In Search of a Better Maxim
Many of us have heard about the difference between the Torah and the Talmud. The first is the law of God as given to the Jews in the Old Testament. The second refers to Jewish law that further spells out--and spells out and spells out--the details of the first. The resulting code appears cumbersome to the point of inanity. I don't suppose I'm alone in having come to think of practitioners of the Talmud with pity--perhaps even a touch of disdain. For reasons unknown to me, I'm beginning to wonder whether a maxim I've heard referred to often is a Talmud-like standard, despite having often tried to live by it myself, and having observed others living by it even more often. "Handle all disagreements privately" is the maxim I'm referring to, especially as it is practiced among us.
Granted, even people who live generally by this standard would probably agree that a proper time and place exists for airing disagreements publicly. In general, however, they would not do so in front of children and not in front of people outside our faith community. It extends beyond that. Anyone "under" someone else certainly should not publicly disagree with someone "over" them. "Publicly" in many cases means "in front of a third person--or more." I wonder if all of these prohibitions are appropriate. Yet, I am fearful of the consequences of ignoring them--not fearful only of disobeying God's law and ostracism, but of damage to someone or something I love. A loss of a sense of security comes to mind, as does undermining of social structures.
Complicating my thinking is the deep admiration I have for heroes and warriors of faith, many of whom acted boldly in the face of significant opposition. Another complication is what I know about perfectionism and obsessive compulsive behavior--both of which would nudge people toward being certain everything is ship-shape, vetted and approved, and "kosher" if you please, before speaking of it before the minions. Both of these are tendencies I can identify with personally to some extent. This last approach frankly feels like an affront to me when practiced by those over me. It feels like disdain, manipulation and control. I'm not sure that it ought to, but it does.
For me, chronologically parallel to the thoughts above are questions about how social deficits like Asperger's Syndrome, for example, affect feelings and interactions. Are the people who disagree fearlessly and publicly sometimes afflicted with Asperger's Syndrome or something similar? Does that excuse the prickliness that seems obvious to others? Should such people be quietly tolerated (and privately pitied) or should they be reigned in? Should they ever be listened to and taken seriously?
I've heard such people described as having "black and white" thinking. I've heard it used when I was sure it was being applied to me, and it felt inaccurate and unfair--as though clear conviction was being equated with hasty and thoughtless categorizations. From my perspective, nothing could have been farther from the truth. That's almost as bad as being an adult and being given a figurative pat on the head accompanied by sympathetic clucking "there now, little one" noises. Or simply being ignored--as though an opinion or a person weren't present at all.
Another common characteristic of Asperger's Syndrome is the inability to empathize with others and often to feel empathy from others. This first-person essay provides some insight into how both black and white thinking and difficulty with empathy present in a person who has Asperger's Syndrome.
So how do we view a person who displays Asperger's-like symptoms, whether or not they fit formally into that box? Do they need fixing? Do the people around them need to make adjustments in order to accommodate them? Is it both? Is it possible that sometimes they are right, and their "deficits" make them the only ones willing to take an unpopular stand? Is fearlessness evidence of a social deficit? Is that part of God's purpose in creating them as they are--or is Asperger's Syndrome a work of the enemy, for which God's redemption is needed? Do such people need to learn at all costs to be discerning and empathetic? Is that even possible? Are a lack of discernment and empathy sometimes problems for people without Asperger's symptoms?
In the matter of handling disagreements, how do all these things come together neatly under a non-Talmudic maxim--security and stability, necessary change, respect, openness, humility, discernment, empathy, etc.? I wish I knew.
****************
What do you see? Do you have a maxim? Failing that, do you have any helpful observations or insights on any question raised here?
Granted, even people who live generally by this standard would probably agree that a proper time and place exists for airing disagreements publicly. In general, however, they would not do so in front of children and not in front of people outside our faith community. It extends beyond that. Anyone "under" someone else certainly should not publicly disagree with someone "over" them. "Publicly" in many cases means "in front of a third person--or more." I wonder if all of these prohibitions are appropriate. Yet, I am fearful of the consequences of ignoring them--not fearful only of disobeying God's law and ostracism, but of damage to someone or something I love. A loss of a sense of security comes to mind, as does undermining of social structures.
Complicating my thinking is the deep admiration I have for heroes and warriors of faith, many of whom acted boldly in the face of significant opposition. Another complication is what I know about perfectionism and obsessive compulsive behavior--both of which would nudge people toward being certain everything is ship-shape, vetted and approved, and "kosher" if you please, before speaking of it before the minions. Both of these are tendencies I can identify with personally to some extent. This last approach frankly feels like an affront to me when practiced by those over me. It feels like disdain, manipulation and control. I'm not sure that it ought to, but it does.
For me, chronologically parallel to the thoughts above are questions about how social deficits like Asperger's Syndrome, for example, affect feelings and interactions. Are the people who disagree fearlessly and publicly sometimes afflicted with Asperger's Syndrome or something similar? Does that excuse the prickliness that seems obvious to others? Should such people be quietly tolerated (and privately pitied) or should they be reigned in? Should they ever be listened to and taken seriously?
I've heard such people described as having "black and white" thinking. I've heard it used when I was sure it was being applied to me, and it felt inaccurate and unfair--as though clear conviction was being equated with hasty and thoughtless categorizations. From my perspective, nothing could have been farther from the truth. That's almost as bad as being an adult and being given a figurative pat on the head accompanied by sympathetic clucking "there now, little one" noises. Or simply being ignored--as though an opinion or a person weren't present at all.
Another common characteristic of Asperger's Syndrome is the inability to empathize with others and often to feel empathy from others. This first-person essay provides some insight into how both black and white thinking and difficulty with empathy present in a person who has Asperger's Syndrome.
So how do we view a person who displays Asperger's-like symptoms, whether or not they fit formally into that box? Do they need fixing? Do the people around them need to make adjustments in order to accommodate them? Is it both? Is it possible that sometimes they are right, and their "deficits" make them the only ones willing to take an unpopular stand? Is fearlessness evidence of a social deficit? Is that part of God's purpose in creating them as they are--or is Asperger's Syndrome a work of the enemy, for which God's redemption is needed? Do such people need to learn at all costs to be discerning and empathetic? Is that even possible? Are a lack of discernment and empathy sometimes problems for people without Asperger's symptoms?
In the matter of handling disagreements, how do all these things come together neatly under a non-Talmudic maxim--security and stability, necessary change, respect, openness, humility, discernment, empathy, etc.? I wish I knew.
****************
What do you see? Do you have a maxim? Failing that, do you have any helpful observations or insights on any question raised here?
posted by Mrs. I (Miriam Iwashige) at
6:47 AM
2 Comments:
This is not a maxim, just some ramblings.
We tend to gravitate toward, believe, and ask advice from those that we think would agree with us. Is that always the best way? It wasn't for Rehoboam. He followed his peers' advice rather than those older than him, and it resulted in disaster. A safer method would be to listen first of all to what God asks you to do but also be open to counsel of those around you, especially those who have proven themselves to be mature in their responses, thoughtful, respectful of those with whom they disagree, and not hasty in their responses.
Where does the other person's freedom end and mine begin? I don't know.
It seems to me if someone is suffering from a disorder that makes it hard to function and relate appropriately, a trusted person who is familiar with the likely physiological dynamics would be a good place to look for some help. And submitting to an accountability group of trusted, godly friends would seem ideal, too. However, unless the person who struggles wants help, these efforts may be counter-productive.
LRM
By
LRM, at 11/11/2015
LRM, amen to all of the above, As I told you privately, I'm not writing here about one person, one incident, one way of thinking or one kind of behavior, but many of them over a long period of time.
By
Mrs. I (Miriam Iwashige), at 11/11/2015
Post a Comment
<< Home