Conclusion: Further

November 28th, 2011   by   Andrew

Conclusion to the series Myths and Dragons

The eye of an asian elephant at Elephant Natur...

Jordan Peterson, in one lecture, referred to his work as circling around something too big to grasp from just one examination. There is a story about a group of blind people trying to describe an elephant that makes a similar point. The first blind person might touch the elephant’s foot and give one account. Another might touch an ivory tusk and say something different. A third might grab the elephant by the hairy end of the tail and have a very different story to tell.

By circling around it, and getting all the different stories straight, we might not ever get things all figured out, but we might be able to get a collective picture.

I’ve deliberately tried to adopt a similar approach in this series, examining the elephant in the religious room in the way a group of blind people might grope at the beast. The posts have wandered from the original goal and have become somewhat disconnected. And there are things left unexamined that do deserve more attention. Would it have been better if I had done things in a more disciplined, consistent, coherent way?

Maybe that’s the next adventure.

I hope this list of points helps in some way. (This is the timid list. I have another list more aggressive and much more easy to tear apart. I do not trust bullet lists, but I will leave that grudge for another time.)

  1. Reality is much more complex than we have been able to fully grasp. It’s fundamental nature is unknown.
  2. In order to manage this complexity we have organized ourselves into societies and cultures that attempt to create predictability and order. This predictability allows individuals to act and helps make conscious our motivations for behaviour.
  3. Those maps of culture cannot ever be truly “complete” due to the nature of complexity, the inability to know everything, and the very nature of change. New information is always lurking.
  4. Stories are like maps. They frame reality as places of subjective actions rather than places of objective materials.
  5. Those maps of culture that have proven to be successful over time seem to have, at their heart, a story of an exploratory hero. That individual becomes aware of the incompleteness of their personal or cultural maps. This hero courageously faces that incompleteness or threat and goes through a process of change, usually involving education, discipline, teamwork, achievement of ability and creative application of what’s new.
  6. This very process is in some measure always a threat to those maps because any new information could bring into question the foundations upon which the cultural maps rest.
  7. This very process, if stopped, leaves a culture ill-equipped to manage any new information that arises from exposure to the world beyond the cultural predictability.
  8. We have reached a point where these foundations are constantly bombarded with new information. Practically every individual on the planet must come to terms with the conscious knowledge of the incompleteness in their culture, the vastness of the world and the inability to know everything with certainty.
  9. We are faced with a challenge
    - uphold our incomplete cultures that provide predictability, thereby ignoring new information, and becoming tyrannical and servile to the past
    - modify those cultures and therefore expose their flawed natures, jeopardizing our impressions of value, predictability and motivation
    - tear down those incomplete cultures, dramatically threatening the predictability of individual behaviour and the ability to trust one another’s motivations.
  10. The way forward is not adoption of one specific story. This would stop the process. The way forward is not absolute certainty in one’s adopted story. Again, this could stop the process and place the importance of our manufactured cultures over the importance of the individual, exploring hero. Instead, we are now sharing and investigating all our stories collectively and all at once. Culture must reflect this or else fall apart under the pressures of outside forces and new information.
  11. Literacy, technology and innovation have made this sharing of stories faster and easier, but it has also made our cultures more complex, vulnerable and brittle. Each individual has the power, potentially, to bring down and build up the networks and foundations of culture we have produced, and our stories now seem to reflect that too.
  12. The exploratory hero faces up to what they don’t know or can’t predict, and seeks to learn from it in order to bring back some benefit for the group (which is now extended beyond family, tribe, and ingroup to include, literally, billions). The exploratory hero creates a culture of responsibility. Each individual, though constantly facing new information that could undermine all their predictable motivations for behaviour, would still be equipped with the attitude and abilities needed to manage whatever new information does arise. In short, the individual hero can still act in a beneficial way despite facing uncertainty. Culture must foster this attitude and be at the service of individuals over establishing static truths or maintaining arbitrary rituals and norms that prevent the hero’s process.

There is a lot in this subject I haven’t fully covered or uncovered.

I didn’t really know how I wanted to finish this series. I’ve become uncomfortable about it, and I think it’s because there is so much I haven’t included, so many threads still left untied. At this point though, I’d rather go on to something else than clean this up. One thing that gives me hope at this point is Nassim Taleb’s work. (Aside: I adore the simplicity of presentation on his site.)

He is introducing what could be called mythological consciousness to the field of economics. This could mean that today’s political, religious and academic leaders might become inspired to apply similar thinking to more fields of study. And that could mean tomorrow’s heroes, innovators, and the rest of us, might all be able to create a culture of responsibility that’s worthy of striving for.

All blessings.
da da da
Shantih, shantih, shantih.

(I’m trying to find a way to play with this question still: Then how do we measure our stories?

Do we evaluate stories just on how real or true they are?

A trip to Hollywood would suggest otherwise. Since there is a TV in almost every living room and bedroom in the Western world, I would think otherwise. We seem obsessed with what people do, be it ‘staged’ or ‘authentic’.

I think we measure stories by how much reaction they get out of us.

I think stories can be measured in some way by what they make you do.

What does the story make you do?

Does your story produce the desire the act?

Does your story make you face what is, or does it make you shy away or ignore what is?

Does the story make you want to change something? Commit to something? Take up a journey?

Does your favourite story make you want to be in the story?

Are you in it?

And are you ready, for what comes next? )


Another Look at God

September 3rd, 2011   by   Andrew

Chapter 12 of the series Myths and Dragons

1My people, hear my teaching;
listen to the words of my mouth.
2 I will open my mouth with a parable;
I will utter hidden things, things from of old—
3 things we have heard and known,
things our ancestors have told us. ~ Psalm 78

Ok.

Here’s my dragon.

I have found a description of god that appeals to me. It fits, I believe, with our understanding of gods, with how we want them to work, and yet it requires no appeals to anything silly.

But,

My dragon has three problems.

1. It undermines the only premise in the My Theology we play with on this site. If mythology, and storytelling, teaches us anything, it’s that we should not trust what we know as being complete, but instead face the unknown as the disciplined, serving hero, letting the unknown be in charge. And here I go wrecking even my own basic premise! Argh. I guess premises are made to be broken.

2. The vocabulary is hopelessly high-minded and academic. It is too complex to be of any use when actually talking to people. So, it can be dismissed fairly easily. Why give it the time of day, or any consideration at all, if it doesn’t appeal directly to you?

3. It is not tied to any particular or specific culture. So the usual problems remain. Why would you pay attention to anything that doesn’t fit with your personal worldview, especially if you already have things figured out? (Oh, right… because what you don’t know is the very thing that could bring down the walls around you…)

I’d like to try to find a simpler way of saying this, so I’m asking for your help, nudging readers. Are you up for the challenge of making the complex and high-minded simple and accessible? Or, temporarily adopting something that might not fit with your reality?

[emphasis in the passage is my own]

We can separate a thing from the implication of the thing, because we are students and beneficiaries of empirical thinking and experimental method. We can remove attribution of motive and affective power from the “Object,” and leave it standing in its purely sensory and consensual aspect; can distinguish between what is us and what is world. The pre-experimental mind could not (cannot) do this, at least not consistently; could not reliably discriminate between the object and its effect on behavior. It is that object and effect which, in totality, constitute a god (more accurately, it is a class of objects and their effects that constitute a god.)

A god constitutes the manner in which a group or family of stimuli of isomorphic motivational significance reveals itself to or grips the collective, communicated imagination of a given culture. Such a representation is a peculiar mix of psychological and sociological phenomena and objective “fact” – an undifferentiated mix of subject and object (of emotion and sensory experience), transpersonal in nature (as it is historically elaborated “construction” and shared imaginative experience). The primitive deity nonetheless serves as accurate representation of the ground of being, however, because it is affect and subjectivity as well as pure object (before the two are properly distilled or separated)—because it is primordial experience, rather than the mere primordial thing.

…gods should therefore be regarded as the embodiment (what is understood, or expressed, or partially known) of the transpersonal intrapsychic phenomena that give rise to human motivation, as well as those aspects of the objective world that activate those intrapsychic systems. (Jordan Peterson)

What do you think?

Accurate? Meaningful? Measurable? (And no one is going to buy it, I’d bet…)

Here’s my challenge to you –

1. come at this with fresh, unassuming eyes.

2. think about the above description and try to find a way to say it so that anyone who hears it can understand it.

I hope you take on this challenge.

Below, in white text, I’ve included my attempt. It’s still too long. Please make your attempt at the challenge first before highlighting my hidden text.

Here is my attempt to make this description a little more accessible. And yes, I do borrow from Shakespeare to start. It fits with some of the themes of this series and I needed a boost, some help. Hey, did you write a comment yet? Did you even try? You better not be highlighting this without doing your part!

If all the world’s a stage then the subjective players play their parts, hopefully, to the best of their abilities, knowledge and passion. But just as an actor has to ask herself, “What’s my motivation?” I ask you “What’s your god?” And to find a god worthy of worship is to find a motivation worth being ruled by, a compulsion to trust and even act upon.

So, let’s look at some of the characteristics of gods but in terms of human motivation:

A god is an inny as much as an outy – a motivation can be both subjective and objective without cutting them or separating them. A god can be found within individuals as much as outside of individuals. A god is also physical material as much as abstract ideas. Whatever moves a person to action.

A god can be practically anything we have a relationship with – it is transpersonal, just as history and culture and even heirlooms can be transpersonal. There are emotional bonds and shared motivations that produce the relationship.

A god is a source – A god is like the mountain that makes us stand in awe, the wellspring of water that we need to sustain our lives, the psychological framework that we use to understand or rationalize our feelings or behavior, and the ground of being that makes up the complex and only partially known natural world. This possibly “ultimate” source, however, need no will or agency in the sense that we understand these words. It can be filled with “objective” objects that we are subjectively motivated to react to.

A god compels us act – the ‘existence’ of a god must have implications for behavior, otherwise it isn’t a god. Even if it is only what some might consider a projection (and therefore ‘not real’ in the sense of the supposed objective reality) we are compelled to act due to our experiences and our desires to have experiences. For example, in our children we see gods that must be served. They need to be brought up properly and given every opportunity to flourish. We worship and challenge our children and make sacrifices to them constantly, a relationship that sounds awfully similar to a relationship with a god. It has been said that we were created in order to serve the gods who, first of all, needed to be fed and clothed. (Eliade)

A god is the conscious or unconscious “embodying” of our motivations for actions, especially from the vantage point of subjective experience. So, any examination into a god is similar to the question, “What will I be ruled by?” or “What makes me act?” This might begin to explain why people want their god to be all-loving, all-seeing, and all-powerful. That is the ultimate combination for what your own behavior should be motivated by, is it not? What should our motivations spring from if not some source (within us or outside of us) that takes part in an attitude of compassion, knowledge and ability- yet another abstract but inspirational trinity.

And how do you not have a god? I don’t know. Resist anything you feel compelled to do? Refuse to participate in experience? Pop the cultural bubbles? Maybe it’s simpler than that.

Separate objects from their meaning. But keep in mind that even doubt and even process can be turned into gods, if this description of the nature of gods has any accuracy to it at all. And whatever significance you use to separate objects may still be placing meaning upon those separated objects.

[I'm not really happy with my explanation here. I think I might try to get back to this, simplify it and shorten it. I believe it can be done.]


Dragons are for Petting

August 20th, 2011   by   Andrew

Chapter 11 of the series Myths and Dragons

Children’s Literature has to be the most important literature out there. Good kid-stories put more mature-minded books to shame. And here’s why – in children’s books, the message has to be simple and obvious enough to be understood by the parents while important enough to still relate to a child’s life. Essentially, the story and the message has to be accessible and useful to all audiences.

Almost everything important about dragons can be found in two children’s books, in my opinion. Sure, you can go deeper, and find more intricate information about specific breeds of dragons, or catalogue small details if you like. But ultimately, the nature of dragons needs to be understood simply, so that you can know what to do when confronted by one. Too much information bogs you down when it comes to dragons. You need to be able to act when those rows of teeth come smiling down on you.

The two important books are:

“There’s No Such Thing as a Dragon” by Jack Kent

“The Paper-Bag Princess” by Robert Munsch

Jordan Peterson explains the importance of petting your dragon, keeping it close and friendly and manageable. He uses the short story “There’s No Such Thing as a Dragon” as the backbone for his talk in the video below.  The story starts with Billy waking up to a dragon at the foot of his bed. It’s about the size of a kitten. The vid is lengthy and Peterson gets a little long-winded, but the message can’t be any more simple or any more important. Good for parents, good for kids. (He does tell the whole story within the first 20 minutes, for those of you in a rush.)

In “The Paper-Bag Princess”, Princess Elizabeth loses everything to a greedy, proud dragon. She loses her Prince Ronald, and she has nothing to wear except for a paper bag. But she has her wits, she has her courage, and she has her determination.

In the end, she realizes that she doesn’t really want the Prince Ronald for a husband after all. Who wants a husband that can’t even take care of himself when an annoying dragon comes around?

Robert Munsch has an audio version the story on his website. It is wonderful. Please check it out.

Dragons aren’t imaginary. Dragons aren’t killed off or extinct. They don’t live like that. They are hardly even abstract. Dragons are at the foot of your bed when you wake up. They lurk in every decision you make. They come from the very essence of how you face problems in your life.

Test yourself. And serve your dragons well. Give them a pet once in a while.

Find your dragons, and face them prepared.
Their lessons and gifts, please remember and share.
Give the respect and caution they’ve earned.
Otherwise, you might get your bottom burned.

What do you think?

What’s your favorite story about a dragon?
Or what’s your favourite children’s book?



Jesus: A Change Worth Dying For, A Culture Always Challenged

August 9th, 2011   by   Andrew

Horus, Jacob, Jesus — Three Sons, Three Stories

Chapter 10 of the series Myths and Dragons

Part 1 – Horus: A New Hope, A Wise Past
Part 2 – Jacob – Never Surrender, Never Learn
Part 3 – A Change Worth Dying For, A Culture Always Challenged

Setup:
If we are to take stories as maps of behavior then we need to identify with the characters. Horus, Jacob and Jesus provide three unique maps for the relationships between a father, a mother and a son. They also illustrate three progressive steps in the mythological consciousness that frames our cultural heritage. We can read these three stories and examine what they say about how the individual relates to the social order that surrounds them and to the unknown world outside that protective social order.

The posts are made up of three parts:  an introduction, a story, and one  explanation (or midrash).


Questions for readers: Can you identify with the hero’s situation? Is this story a good map for how we should behave?

Introduction

The Christian story of Jesus, when examined through the mythological elements unknown, known and knower, is about how all individuals become equated with the hero, therefore potentially reaching divine status  (There are so many versions of this story.  Check out this kung-fu comedy version. Below is a simplified summary.)

The Story

Jesus had a humble, vulnerable birth. He grew up to be an intense student of the Jewish law, and then became a teacher and charismatic speaker increasingly frustrated with the established order of the day. He did not use physical weapons, but relied heavily on storytelling.  He did not seek militant political revolution, but he was compelled by a need for social change. He affected the lives of those that heard or saw him greatly. He summarized the ancient law of the Jewish people in two principles; love your God, and love your neighbor (even if an enemy) as you would yourself. By doing so, any individual takes up Jesus’ model for behavior and follows a heroic way of living. He disrupted the business of the money-changers in the temple and was brought before the judicial courts. He then voluntarily faced both punishment from the legal system and the great unknown of death.

(One) Explanation

Jesus is, in a sense, the individual no organized human society could really put up with. He was a master of the traditional knowledge of the culture. He was quick-witted enough to outsmart his prosecutors. He desired to remove all past conditions or social judgments from determining the present value of a person if that person came to him with honesty. And, he faced his final judgment voluntarily. He never took another person’s life, but was willing to give all his efforts and his life to changing the attitudes of people around him.

  • Find something so intriguing, so compelling, it fixes your attention and becomes more important than anything personal or selfish.
  • Commit all of your being to it. Take the weight of it upon yourself even if it’s impossible to bear (especially because it is impossible to bear). Be responsible for it and take a stand.
  • Take action so that the future will transcend the present and the past, even if it means you will not survive to enjoy or even see the fruits of that future.

He combined the Great Father of traditional culture and the Great Mother of the natural world in its complexity into one monotheistic deity (something already started and developed by the long Jewish history of storytelling). The unknown became a place of both order and awe. What better way to reassure people, and inspire them to face the unknown, than to tell them they will find something there that will always love them, something in which they will always have a place, and something that will always have order (even if unfathomable)?

He also became a model for how anyone, regardless of race or background or education, could achieve equal status with the divine – seek out the cultural errors around you, submit to what they teach you and commit to changing things for the better, even if it means your death. But never sacrifice someone else for your own personal ends. What better way to show something is more important than yourself than to be the servant? The sacrifice is always you, and the action must always be made by you.

There is always something wrong with a society, and it is always the job of the hero to change those things for the better. But that being said, the ability to absorb any individual completely, someone that might forever have something dysfunctional or anti-social about him or her, is too hard for any society to withstand. How could there be order in a land of nothing but heroes? And yet this is exactly what must be done because society is only made up of individuals, each potentially divine, each potentially a bringer of the magic elixir, and each potentially a destroyer of the traditional order.

(addition: the recent events in Norway are poignant examples of how misguided an individual’s actions can be, how misdirected an individual’s intentions can be, and how disastrous it can be on social order. Two attempts at understanding the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of this individual can be found here and here. Apparently, the person was trying to invoke social change, and he was willing to sacrifice other people in order to make his statement. How can a society address such threats? Build even more walls? Put a microchip in everyone’s brain? Condemn religions? Pressure each individual to be sane and rational?)

Identification with and commitment to tradition is not sufficient. Instead, we adopt and we adapt. The very process that continually creates culture cannot be separated from the process that creates the individual urge to explore new territory, for good or bad, and thus change the present conditions through the gifts and threats found there.

What do you think?
Can you identify with the hero’s situation?
Is this story a good map for how we should behave?
Can individuals behave this way in a community that depends on order?



Horus: A New Hope, A Wise Past

August 4th, 2011   by   Andrew

Horus, Jacob, Jesus — Three Sons, Three Stories

Chapter 10 of the series Myths and Dragons

Part 1 – Horus: A New Hope, A Wise Past
Part 2 – Jacob – Never Surrender, Never Learn
Part 3 – A Change Worth Dying For, A Culture Always Challenged

Setup:
If we are to take stories as maps of behavior then we need to identify with the characters. Horus, Jacob and Jesus provide three unique maps about the relationships between a father, a mother and a son. They also demonstrate three  steps in the mythological consciousness that frames our cultural heritage. We can read these three stories and examine what they say about how the individual relates to the social order that surrounds them and to the unknown world outside that protective social order.

The posts are made up of three parts:  an introduction, a story, and one  explanation (or midrash).

Questions for readers: Can you identify with the hero’s situation?
Is this story a good map for how we should behave?


Introduction

I believe many of us are more Horusian than we admit. The story of Horus is a part of the Egyptian creation myth, and how the culture of Egypt was established. Below is my version of the story. (You can find other versions on the net, like here, or here.)

The Story

Osiris was the oldest child of the sky and the earth. He married his sister Isis and ruled over gods and humanity. He taught his subjects how to make bread and how to live by laws. Everyone held him in the highest respect except his brother Set. Few cared for Set at all, and his loneliness and jealousy turned him into a terrible monster. Filled with rage, Set killed Osiris and cut up his body. He spread the pieces far and wide and then claimed himself king over everything.

Isis wept over the loss of her husband, and decided she would gather up the pieces of Osiris so that he could live long enough to father a child. With the help of her sister, Isis found all the parts of Osiris’ body except for his eyes and his phallus. Isis made a new phallus for him from what was his favorite weapon, a spear. She then breathed over the body and Osiris was resurrected. Isis soon became pregnant and Osiris, whole once again, was able to descend into the underworld. There, his honor and nobility grew until he became king and ruler.

Isis named her child Horus for he had the eyes of a hawk. Horus was bright-eyed and curious about everything in the world. Isis told him about his father, and about Set. Horus decided that he must contact his father. Now that Osiris ruled the underworld, he wasn’t able to send all of his wisdom to Horus. But Osiris taught his son and tested him, and with each lesson he grew more proud of his son. He taught Horus how to make a long spear and told him to keep it handy should Set ever attack him. When Horus was old enough, he challenged Set before the court of the gods. “I am the rightful king,” he declared. There was a great argument that settled nothing, and so Set schemed to challenge Horus to a series of contests.

Set cheated at first and thought himself clever, until Isis caught him. She set a trap, but let him go when Set begged for his life. When Horus found out, he became angry at both Set and his mother. Isis scolded him though, and reminded him that he can trust his mother even if he cannot understand everything she did. The gods decided there would be one last contest and Set decided to make this one very difficult. They would race boats made of heavy stone.

Horus, now realizing the nature of these contests, conspired with his mother and made his boat of a light wood she found for him. They covered it with limestone plaster concealing its construction. Set, in his haste, used the cap of a mountain, but it sunk to the bottom of the river. The other gods laughed at him. Set grew so angry he turned into a monster again. He dove into the water and hid on the mountain cap until Horus came by in his boat. Set jumped out of the water at Horus and tore an eye out of the face of the bright-eyed prince. Horus swallowed the pain and plunged his long spear into the water, pinning Set to the mountain cap. Set writhed in anger but as long as Horus held the spear, Set could not get free.

The gods were then amazed, and saw Horus would be the just ruler of the world. Set had come to the throne by murder, but Horus had only trapped the evil Set in the water with the spear.

Horus gained much power and skill as king, but knew his work was not done. He dove into the water, and searched for his eye. When he found it he went straight to the underworld to find Osiris. Horus then offered his father the eye so he might see again. Horus and Osiris ruled as father and son until Osiris had to return to the underworld. Horus ruled all his life but Set did manage to get free of the spear and out of the water. Horus and Set still have their contests and try to direct all of us in each their own way.

(One) Explanation

In this story, the tyranny of the rage-filled monster of Set compelled Isis to have a child to renew the hope of restoring the old kingdom. A son sought out the wisdom of his father, learned how to beat a tyrant at the tyrant’s own game, and became a wise and gracious ruler like his father. After a long preparation, he came before the gods and faced his challenger openly and honestly. Unfortunately, he never does triumph over the tyrant completely, but he is strong enough, wise enough and well armed enough to protect the world regardless of what the future may bring.

The Father’s kingdom cannot be fully restored. It is a thing of the past. But by mining the past and using the gifts it has to offer, a new leader can flourish, prepared for any trouble that may lie ahead. As well, a kingdom ruled by jealousy, rage and emotional outburst is not a healthy society. Horus learns even from his enemy. Set shows that rage can obtain power. He also shows his destructive power against nature with the mountain and the water. But most importantly, he demonstrates he is not a good king, just as we should not be ruled by such behavior or emotion.

The Mother’s resources and talents are beneficial, and even crucial, in restoring order. However, in this story, Isis makes her own decisions in reassembling Osiris, letting Set go once he’s caught, and helping Horus with his boat. The natural world, in its complexity, does not always commit to one side of a conflict or one course of action. It can create, it can trap, it can provide, and it can be a great teacher, but it will not be ruled over. Horus accepts this, and also imitates this by trapping his enemy, Set, but ultimately not destroying him.

What do you think?
Can you identify with the hero’s situation?
Is this story a good map for how we should behave?



The Hostile Brothers

August 1st, 2011   by   Andrew

Chapter 9 in the series Myths and Dragons

I want to go a little deeper into the relationship between The Hostile Brothers.

This is a story inspired in part by a talk from J. Peterson. The whole talk can be found here, but the first 20 minutes or so relate to this post. (I have deviated from the original story a little bit, playing with a Thomas King style of writing.)

God once tried to tell a story to two brothers.

“In this story, there are two brothers. The first brother we’ll call Reg.”

Reg asked, “Is this like the other story? In that story I was called Cain.”

“Kind of the same story. But in that one you were Cain. In this one, you’re Reg. And your younger brother is going to be called Sy.”

Sy asked, “But if it’s kind of the same story, then logically doesn’t that make me –”

“You’re Sy in this story. Ok?” Reg interrupted. “We’re ready, God. Tell us the story. I think I know where this is going.”

God smiled at the two.

“It’s good to see you’re thinking. But remember, sometimes it’s better to let the story tell you where it’s going, rather than tell it where to go.”

The two brothers groaned.

“Sy was a student of the world. He was enthralled by how things were related to each other, how everything was made up of smaller things and how everything was part of bigger things. Reg was a student of stories. He loved how the characters went through changes and dealt with consequences. He also liked how people gave him so much attention when he told stories, and how people started to think the stories were really really important.

“In the course of time the two brothers found they had to make sacrifices. Reg found that he had memorized all his favorite stories and no longer needed his eyes. If anything, they distracted him while he was getting his stories right because his audience was always looking into his eyes with wonder. So Reg got a pair of really dark glasses. They were so dark Reg couldn’t see out of them very well. But, he looked really good. Mysterious and cool.

“Sy realized that every time he picked up and examined something, his hands would, even just a little bit, affect whatever it was he was trying to look at. Sy figured that if he was really going to get an understanding of everything, he could no longer use his hands. So, Sy tied his arms to his back and sacrificed his hands.

“Sy was very happy. He missed his hands but found he was seeing things much more as they were, how they related to others things and not just how they looked in his hands. His knowledge grew and grew and people were impressed with his sacrifice. They felt they could trust Sy even though they continued to use their hands quite a lot.

“Reg was not happy. He found he could only tell the stories he knew from memory. He refused to take his glasses off and so couldn’t see anything new. And as people got tired of the stories, he realized more and more people were paying attention to Sy instead. Reg got a little jealous.

“At that point God went to talk to Reg.”

“Oh, you’re in this story too?” asked Reg.

“Well, It’s my story.”

“I thought this was a story about me,” said Reg.

God took a deep breath.

“I took you aside and asked you why were you so upset. You’ve done this to yourself. You could have learned the lessons of your own stories. If you have truly devoted yourself to story, and to people, then go to Sy and learn what he has found. It has consequences for people’s lives and they need to understand how to live with this new information. Your stories will grow. Your sacrifice can turn out to be great too, if you submit to the consequences.”

“But I had my stories right,” Reg protested.

“That’s when I told you it sounds like you’re trying to be master over your stories and over people and over Sy’s studies, rather than following your own stories.”

“Reg didn’t like that either, but went to find Sy. Sy was out standing in his field. Reg asked his brother to show him what he had discovered. Sy was perplexed, unsure how to show his brother anything when his brother refused to take off the glasses. He tried to explain but Reg didn’t like the words he used. And Reg kept using his hands, which at this point seemed disrespectful to Sy’s methods. And worst of all, every time Sy wasn’t paying attention to his brother, Reg would try to push him down or trip him.”

“I hate when he does that!” said Sy and glared at his brother.

“Is it my fault if my brother can’t keep his balance?” Reg asked.

“Reg was now really upset. No one wanted to hear his stories anymore. No one seemed to understand his stories anymore. And Sy was less and less willing to be around his brother.

“God decided to step in, again. God went to Reg again and told him this must stop.”

“But it’s not fair!” Reg said.

God poked Reg on the forehead to get the boy’s attention and it left a mark. Then God raised his voice.

“Both of you have important jobs to do. Sy has decided to let the world, as it is, be his master, and has gained trust and knowledge. Reg, if you had decided to let your audience be your master, and served them instead of yourself, you might not have risked losing it all.”

And with that, God had just about enough and disappeared from sight, leaving the two brothers alone.

Reg swallowed a lump in his throat, adjusted his glasses and then said, “I think I like it better when God’s around.”

Sy didn’t hear his brother. He had already gone back to his field and his studies.

What do you think?

Any suggestions?