IS SEEING THE ONLY THING WORTH BELIEVING....?
Young biologist to 8-year-old daughter Katie after she describes the little people she saw in the sky last night: "Sweetheart, if Daddy can't see it he can't believe it." Grandfather amending his son's demur: "On the other hand, you can't see it if you can't believe it."
Is this a comment on the generations? on fantasy? on science? Well, yes.
When we're very young we sometimes see things with our heart. When we're very smart we see things with our eyes. When we're very old, we often see things we did when we were still very young. Sometimes it's back- tracking over ground we initially traveled too quickly. Is that what they mean by a second-childhood? Or is that more a matter of shedding the layers of our adulthood to re-discover the loves of our childhood?
That would be for each of us to decide for ourselves. And perhaps keep to ourselves. After all, Katie wasn't insisting Daddy see her little people; she was just sharing the news. To her it was good news. Coincidentally, that's what the word Gospel means -- good news. However, a great many smart adults failed to see what the gospel writers had seen. The same is true about such works of wisdom as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Torah, the Koran, Beowulf, Dante's Inferno, Gulliver's Travels, Alice and Wonderland, the Wizard of Oz, the lyrics of the Beatles,The Audacity of Hope.
The lines between fact and fiction, head and heart, biology and mythology often times blur when we are very young. Again, when we are very old. In between times -- well, you cheer the Bears and chug-a-lug the beers, because after all everyone can see them...
FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Who do we most admire in our country? Gallup reports the top-ten in the 20th century were, in order: Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, John F Kennedy, Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, Franklin D Roosevelt, Billy Graham, Pope John Paul II, Elanor Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. One wonders who will make the list for the 21st century....
If we use straight-line projections from these first nine years, we may end up with a great many celebrities (as in people who are famous for being famous). At least that is what is hinted by the enormous volume of coverage in today's media and Internet. We have brave Americans dying in the mountains of Afghanistan, keeping 24/7 guard of our coasts and skies, scanning the cosmos, curing our sick, saving our hurt, exploring our Genome and teaching our young. Yet our headlines and bylines endlessly report on blockbuster movies, music concerts, quarterback controversies and recovering starlets.
Now it's perfectly true -- what we write and talk about most is not necessarily what and who we admire most. Still, it does suggest shifting priorities. Some would argue, the world has become so terribly complex, we need this for healthy diversion. Maybe so. But if diversion gradually turns into obsession, the next thing you know we'll be electing actors, dancers, hustlers and wrestlers to public office.
Come to think of it.....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes...come to think of it....IT'S HERE! Scary...isn't it? When celebrities cross over into politics, if they are NOT knowledgeable, the line blurs and it can be frightening! Case in point...ARNOLD! BUT...just because a person is a celebrity, doesn't mean they can't be a good politician....look at Al Franken. So it's a tough thin line to walk and balance.
ReplyDeleteYes, "a tough thin line" you're right. I just can't help crossing it sometimes to make my point. In this case, the point includes my belief there is a big difference between talent & celebrity, artists & headliners. The celebrity-headliners should be seen for what they are and no more than that. There are far better sources for ideas and role-modelling. Like maybe starting with teachers...
ReplyDelete