When I came home from Bikram, Shivani was already packed up and ready to leave to catch her flight home. As they prepared to get into her rental car, Sidney gave me a big hug. I turned around to walk back into the house. Shivani said, "Don't I get a hug?" I guess I got what I needed.
Having Sidney to look after was good for me. He energized me and kept me moving. I got more housekeeping work done than I usually do, even slowed down by a 2-year-old.
At school, I worked on spelling with B, and N. N is already much better. He used to get scores in the 30%, but he's doing better than that on a practice test now. B, not so much. Both boys had trouble discerning the difference between the sounds of /t-r/,/d-r/, /ch/ and /j/. I showed them how they were formed differently, showing them how the face forms differently with each sound. Once they were able to identify the sound in isolation correctly, I presented them in what sounded like words: trust, drust, chust, and just. Both were able to do it.
I worked with D in Mrs. B's room too. We worked in the 3rd-grade reading textbook. He opened the book to one of the stories for the end of the year. It was way over his head. He was frustrated, and so was I. I didn't want either of us to be bummed out by more failure than success. While he said he was all right, I switched to a story from the middle of the book. Even reading well at that level is a significant improvement for him. He read it with fluency, missing only a few words. He still is inclined to just guess at the word, even if his choice doesn't make sense. For that matter, he doesn't use context clues as effectively as I would like. I have to use his incorrect pronunciation of a word in a familiar sentence, one he would use in conversation before he gets its meaning and the correct pronunciation.
I didn't have time for K. Just as well. I don't like her mind games. Yes, third graders can play mind games, deliberately frustrating you.
____-____-___
Musings:
McGilchrist proposes that the right brain and the left brain's difference is that the right brain wants connection, and the left brain is grasping. The right brain uses empathy, identifying with others, and is concerned about their welfare. The left brain is only concerned about numero uno.
Here's my problem: grasping and altruism are not opposites. The opposite of grasping is not grasping; the opposite of altruism is really being unable to see others as like self and, therefore, an extension of self.
For those familiar with my thinking, you know that the terms' altruism', unselfish, and sacrifice are bug-a-boos for me. This was partly because of the experiment when I tried to be genuinely selfless when I was 16, only to discover that there was always something in it for me, even if others might consider the act unselfish, even sacrificial. For me, the need to make connections with others is as much an individual need as air, water, and food. Our need to have others be okay, like our children, is as much a personal need as any other need of ours. We sacrifice for anyone we consider an extension of ourselves, our children, our group, our tribe, our football team, etc. Whatever it is, it is ours.
Sacrifice is a strange one because we must sacrifice whenever we choose between two desires, even if it involves the choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. We sacrifice for ourselves all the time. We sacrifice A so we can achieve or get B.
The difference between people is not if they 'sacrifice' or not, but how broad the sense of 'I' is. Is 'I' a tiny circle that includes only one person and everything else in the universe is an object to help 'I' get what 'I' want or to get in the way of 'I' getting what 'I' want. Is the sense of 'I' more extensive? Does it include other humans? Do other humans mean only family members, tribe members, group members? Does it include any living thing other than itself? Any living thing because it requires maintenance or it suffers or dies. Even a plant will do for some people to expand their sense of self.
For most of us, that sense of 'I' includes family members and friends. For some of us, it includes people we don't know, people of other social groups that do not share the same beliefs, values, or customs, no less skin color. For some, that sense of 'I' includes animals but not humans. Whatever it is, if the circle of 'I' extends beyond the boundaries of the skin of a single human being, people can be considered unselfish. People we consider truly giving have the broadest sense of self- in the sense of including others, not only all objects available or all power available. Those people can interconnect with others, co-create at any given moment without losing their sense of self. Their sense of self is large enough. Even these people are grasping. They grasp for the best for everyone. They pray for it; they work for it; they fight those who oppose it. They give their time and physical and emotional energy to it. They are doing this for others, but they are still grasping.
So what is the opposite of grasping? Many years ago, I heard a woman say, "We always desire so passionately if only we could accept passionately." So let's assume the opposite of grasping is being satisfied with what is, not needing more. We all have moments like that. We have had a satisfying amount of food, and we stop eating. It is enough. Those moments of enough are the definition of peace, a sense that all is good with the world for the moment.
McGilchrist doesn't say that grasping is bad. Without it, we would surely die, as would all animals. We have to pursue our basic needs. The issue is not pursuing needs, grasping more; the point is determining when enough is enough.
The second issue with grasping is knowing what to grasp for. I remember a college roommate who went to a Catholic boarding school telling the following story: One of the girls said she was hungry. A nun responded that what she needed was a divine love sandwich. Those are two different kinds of hunger, and knowing which one needs to be satisfied, when, and by how much is the trick. All desire can be excessive and consequently destructive.
Also, all hunger can be constructive. In the Buddhist meditation, I am familiar with, Goenka said that the goal is to get to the point where there is no craving or aversion, no grasping or rejection of life's little surprises. Nirvana is achieving total acceptance of what is, being at peace. But the irony is that this wonderful state of being can't be achieved unless you crave it in the first place unless you grasp for it. If you are satisfied with what is, you may never change and grow. For some people, that is actually their life goal, being permanently miserable. They get their kicks that way. What can I tell you? Again it comes back to choosing our goals wisely and knowing when enough is enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment