Dear Unknown Friends:
A
recent occurrence, important as history, stands also for a tremendous need
in the life of everyone. It is the statement by Israeli soldiers that they
will not take part in their army's activities in Gaza and the West Bank.
The Washington Post of January 29 described it this way:
More than 60 Israeli army reservists,
half of them officers and all of them combat veterans, have publicly refused
to continue serving in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on the grounds that
Israel's occupation forces there are abusing and humiliating Palestinians.
"We will no longer
fight beyond the Green Line for the purpose of occupying, deporting, destroying,
blockading, killing, starving and humiliating an entire people," declared
a petition signed by the reservists and published in Israel's best-selling
daily newspaper.
These reservists
have now been joined by many others. I see their statement, including the
sentence just quoted, as beautiful, brave, patriotic, true to Judaism,
and necessary.
What it represents,
beyond the immediate situation, is the need for people to look at themselves
and ask what it is they truly feel - not what others tell them to
feel; not what it is convenient to feel.
The desire to
see what one really feels is, Aesthetic Realism explains, the crucial thing
in sincerity. But it has been a rare thing. And the reason for its rareness,
Mr. Siegel described in an Aesthetic Realism lesson. "We would rather use
ourselves than know ourselves," he explained: use ourselves "to impress
and manage other people" and be comfortable. The contest in everyone between
the desire to know ourselves and that desire to use ourselves cleverly,
to manipulate and look down on what's not ourselves, is a form of what
Aesthetic Realism has shown to be the largest fight we each have: between
respect for the world and contempt for it. The preference for the second
has made for everyday pain and for tragedy on a massive scale.
An Everyday Preference
A woman, for instance, may be married to a
man for 50 years and may never have tried, in all those years, to see what
she really feels about him. That may seem a sensational statement, but
it is not. On the one hand, this wife, Joan, wants to see her husband as
wonderful and right because he's hers. She goes on the notion that he,
Bill, is superior to their acquaintances; and both in her mind and vocally
she defends him when he quarrels with people. She is indignant when someone
expresses an objection to him. After all, he is a person who praised her
elaborately once and still can, whom she identifies with herself and considers
her possession. She doesn't want to see that she feels deeply he is unfair
to things and people in many ways. (She also doesn't want to see that he
dislikes himself for his unfairness.)
Meanwhile, Joan
doesn't want to see, either, the true respect she feels for her husband
in various fields. That is because, even while she wants to see a possession
of hers as wonderful, she also wants to feel superior to him. She gets
a triumph feeling she's better than he is. So she makes less of the fact
that there is much she can learn from him. In both instances - her making
him better than he is and worse - she doesn't want to see her real feeling
because it would interfere with her comfort and conceit.
It cannot be said
that Bill has wanted to see what his feelings about Joan truly are either.
The couple are in their mid-70s. They stand for millions of people. They
do not know that they have evaded looking at their feelings. Yet that evasion
has made them resent each other, want to punish each other (including through
sarcasm and silences); has made both ashamed; has made for a deep emptiness.
In the History of Nations
The lack of desire to see what one feels has
been gigantic in the history of nations. It is responsible for monumental
cruelty. For example, in the first half of the 19th century, Americans
by and large did not wish to find out what they really felt about slavery.
Those who did - the abolitionists - were miniscule in number, and were
considered dangerous radicals. People want to be conventional, be liked
by the "right people," and seeing one's true feeling can interfere with
that. It would therefore be inconvenient, in the 1840s, say, for you to
find out you were deeply against persons' being owned, bought, sold, by
others, and the fact that slavery was supported by US law. You might even
feel you had to do something about it, and that would be quite uncomfortable.
Further, the sense,
had deeply by every human being, that owning others is evil, would if honored
interfere with a certain pleasure. It would interfere with the pleasure
both Southerners and Northerners had looking down on a whole race, the
pleasure of contempt. In many instances, seeing what one really felt about
slavery would interfere with one's being able to continue owning slaves:
interfere with the comfort of using human beings to serve and enrich oneself.
For the same reasons, people for many years didn't want to ask what they
really felt about child labor.
Sincerity in America
In 1967, during the Vietnam War, Eli Siegel
wrote his long poem "Americans Have Tried to See What They Felt: Some of
Them." It begins with the statement that a person "is to be judged by how
much he tries to see what he feels, which is the same as the world in him."
Then Mr. Siegel comments on various Americans who had that needed sincerity.
Here are lines about William Lloyd Garrison:
Garrison saw injustice in himself - and
lo,
he saw it not
just in himself, but in this land.
To fight injustice in a land was, for
Garrison, to fight
injustice on
the self-preserve.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Garrison saw this feeling in himself:
That Negro
I don't know
in Alabama is not free, and
I can't stand
it. I won't have it. I'll wake up
other people;
I'll take them out of their unseeing,
unkind, death-torpor;
I'll set them to freeing that Negro
in Alabama, or
that black woman in Virginia. |
Vietnam: The Real Feeling
History will say that those Americans who
objected to this nation's purposes and actions in the Vietnam War, as Garrison
objected to slavery, stood for America truly. The centuries have made it
clear that what persons in a government present as patriotism, defense,
national safety, may often not be those, but instead be conceit
trying to have its way.
Mr. Siegel from
the very start said plainly that the Vietnam War was immoral, was un-American
- was an attempt to force the profit system on the Vietnamese people, who
did not want it. In this cause, we napalmed people, animals, earth; we
bombed massively men, women, children; we sent Americans to maim and kill,
and be maimed and killed.
It took a long
time for Americans to see how against that war they were, as it had taken
a long time for Americans to see they were against slavery. But the seeing
grew; and by the 1970s, to continue the Vietnam fighting was untenable.
A large reason was, the conscious feeling against it in this land had come
to be enormous.
There has been
in recent years an effort to make people forget, or not see truly, the
feeling in America that had more and more people march in anti-Vietnam-War
protests; the feeling behind the shout, which Mr. Siegel said was poetry,
"Hey, hey, LBJ!/ How many kids did you kill today?"; the sick, furious
feeling of American mothers that their sons were being sacrificed in behalf
of something horrifically unworthy. There is an effort to fool people into
thinking that that war was patriotic. But the being against it was one
of the honest, beautiful feelings in American history, and America needs
to see that fact and that feeling clearly now.
Today, What Do We Feel?
What our nation is presently engaged in is
different from the Vietnam War. We were attacked; and there is an intricacy
to the problem of how to meet that attack. Yet every American now has the
question: "What do I, just I to myself, inside, really feel? - not what
the television tells me I should feel, or even my neighbors. Do I want
to keep asking, or go by what makes me comfortable and important?" This
question, or these questions, are ours not just in relation to military
choices. And nothing matters more than honesty about them.
I think the revelations
about Enron have had people more ready to ask what they feel. That is because
through the Enron collapse, Americans are seeing that something they were
asked to
think they felt was untrue: they are seeing that profit
economics is not trustworthy, ethical, nor, after all, so strong.
We come to the
Israeli soldiers and their feeling that, as Americans once put it, "Hell,
no! We won't go!" These soldiers wrote:
We, combat officers and soldiers,
... have been issued orders and instructions that have nothing to do with
the security of our country, orders whose sole purpose was to perpetuate
domination over the Palestinian people ....
We shall continue to serve the Israel Defense
Forces in any mission that serves the defense of the State of Israel. The
mission of occupation and repression does not serve this goal - and we
refuse to participate in it.
This feeling in them
- as Mr. Siegel wrote about the feeling of William Bradford in the poem
I quoted - "was just; and [they] wanted to see it." They should be loved
for that. Their refusal should be celebrated, and all of Israel should
join them in it, because it stands for what Mr. Siegel writes of in another
poem, a very short one, which I care for greatly:
| How to See the Jews
One should refuse
To lose sight of the whole world
As one loves the Jews. |
Love for what is close to us, I learned, should
have us want to be fair to all people - otherwise it's not really love
but is fakery, conceit, sleaziness. This is true of domestic and social
life, and also internationally and ethnically.
What Is the Cause?
What needs to be seen, by the Israeli soldiers
and everyone, Aesthetic Realism explains: what is it that makes human beings
feel they can "kill ... , starv[e] and humiliat[e] an entire people"? What
made millions of Germans back Hitler? What makes persons who suffered from
Hitler be fascistic in their dealings with Palestinians? What makes various
Palestinians see it as right to kill Jewish civilians? What makes Catholics
and Protestants kill each other in Belfast?
The cause, Mr.
Siegel showed, is contempt: "the addition to self through the lessening
of something else." Cruelty and wars will not stop until people are studying
contempt, including in themselves: the feeling, so ordinary, that the way
to establish oneself is to look down on someone else. It is this ordinary
contempt which, when circumstances arise, has had average citizens agree
to "humiliat[e] an entire people."
It happens that
if we see an unjust feeling of ours truly, really see it, we want to stop
having it. Therefore, there is nothing greater and more joyful in the world
than the fact that through Aesthetic Realism we can know and criticize
contempt at last!
For many years,
Israeli students of Aesthetic Realism have written clearly on the cause
of the agony in the Mideast and the way of seeing necessary to stop it.
For many years too, the big periodicals of the US and Israel have boycotted
this explanation. Press persons have been angry at Aesthetic Realism's
understanding of contempt: its showing that all of us, including
the press, need to criticize contempt in ourselves.
But recently,
articles by Aesthetic Realism associate Ruth Oron and such colleagues of
hers as Zvia Ratz, Zehava Fishman, Avi Gvili, Rose Levy, have appeared
in American papers. This month, the
Rock Island [Illinois] Argus
published the article by Ms. Oron and her mother, Leah Shazar, under the
headline "Israeli Mother, Daughter Outline Keys to World Peace." Their
article has appeared too in the Chicago Defender, the New York
Beacon, the Tennessee Tribune, and other journals. They write,
in part:
With all that we Jews have suffered,
we haven't used our pain to understand the pain and the hopes of the Palestinian
people. Instead, we have ... giv[en] ourselves the right to deal with the
Palestinian people as we pleased. This is contempt.
About the question Mr. Siegel said is the
most important for humanity, "What does a person deserve by being a
person?," they write:
Jews, Christians and Muslims urgently
need to ask and answer [it] honestly. It is only when we want to know each
other and be just to the centuries-long feelings we all have had for this
dear earth we share - only then will we be able to trust one another and
live together in peace.
I have quoted, in
this TRO, poetry by Eli Siegel. The poem that follows, "TEA, Beginning
With," was written in 1966. He explained that all art is justice, and is
a guide to the justice we should give to people. In this poem, there is
justice to tea: there is the seeing of it with accuracy and wonder, lightsomeness
and depth, immediacy and history. The justice is musical. It represents
the beautiful justice Mr. Siegel gave everything.
|
—Ellen Reiss, Chairman of Aesthetic Realism
|
TEA, Beginning With
By Eli Siegel
Cups of Tea Deserted
Two cups of tea
Were deserted
As two people quarreled
Over one white tablecloth.
Tea As Evangelical
The way tea
Goes well with the cup
It is in
Gives one a dignified hope
That what has been sloppy
May yet be contained.
Dr. Samuel Johnson of
the
Many Cups of Tea
The tea-drinking Dr. Samuel Johnson
(See Boswell on the subject:
One cup after another - yea)
Showed his appreciation of tea
By composing a dictionary
In which you can find
Tea at this very day.
Tea Transforms Lecture
and Snow
Tea was served
After a lecture
On 12th Street near Fifth Avenue.
It had been snowing,
And the ever so well-timed tea
Transformed the lecture and the snow.
Song of an Indian, First
Time in
London, 1740
Wine can get to one's toes,
So can tea.
Even so, wine and tea,
You look different:
Warmth giving, both. |
|