doing a ton of skimming) was because my mom and Grandma told me there was a love triangle and I read the summary which sounded interesting. 

We just finished watching a docu/drama about Rasputin and the last czars so this time period was already fresh in my mind too.

There were some poetic passages but I never felt connected to the characters. I felt like I should feel connected to them but I didn't. Kind of like when you meet someone who you apparently have a lot in common with (eccentric, overthinking, narcissistic, and romantic) - me and Dr. Zhivago - but you don't have much to talk about for some reason. Oh - maybe it's because of the worse offense of all - lack of humor. Granted - humor when you're describing poverty, war, betrayal - yes - because it is what makes life bearable.

There was something about this that reminded me of Victor Hugo's Les Miz - rife with coincidences and people encountering one another years later and having serendipitous influence like that creepy "benefactor" - k.....sky - sorry the Russian names all sort of blend together in my mind and I just pay attention the last syllables to distinguish them one from another. Kind of like part numbers in my John Deere world. Of course there are the other parallels: revolution, intellectual idealists, hunger...

I felt bad for the women in Z's life that were not Lara. His first wife who always seemed to be waiting in the wings - but who had more of a sister vibe (maybe part of the problem?) Of course - circumstance and tragedy separating families and then throwing them together with others - well of course biology is going to kick in. Then there was his housekeeper who became his "third wife" towards the end of the book and with whom he had two kids. Then one day he decides to reinvent himself and just moves out leaving her with some money for a babysitter. Wha ho? 

Somehow Lara (the main love interest) manages to maintain this mystique even while she's cleaning, organizing, nursing, and making borscht. (oh that's polish my bad) Now that's a true woman. She's got that special something. She's a mother, she's an intellectual. She finds time to read in the middle of a revolution. (I like her!) But I still don't feel close to her somehow. Pasternak portrays these characters - but he doesn't get you inside their psyche - you're watchin it all unfold, but you're far away - you're not really feeling it. He says they are madly in love and you have to take his word for it. Reminds me of some couples you're with when the wife says "We just fell in love and here we are after all these years" and you look over at the husband and he's got this glazed look in his eyes - oooh - or that facebook post (again usually the woman "my best friend" - with the husband and it sort of smacks of overcompensating for something... Ok, enough of my romantic idealism rant. Because there are those couples who have that special something - and you feel it - you see it - and they don't have to talk about it. It's just palpable. 

I wonder if it's because he got so carried away in describing the scenes, the side characters and accurately portraying a historical period? Maybe he was trying to be a Tolstoy - but not really fully succeeding? Anyway.... there you have it. I slogged through. I do want to watch the movie with - what's his name with the intense eyes......