I find myself at another of those points of perspective on life, where you can look at yourself, look at the world around you, and see something about the whole.
I see people, interact with people, sometimes even understand them, where they're coming from, where they want to go, why they are the way they are along the way.  I perceive the push and pull, the barricades that separate us, and the threads we cast trying to connect across the void.  But I never get what I want or find what I'm looking for.
I suspect it's the same for all of us, just with different levels of commitment, awareness, tolerance, and sacrifice.  The hope is to be both understood and accepted.  Either alone will not do.

The question is, which comes first?

I think most people look first for acceptance.  They experiment, blindly offering acceptance to anyone willing to reciprocate, hoping against hope that as knowledge and understanding increase they will not be proved foolish.  Stereotypes and spot judgment of clothes, speech, wealth, success, composure, and appearance, and a thousand mythologies bolster the tenuous rationality of an arbitrary choice.  Acceptance without understanding has become the currency of the soul.  Being both easy and cheap, it doesn't count for much, but it builds connection, without which understanding is impossible.  Truth itself may simply be a function of time and proximity.

Understanding is much harder to come by, but that's what I look for first.  I believe acceptance only counts for anything if it is first and always honest and deliberate.  So I watch for those who are capable of understanding well and deeply, who are perceptive and honest, but reserve their conclusions until they count for something.  To be understood by such as person and rejected would be devastating, but to be accepted would be more truly fulfilling than anything else imaginable.

Religion, in all its democratic grandeur, is more of an anonymous "IOU some answers" than a real solution.  If there's one thing more pathetic than acceptance which applies automatically, equally, and indiscriminately to everyone, it's automatic, total understanding based on no discernible connection or communication.

---

What I can't figure out is what this says about me.  Is it some deep, complex insecurity that drives me to such a controlled view of human community, or a willingness to believe in the best and the highest?  Is all of this a grand rationalization, or is it a clear perception of real ideas?  Is meaning vested in true connection, or are both mere imaginary goals?

I sometimes suspect that I'm not a very "good" person.  This is never expressed in the form of a list of sins and virtues, but rather in a naturally bleak store of positive impulse--a failure to live up to reasonable expectations of genuine goodwill for life, love, and the rest.  So the question becomes, if others understood this about me the way I do, would they still smile at me across a crowded room?

Life is complex -- this is my complex corner.

Wired, strung out, amped, restless, antsy, whatever you want to call it that's me right now.

I have no idea why.  Nothing helps.  Just ridiculous amounts of useless energy, all tangled up.

Last night I had a conversation with my roommate about Andrews University and its hard-line moralistic tactics, specifically as reflected in the recently created "Community Values Agreement" and the associated language expressed in the requirements and "accountability" breakdowns that can be found online here, here and here.

Moving from the more whitewashed descriptions here, and here, to the more scientifically written documents linked above, we can clearly sense the teeth thinly veiled by smiles and affirmations.  Of course it isn't only the CVA that has me troubled, but also the long and unbroken string of changes I have witnessed over the last 6 years, each moving to silence opposition, toughen requirements, and make heavy handedness easier to accomplish.

It is a difficult thing to define exactly what is "good" as opposed to "evil", but in examining this subject, it becomes more and more clear to me that the essence of my conception of good is that which is understood, believed to be right, and therefore eagerly chosen, as free from bias or outside influence as possible.

This is clearly cast as the direct opposite of the "good" supported by the actions and policies of Andrews University.  Here we find a situation in which the good is presented as a predetermined set of conclusions which are best reached by consent, that is, by subjecting your own will to another's assertion that you must accept these conclusions (or at least live by them) or face punitive measures.

I know of no evil in this world greater than that which seeks to prevent people from thinking for themselves.  Thus, their "good" and my "evil" are one in the same.

This clarity is most disturbing, but it leaves many questions unanswered.

What is the essential basis of their philosophy, and does it have an ultimate goal, or only more immediate and limited purposes?

Of one thing we may be certain -- there is no mistake in this policy.  It is clearly and consistently stated in every instance I have seen.  Everybody is on the same page.  When I was first exposed to this "Community Values Agreement" I asked the question "So, did they have to sign an agreement to respect my values?"  The response, almost immediate, from a random bystander was "well, you chose to come here."  This is the universally understood justification -- so universally understood that it becomes obvious that everyone involved with this agreement understands its purpose.  That is, to abolish your right to protest.  Enlightened debate's off switch.  This is our set of ideas, you can either abide by them, or get out.

This attitude of Andrews University is a deviation from the purpose of higher learning.  Universities, historically, and to the extent that they have fulfilled their highest calling, have been places where people come to grow up, to develop their ideas about life in a nurturing atmosphere.  At the core of this nurturing atmosphere is the recognition that no idea is of value until you have chosen it for yourself, on your own terms, for your own reasons.

By contrast, we can indeed find institutions which are designed to create adherents to a specific code of conduct and ethics: sports training camps, training camps for militaries, militias, and pseudo-military organizations, martial academies.  These institutions are explicitly and consistently designed with the goal of indoctrination.  Their purpose is to encourage obedience at the expense of independent thought.  They are designed and operated for the purpose of furthering the mission and goals of whatever organization they exist within.

The most disturbing thought of all, and the one which caused me to sit down just now and write this...

I'm not certain that the administration, or indeed many of the students, of this university would disagree with my analysis.  Further, I'm not sure they would be displeased.  This institution may indeed see itself as preparing for war, and greatly value this chosen method for efficiently distributing ideas and silencing debate and opposition.  There may be many who would gladly accept the title of Soldier for God, irrespective of whether they understood the implications or not.

I've seen enough that I could preach the cause and be quite convincing.  I could dress mindless devotion in cords of honor and respectability.  I could gush about the power of mutual or multifaceted commitment.  I could describe faith as a nobel shared commitment of service.  I could explain how that service can and should be required of people for their own good.  I could equate community with duty, requirement, and enforcement.  I could use the words "Accountable" and "Citizenship" as threats.  I could write propaganda, and people could praise me for it.

And I would have betrayed that which makes us human -- the inalienable right to think.  It is my judgement that enforced religious values and genuine, pure, voluntary faith are antithetical ideas, and do not ever co-exist.

This screwed up link-- http://https://ssl.search.live.com/cashback/go?c=158943 --accidentally typed wrong by a random forum poster, leads to the edge of the internet.

(you have to copy and paste -- I can't get it to reproduce the link in HTML, also, only works in Firefox)

Do you jump off, or turn around and go back?