25 July 2001 
 
My mind has been in a roil of late -- nothing bad, mind you, but just very, very 
busy. For all that one hears gripes from people, often in religious texts, but 
one also in everyday diatribes against "this modern life", the physical living in 
this world is very good indeed. Don't decide to bombard me with talk of war, 
starvation, oppression, etc.  I know they exist, they are evil, and action must 
be taken to reduce, if not eliminate, them.  However, I dispute against the idea 
that flesh is inherently sinful, that the secular world is corrupt in some 
essential way. 
 
None of these ideas is at all new; one can find in the writings of ancient Greek 
philosophers a view of the physical as being lacking.  One sees this in Plato all 
over the place; he has his =ideals= which are perfection, transcending the 
inevitable imperfections of actual, physical things.  Later, the Manicheans saw 
spirit and flesh as being opposed, and they thought that one is trying to escape 
the bonds of evil flesh puts on one. If one looks at old anti-woman screeds, one 
will often find that it's not femaleness that is being put down necessarily, but 
physicality.  Women's bodies, and what they do, is an unpleasant reminder to many 
that we are animals - women give birth not unlike other animals, and just like 
other mammals, human mothers can suckle their young.  Women also remind men of 
their own animal nature, by the lust their very presence can inflame.  Men who 
wish to think of themselves as some superior creature, above all the animals and 
able to transcend the animal impulses that shackle the lower beings, are 
painfully brought back to earth by their gut response to women, who they saw as 
inferior. 
 
One understands the ideal of male homosexual love, as portrayed in =The 
Symposium=; men could pretend that they were being driven by a higher love, that 
the love was of the soul and not of the gonads.  If women were beasts of burden, 
intended to produce and care for children, loving them is akin to bestiality; 
there is no honor in loving a brainless animal.  However, love for one's equal is 
a spiritual love, drawing one out of one's earthly bonds... 
 
I saw fooey to all of this. 
 
Part of this comes from wisdom received from my father: "Be a good animal" 
(though I think my grandfather's "Don't be asinine" is also operative).  Part of 
this comes from my religion; one cannot think of physical being as bad if one 
believes God has taken on that physicality.  You may know this about 
Christianity, but I'm going to repeat it anyway: I believe that Jesus, fully 
human =and= fully God, walked this Earth millenia ago, breathed and ate, sweated 
and urinated, was crucified and died, and then resurrected -- which means he came 
back =with his body=, not some kind of "ghost of God".  The resurrected Christ 
had the crucifiction wounds - Thomas could put his fingers through them, but also 
touch the hands in which those wounds were.  Christ ascended into Heaven =with 
his body=.  Think about this, then -- Christianity teaches that God became man 
and =still is man=.  They don't talk about that much in sermons, do they? 
 
Just think about how mind-busting this can be, if you =truly= believe in 
Christianity.  God the Son has taken on the physical limitiations of humanity; 
for all the miracles reported of Jesus, he usually does things in the normal, 
human way - walking around in the normal way, talking with people, eating with 
people, sleeping when tired, crabby when annoyed at his disciples, etc.  Though 
the reason for the Gospels is not to tesitify as to how much Jesus enjoyed his 
physical nature, but I bet at the Last Supper, he enjoyed the taste of the wine 
and the bread.  I bet insects bit him and he felt relief when he scratched the 
itch.  I think this is way cool (actually, I think Jesus =could not have= baked 
the most delicious cake in the world, or dance better than Barishnikof, and I 
think that is even cooler.)  Though I like to make fun of the "What Would Jesus 
Do" crowd (well, he would make the blind see, walk on water, and tell a cryptic 
parable...), Jesus =did= take on limitations, and so thinking of what he, fellow 
human, would do is pertinent. 
 
But going away from religion for now, I simply think that physically =being= or 
=existing= is superior to those things that exist in the mind, in some kind of 
"perfect" form.  As others have said, how perfect can it be if it doesn't 
actually exist?  I know some people have used this line of thinking as a "proof" 
as to the existence of God, but if there is no God, there's no guarantee that the 
perfect has to exist.  Who is going to be convinced by this argument: "God, by 
definition, is perfect, and that which does not exist cannot be perfect, thus God 
exists."  I mean, do you want to argue with me as to whether lines exist?  They 
don't, and they're "perfect" in their own way.  Continuity doesn't exist either, 
as far as I know.  That's debatable in my mind. 
 
Anyway, I enjoy living, and though it sucks when I have a massive headache, like 
I did all of yesterday afternoon, all in all, life is pretty good.  Fresh 
blackberries, knitting with merino wool, learning Braille, reading Austen, 
listening to Tuck & Patti, going to the Met and looking at the quilts -- this 
life is great.  Of course, I think New York City to be the city closest to 
perfection (Vancouver notwithstanding), but that's a different post entirely.