I’ve been watching videos posted by Michael Voris who is a Roman Catholic apologist and a self-appointed lay defender of the faith. Here is one of his videos:
In this particular video Michael Voris talks about a movie released on the life of christ. I have never heard of the movie he reviewed and if I had I probably would never have gone to see it. What I found interesting was the message he drew out of it and how he went about explaining his point of view.
In his review he talks about the differences between Catholic and Protestant theology. He talks a lot about the “real presence” in the consecrated bread and wine during mass and how Catholics believe this and Protestants do not. He seems to imply that a Catholic who does not fully believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not a real Catholic.
Voris talks about how this movie appeals to emotions and not the intellect. He goes on to say that this is emblematic of the Protestant view of Christianity. I don’t know whether this is true or not. What I find interesting is that Voris, like Admiralbill (the conservative on the Star Trek message board I used to torment and documented in my ebook “Shame and Internet Trolling“) has to make his points by criticizing other people. In his analysis Voris takes an “I’m right. You’re wrong” approach and then criticizes his opponents to make his point. He then says that he does what he does for the good of the people he is mocking.
Voris argues Catholic truth appeals to the intellect whereas Protestant truth appeals to the emotions. There is the sense in his argument that emotions are not authentic or important. He says “emotions do not save … often times they deceive.” Admiralbill once typed, “WE THINK YOU FEEL” as a response intended to convey his belief that thoughts are more important than feelings and conservatives base their views on thoughts whereas liberals base their views upon feelings.
It is interesting to me that Michael Voris argues using the shame playbook just like Admiralbill. He claims to be motivated by saving souls but his method of argument (ie, shaming those who disagree with him) and the hostile energy he emits suggests to me that his real motivation is to shame others to make himself feel better about himself. This is what shame-based people do.
I am not commenting on the substance of his arguments. That is a question of faith I would suppose. He seems to have faith that Roman Catholicism is the one true faith. I am a Roman Catholic, I will make no argument with that. I am really questioning the motives he claims to be striving for. If I am being honest, if his true motivation is to assuage his shame ego then his arguments seem to carry less weight to me. Perhaps this is valuing feelings over thoughts on my part. But I am not entirely convinced that feelings should be weighted less than thought.
Yesterday I finished reading a book that touched my soul entitled “The Goldfinch” by Donna Tartt. I feel an emptiness now that I finished because I no longer have those characters around to experience on a daily basis. This feeling of emptiness is important and cathartic. As I approached the end a depression set in. The main character Theo described how his life was a catastrophe. I identified with that. There is all this struggle and persevering and for what? It is one thing to say this but it is quite another to experience through a character. There were scenes in that book that made me weep because they articulated the tragedy that life increasingly becomes the older I get. I felt depressed as I approached the end and saw my own life as a series of struggles I always hoped would resolve into something better but now sadly suspect (and afraid to fully admit) that it probably will not. Not in that way. But then when I finished the book and set it down I experienced the catharsis. The hopelessness of the depression lifted and resolved into something more akin to peace and truth.
There is happiness in life. I have experienced it from time to time. But as I become older happiness becomes more of a memory. It has become something to achieve. It is something I recognize when it happens as a long, lost place of rest, my old home that for some reason, at some point in time I left and because I left I could never really return. I can return. But when I do it not home but rather a place I used to call home. Theo experiences this tragedy and the book in large part is him dealing with the aftermath. He struggles and gets along with life but the damage was done and there is no getting around it.
I was sold a bill of goods at a very young age. I was told that life is good (a gift in fact) and everything would turn out just fine. If I worked hard and played by the rules I would be rewarded. As I got older I struggled with the cognitive dissonance that my own experience did not quite match up with this original picture. I was unsatisfied and concluded the fault must be mine. I was ungrateful, deficient, weak and touched by original sin. I did not deserve this great gift that had been given to me and the only moral solution, the only way to balance the scales was to punish myself with shame. Shame destroyed me and set me back. I can never regain that ground. But here I am still existing, not uncomfortable, happily married with two beautiful daughters. I have largely overcome or worked my way through my shame. But now I am 44 and have so much ground to recover I doubt I ever will.
The point of something is the reason for it to exist. If I make an argument the point of my argument is to convince someone my point of view is correct. But what is the point of that? What is the point of having a point? In 100 years both I and whoever I was trying to convince will be dead and no one will remember the argument I made or even the reason I made the argument in the first place. In a billion or so years the earth will be engulfed by the sun and at some point down the road al the stars will burn out. What then will be the point of my argument? What could possibly be the point of anything at all during this lifetime if nothing in this lifetime has permanence?
Life has no permanence but I live it as if it does, accepting the idea of impermanence outwardly, paying it lip service, but never fully taking it in. This discordance is the tragedy of life. Life is suffering. Trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Samsara. Having this point articulated, “pointed” out in a way that touched me the way “The Goldfinch” did feels important. There is some degree of recognition, satisfaction and resolution in the midst of the sadness. Through it, I caught a glimpse of that long-lost home.
What is the point of prayer? How do I know it is accomplishing anything? There have been many times in my life where I have prayed in the form of asking for something that did not come to be. This might suggest that there is nothing to prayer. That it is at best ineffectual and at worst an ubsurd and foolish waste of effort. I know the advocates of prayer will say something like “God always answers prayer it just might not be the way you expect.” I find this clichéd and unconvincing.
If there is something more to the universe than materialism and mortality (which I suspect there is but having no way of proving) then I want to communicate with it. I want to approach it in some way. Prayer seems to be the way to do this. This is an external prayer. That is, a prayer that originates inside of me and travels to some external recipient. But prayer can also be a way to communicate with my innermost self, the part of me that is still in communion with that something more, the divine. This is an internal prayer, a prayer that originates inside of me and travels deeper down to an internal recipient. This is meditation (perhaps).
So essentially, prayer is a form of communication, like a phone call or an email. In everyday life these types of communications are sent, received and responded to. Some are sent and received but not responded to. Some are sent but never actually received. This seems like a more reasonable way to look at prayer than the “God always responds to prayer” mentality. It accepts the possibility that the communication could not have been received or received and ignored (for whatever reason). But there is something unsatisfying about looking at prayer in that way. It’s too mechanical. It reduces prayer to the level of logic and materialism.
I want prayer to be more than this. I want it to breach the chasm between the everyday world and the divine. It seems to me the divine is so wholly other that it cannot be reduced to merely another recipient (like me but more powerful) who may either choose to respond or ignore my prayer. The divine is beyond my comprehension.
Why do I want to communicate with the divine? My motivation is more than simply asking the divine to intervene in my material existence. It has to do with communing, being in relation with, being near. Because as beautiful and interesting as it is, ultimately there is something unsatisfying about the material world. There is an inner longing for that something else, that long-lost realm I used to call home.
This inner longing does not prove the existence of the divine but perhaps it can be seen as evidence thereof. It is enough for me to base my faith upon this. It gives me enough reason to pray, to reach out to that hidden, mysterious, long lost home.
Shame derails critical thinking because truth is not the shame ego’s main objective. The shame ego’s main objective is looking good in the eyes of others. Put another way, the main objective of the shame ego is to avoid humiliation. Put another way still, the shame ego’s worst fear is being humiliated.
If the shame ego were primarily interested in the truth and thought critically it could hear both sides of a debate and determine the winner objectively based on the merits of each argument alone. But with political debates in particular I find that most people do not evaluate the arguments primarily on their merits but rather based upon pre-existing loyalties to political camps and not wanting to appear foolish in the eyes of the opposing camp. I do this myself. When I do this I must realize that I am allowing my shame ego to take control of my thought process and am therefore not thinking critically.
In this context, loyalty can be a tricky subject. Most people think loyalty is an admirable quality. I would say, generally speaking this is correct. However, shame egos are more apt to invest their loyalty for the wrong reasons in the wrong causes. For example, a shame ego might be loyal to a cause because it does not want to appear to be following the wrong or loosing side. It is not so much that the shame ego ignores its critical thinking, but rather the shame ego prioritizes not appearing foolish or wrong above what cause actually deserves or has earned its loyalty. This is why (I believe) arguments involving religion and politics devolve into shouting matches and ad hominem attacks. These type of arguments are about personal beliefs and therefore in some ways define the people making them. If their beliefs are wrong then they as people are wrong. Shame egos cannot abide by this.
Critical thinking requires dismissing shame in order to be objective but a shame ego will not allow this. As such, a person with a shame ego never properly learns to think critically and therefore experiences a warped sense of reality and truth. At its heart, the shame ego is afraid of truth because the shame ego ultimately believes itself to be wrong. As such the truth (it believes) is humiliating and must be avoided, hidden or dismissed. In fact, a shame ego will sometimes deny truth even to itself and will react with anger or aggression against the people who insist on the truth.
Rather than feel the discomfort a shame ego experiences when confronted with the truth it will avoid the truth and therefore is incapable of thinking critically. In order for a person to think critically he must free himself from his shame ego. He must embrace the truth and allow himself to experience humiliation in a supportive, non-judgmental environment. If he is judged then the humiliation becomes too harsh and he will retreat back to the protection of the shame ego. But if he is not judged and can take in the compassion in the face of the feeling of humiliation, then he can start to have compassion for himself. This is the first step in the arduous road to liberation.
Yesterday I wrote a blog post about how to stay in a job you hate. In the post I talk about an office job I worked and hated for ten years. It was sarcastic and discussed the things I did to make the passage of time less excruciatingly boring and how I avoided going down those dark thought holes that lead to life dread and depression. I ended up not posting it because I envisioned applying for a job in the future and not getting an interview because someone stumbled across the post. I actually thought the post was pretty funny and clever. And I have heard that the most successful posts are the ones where you feel a little scared to post them. I have not confirmed this statistically (nor could I probably) but I feel like there is some truth to this idea. The posts where I am a little afraid to publish are the ones that expose some secret part of myself and contain real emotion. Anyway, I ended up not posting it because I was scared that it might come back and bite me down the line. This is an example of me not putting myself out there. It might be a missed opportunity. Maybe some book publisher or movie producer might have stumbled upon it and offered me some kind of book or movie deal. This is where my mind goes anyway.
As I said, I did not end up putting myself out there on that one. But I know I have to put myself out there sometimes otherwise I will remain stuck and frustrated with life. But the act of putting myself out there is tough for me because I am shame oriented and expect people to judge me negatively. I can forgive myself for not publishing that post because I recently did put myself out there in an e-book I recently self published. I fear other people’s reactions to this book because I got pretty personal talking about my emotions and I mention other people although I did not identify anyone other than myself specifically by name. Still, anyone who knows me would probably be able to figure out who most of the people are.
On that one I did put myself out there. I cast the die and let the chips fall where they may. Mostly likely nothing will result from it one way or the other. That is probably worse than getting a bad reaction come to think of it. The fear of no reaction is actually a big reason not to put myself out there. Of course if I do not put myself out there I guarantee that I will receive no reaction. To bring things full circle, I think not putting myself out there was certainly a contributing factor as to why I stayed working a job I hated for ten years of my life. Of course the root of this behavior is fear and fear is not easily overcome but it can be.
I recently wrote and published an eBook entitled Shame and Internet Trolling and am looking for an independent reader to write an honest review on Amazon and Goodreads. I have noticed that there are many services available on the internet offering to review independently published books for a fee. I assume there are a lot of authors out there who are in my situation but do not want to pay for a review. Here is what I propose:
If you are an independent author who has recently published and want a review please contact me in the comment section below. I will read and review your book if you read and review mine.
I am looking forward to hearing from any other independent authors!