Why might that be
That all that is
Needs
A pet name and
A personality?

Why might that be
That mystery
Needs
Turned to our ends?
To our purposes?

Why might that be
That our
Needs
Demand a personality
And a name?

Why might that be
That we
Need
Gods when all
That is is?

and about bodies–
my body
emptying itself
under the body
of that tree,
the huge

house of it
as I looked up
through the muscular
branches which seemed
as thick around as grown
men,

and I remember
looking down and seeing
directly across from me
another body–
a tiny black
foraging
body–

I was still peeing
as I followed it
with my eyes
traversing the vast
mountain range of bark,

and carrying with it
a little something
to eat
on its back
or maybe
in its mouth.

I couldn’t
see its mouth but I knew–
I remember being 5 and knowing–
that it had a mouth,
that it had to have a mouth
because everything has a mouth
because the body is fair
game for other bodies
with mouths,

and I remember thinking
this included
my body,
and feeling
all of a sudden
very empty

but also very
wise. More wise
than hungry. I wasn’t
hungry at all at that
particular
remarkable
moment.

Carol Wintermute’s undergraduate work was at Denison University in Ohio where she received a Bachelor or Fine Arts degree. She did post-graduate work in psychology at the University of Minnesota. Her graduate studies were in family social science at Minnesota where she completed the course work for a MA and Ph.D. degree. She is also a graduate of the Humanist Institute.

Her passions are philosophy, psychology, art and literature. Over the years, she has been a visual aids librarian at the Freer Gallery of the Smithsonian, teacher of human sexuality courses, research assistant in an experimental drug education program, an intern in a county family services agency, coordinator of an early childhood program for a school system, and instructor in family social science at the University of Minnesota, a branch manager of the Red Cross, Director of Religious Education at the First Unitarian Society of Minneapolis, Executive Director of the International Association of Humanist Educators, Counselors and Leaders, President of the Humanist Institute, and now the Co-Dean of the Institute.

—-

Q. Carol, thank you for this interview. Please tell our readers a little about your personal journey toward Humanism, and how you came to be affiliated with the Humanist Institute.

My father was a fallen away Methodist while my mother was a devout Catholic. When they married, they compromised. and became Hicksite Quakers, the liberal branch of this faith. When we moved away from that group, my life became one of wandering into various religious halls with my neighborhood friends as guides. I even developed a rating system—Catholics, best costumes; Lutherans, best Bible pictures; Methodists, most ferocious and scary; Jews, most sad and serious. By age eleven I was finished with this odyssey and became an A-theist. In college I heard about Unitarians. When I married and had children, I headed for the nearest Unitarian church, for what I hoped would be a comparative religious education for my children and a like-minded community. I wasn’t disappointed as we found a humanist congregation that was a great fit for our family. I became a Sunday school teacher, and after moving to Minnesota I took on the responsibility for directing the children and adult education programs. I wrote a humanist curriculum that covers early childhood through adult years.

Khoren Arisian was our minister at the First Unitarian Society in Minneapolis. Through him I heard of the Humanist Institute, and was invited to apply, becoming a student in the first class. After graduating, I joined the board of directors, eventually became president, and I am currently Co-Dean of the Institute with Kendyl Gibbons, the current minister of the First Unitarian Society of Minneapolis.

Q. What is the history of the Institute? For example, how did it begin, and how has it sustained itself through the years?

Khoren Arisian was active in the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU). It was at these meetings in Europe that Khoren met with other leaders from North America to talk about creating an organization to more effectively promote the humanist movement. The driving personality behind this endeavor was the late Paul Beattie, a humanist UU minister. Three other leaders involved in the conversations were the late Rabbi Sherwin Wine from Humanistic Judaism, Howard Radest from Ethical Culture, and Paul Kurtz from The Council for Secular Humanism.

In 1982 these five leaders, along with 40 others of us, met at the University of Chicago to form the North American Committee for Humanism (NACH), with Sherwin Wine as President. The group immediately defined the mission for the new organization as leadership education. The Humanist Institute (THI) was the result. Howard Radest became the Dean and the New York Society for Ethical Culture offered its meeting house as the home of the Humanist Institute. In March 1984 the first class of the Institute was launched. Students were from the American Ethical Union, the American Humanist Association, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Society for Humanistic Judaism, and the Council for Secular Humanism. It was the first graduate program for the education of humanist leaders who serve organizations across the humanist spectrum.

To launch this enterprise in less the two years was a surprising feat. Some organizations provided scholarships; other provided classroom space and members of all groups had to be solicited for financial support.

Howard Radest retired as Dean in 1992 and was succeeded by Robert Tapp who served until 2004. During Bob’s deanship more faculty members were selected for mentoring in the classroom and others were selected to join as contributors to a “think tank.” These faculty colloquia were organized around issues pertinent to humanists. As a result we have published 16 volumes of Humanism Today.

In 1990 it was decided that NACH’s ambition to be the coalition organization for all humanist groups was not being fulfilled. What was being done well was the leadership training. Therefore NACH/THI became one entity. In 2004 Kendyl Gibbons and I became the co-deans.

Q. What has been your experience as a dean of the Institute? Tell our readers something about the typical experience of a student who enrolls in the Institute. What kind of interaction will they have with fellow humanists and what kinds of transformative effects have you seen occurring with those who complete the course work?

Kendyl Gibbons immediately volunteered to be the mentor for class 14 and I agreed to take on the major dean duties while she guided this class for the next three years. Kendyl and I designed a new curriculum using the best of our previous program and updating it to serve the current needs of our future leaders. This graduate-level program is completed in a three-year period, involving intensive reading and reflection. Students come to New York City or Washington D.C. for long-weekend seminars in December and April, and for 5-day seminars in August. An individually designed independent project and a program of supervised field work are required outside of the three yearly class gatherings. In between sessions, students are expected to read further on topics discussed in class and continue the discussion on-line. There may be other assignments as well, such as short papers, book or article reports and oral presentations.

The curriculum begins with the philosophy, history and institutional structures of humanism, and moves on to examining what it means be an ethical human, and then we examine the variety of humanist ideas in world religions. The second year starts with a look at what constitutes humanist leadership, and moves to the humanist tools, critical thinking, and the methods and uses of science. The final year deals with issues in contemporary culture, aesthetics, and humanist celebrations.

Interactions among students, mentors, and faculty constitute an indispensible element of the learning experience. The bonding that occurs among the students in a class is remarkable and one of the richest elements of the program. The interpersonal factor in the learning environment is an invaluable feature of the program. It is the coming together of representatives of all our groups that enables us to understand each others’ views and to work together for the future. I know that some of the people I met during my class experience are still good friends after 22 years. For me, the Humanist Institute was the most stimulating graduate experience I ever had, including my graduate work on moral development and family social science. Our graduations, honoring of Institute retirees, and our recent 25th anniversary celebration, are moving testimonials to the experience of being part of one big humanist family.

Q. Currently, the Humanist Institute web site describes the organization as a means “to equip humanists to become effective leaders.” How many humanists have graduated from the Institute? Are they now in leadership roles?

There are 106 graduates of the Institute. We have graduated 13 classes over 25 years. Currently, classes 14 and 15 are in session with class 16 slated to begin in December. We purposely limit the number of students in a class to 6-10 people. This allows maximum participation in discussions and makes it possible for a lively exchange of views.

Our graduates are leaders, board members and staff of all our constituent organizations such as the American Ethical Union, the American Humanist Association, Atheist Alliance International, Center For Free Inquiry/Council for Secular Humanism, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Humanist Association of Canada, the Society for Secular Judaism, the Joseph Campbell Foundation, the Secular Coalition for America, and the Unitarian Universalist Association.

Some of our graduates serve as Ethical Culture Leaders, UU Ministers, and AHA Chapter heads. Others are advocates, spokespersons, and activists for humanism in their communities. Some are innovative thinkers who keep our movement alive with their provocative insights and writings. It is apparent that our graduates are making a difference in advancing the causes of the humanist movement.

Q. I recall that you distributed a survey, on-line, about the course work that the Institute should enhance or develop. Can you tell us something about the results?

Our survey showed that to be effective leaders and spokespersons in our movement that our students need knowledge of humanist history, ideas and philosophy, and training in leadership skills, public speaking, effective writing and organizational acumen. It was deemed very important for leaders and activists to also know about moral development, ethics, values, and theories of human behavior. Critical thinking and science is essential, and an understanding of world religions, contemporary culture and social, economic and political issues is necessary. In other words, the survey confirms that our current curriculum is on target and is viable and valuable.

The survey also indicates that our cooperative venture with the Institute for Humanist Studies, which creates on-line courses, is very important to the overall humanist educational endeavor. Respondents indicated that short courses structured to be given at national and regional conferences are highly desired. At the moment we are working on developing a course on humanism for Elderhostel. A model program for seniors was developed by the Humanist Society of Phoenix and can be used at community colleges and universities. Many respondents indicated that CEU credits or university credits for our programs would be highly desirable. We are continuing to explore this possibility.

Q. Humanists have typically been dedicated to Unitarian Universalism. Do you see that relationship between the two organizations continuing, in a healthy and equal correspondence?

Humanists have been involved in UU congregations for over 80 years, ever since John Dietrich, Curtis Reese, and Francis Potter coined the term religious humanism. At present the relationship between humanists and the current UUA administration is somewhat strained. I say “somewhat” in that there are some humanist ministers and congregants who work very well with the UUA while others feel marginalized within UU circles. The UUHumanists are still active and have some 800 members. The UU Infidels, a few years ago, did represent agnostics, atheists, and secularists within the UU tradition. They were disturbed with the direction the denomination was taking, in moving toward theism and traditional religious trappings. I think this concern is healthy in that all nontheists should stick up for their place in a denomination that is home to them as well as to those on the theistic and liberal Christian end of the spectrum. What a sad day it would be for UU humanists to find it necessary to leave the organization that made it possible for them to develop their humanistic life stance. Let us hope that wise leadership in the near future pays better attention to those of us who live on the left end of the continuum.

Q. What role can humanism play in the transformation of American society? It seems we are in a desperate situation economically and politically. How can humanists help to renew our culture?

For humanists the main issue is always a matter of ethics. At the Institute we spend considerable time in grounding our students in ethics, which is the science of morals and human conduct. With that understanding and background, we then take a look at contemporary social, economic and political issues. We are aware that we may not be the holders of the “right” answers, but are continually searching for the ones that work best to affirm the dignity, respect and rights of others. As a nontheist every humanist must answer life’s questions for him or herself, always with an eye for the consequences of one’s position. It is not enough to develop a “good” argument for one’s point of view. Humanists are responsible for taking their moral imperatives into the public arena, advocating, promoting and pressing their causes. If the outcome is negative, we need to re-examine our cause and present better solutions.

In today’s political climate it is imperative that humanists speak out about the abominable distortion of “facts.” The net is filled with false accusations, unsubstantiated rumors and other forms of character assassination. Those who want to “believe”, take it all as gospel. Humanists have a duty to expose these non facts and demand that the public take responsibility for finding proper evidence for their conclusions.

The humanist role in transforming American society is to always question, think critically, examine the evidence, listen attentively, be open to new ways of thinking and come to conclusions that are based on reason, science and humaneness. The final step is to make those convictions known widely and work to actualize them.

Q. What can humanists do to help the Institute?

Send money, send students and come yourself. The Humanist Institute operates with volunteer deans, board members and faculty. We are dependent on contributions from like minded people to keep us afloat. It would be wonderful if we had the money to pay our professionals, to build a permanent home for our school and to take advantage of the many opportunities we see to educate and train effective leaders for the advancement of our movement. Not enough people know about our program. Advertising is expensive. When people do find out about us there is always great interest. Do think about attending yourself or contacting those who might benefit from this experience.

We are dedicated to fostering leadership that is:

* Ethically grounded
* Wise and well informed
* Fluent in institutional dynamics
* Committed to meeting the real needs of people

We strive to prepare humanist leaders to be:

* Advocates who are persuasive articulators of the humanist world view in the public sphere,

* Innovative thinkers who keep our movement alive with their provocative insights and writings,

* Experts who have the skills to help organizations function and help people achieve their goals.

The Institute is an independent graduate level program that works in cooperation with existing humanist organizations. It provides a unique opportunity to bring together a diverse faculty and student body of those who take a non-theistic, naturalistic, approach to humanism whether interpreted in secular or religious terms.

If you are interested in being a humanist:

* Community leader,

* UU Minister,

* Chapter leader,

* Ethical Culture leader,

* National non profit leader,

* Educator, counselor, leader in a serving profession.

Contact The Humanist Institute, c/o Kristin Wintermute, PMB #220, 8014 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN 55427-4712.

Also check our web site: www.humanistinstitute.org to see our brochure and to learn more about our curriculum and the studies of past classes.

Ronald Aronson is Distinguished Professor of the History of Ideas at Wayne State University and the author or editor of nine books, including Camus & Sartre: The Story of a Friendship and the Quarrel that Ended It, After Marxism, and “Stay out of Politics!” A Philosopher Views South Africa. He has published articles in The Nation, Bookforum, The Yale Review, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Washington Post, The International Herald-Tribune, The Toronto Star, The (London) Times Higher Education Supplement, and The (London) Times Literary Supplement.

Aronson has produced televised political debates on democratic values and affirmative action (participants have included Cornel West, Barbara Ehrenreich, Abigail Thernstrom, David Frum, and Dinesh D’Souza). He is co-producer of the feature-length documentary film Professional Revolutionary about legendary Detroit social and political activist Saul Wellman and, most recently, 1st Amendment on Trial: The Case of the Detroit Six, focused on the Federal government’s trial of Michigan Communist Party leaders in the ’50s.

One of Aronson’s lifelong concerns has been to study and write about the nature of hope, especially as related to political commitment. Since the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, he has been active in the Huntington Woods (MI) Peace, Citizenship, and Education Project.

A few months ago, I discovered Ron Aronson’s articles “The New Atheists” at The Nation and “Thank Who Very Much?” at the Philosopher’s Magazine Online. I was attracted to the positive atheism expressed in both essays, and hoped to interview Aronson for readers of The Eloquent Atheist, but at the time, he was attempting to complete his latest book, Living Without God, and deeply involved in the editing process. Fortunately, his book is now in print, and Aronson and I exchanged emails, leading to an interview by telephone on September 5, 2008.

Aronson is easy to listen to, with his teacher’s voice—friendly, vibrant, and precise—as we introduce ourselves, say hello. I ask what motivated him to write Living Without God.

“Well,” he replies, “in the past years there have been many books about atheism written, like Dan Dennett’s Breaking the Spell. All these writers have come out with strong atheist arguments against the magic of religion.” He mentions the term “New Atheists,” a sobriquet he likely coined in a 2005 Bookforum review of several authors whom he described as “refreshingly free from the hidden theology of history-as-progress that inspired past atheist writers,” among them Michel Onfray and Sam Harris.

“In many ways,” he continues, more passionate now, “these writers have broken the spell, but this hasn’t strengthened our world view. I grew up believing in a future in which religion was going to wither away and the world would be better for it, but that hasn’t happened.”

For readers unfamiliar with Aronson’s life and career, he was born in Detroit, Michigan, educated at local Wayne State University, the University of Michigan, and also at UCLA and Brandeis where he earned his Ph.D. in The History of Ideas. Politically active, he served as a community organizer in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and was editor of the New-Left journal Studies on the Left. He has taught at Wayne State University since1968, becoming one of the foremost international scholars of Jean Paul Sartre. A self-described “cheerful atheist,” he also teaches non-traditional students, the vast majority African-American adults—many of whom are theists—about religion and secularism, giving due respect to both lifestances. Sadly, the university has just abolished his open-admission program, pretending to be making cost savings from the move.

“Not only has religion not faded away,” Aronson elaborates, “but despite the New Atheists there has been a loss of confidence among secularists.” He mentions Alister McGrath’s Twilight of Atheism, a negative history of nontheism, which concludes that atheism has been sullied (however unjustly) by being linked to Nazism and Stalinism. McGrath, an Anglican priest and Oxford theology professor, was a fervent atheist and Marxist during his teenage years, but now, in his view, religion has found new energy among a considerable population and Pentecostal religions have gained the power to profess the “immediacy of God’s presence through the Holy Spirit” worldwide.

“It dawned on me,” Aronson says, giving due consideration to McGrath, “that the most important thing I could do was articulate a positive worldview for secularists. You don’t have to be religious to have a meaning in life, a sense of purpose, and a deep sense of belonging to something larger than yourself. That is the most significant reason I wrote my book.”

Living Without God is a paean to the values, responsibilities, and hopefulness of the secular worldview. “Gratitude,” “Taking Responsibility for Ourselves,” “Choosing to Know,” and “Dying Without God” are among its chapters. The book’s first review by Doug Ireland in The New Humanist (September/October) praises Aronson’s approach: “But if Living Without God is an enjoyable read, anyone looking for a catechism of neat, formulaic, three-a-penny slogans of the prêt-à-penser variety in this volume will be disappointed. Taking as his starting point Immanuel Kant’s three questions – ‘What can I know? What should I do? What may I hope?’ – Aronson wants above all to make us think. […] The Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci wrote from his prison cell in Mussolini’s Italy that ‘The challenge of modernity is to live a life without illusions, without becoming disillusioned.’ In Living Without God, it seems to me, Aronson has admirably met that challenge.”

Elaborating on his positive vision, Aronson says that the chapter “Gratitude,” evolved from his article “Thank Who Very Much?” which was reprinted in several journals and became a featured piece in the Toronto Star’s “Ideas” section. “In that article,” he says, “I acknowledged our existential condition, while attempting to sketch out the relationships with forces that define our humanity—nature, history, society. We are not isolated individuals and we don’t have to be religious to find meaning in life.”

I tell Aronson that I was struck by one particular statement in the article, that “there is an alternative to thanking God on the one hand and seeing the universe as a ‘cosmic lottery’ or as absurd on the other.” “You know,” he replies, “it’s true that there’s much that we still can’t answer, but we need to acknowledge all the vital questions that we can answer because of collective human effort over centuries. There are values, ideas, and knowledge that can stand as powerfully for us, as God does for the religious. I am excited about all that we can answer.”

For Aronson, inflaming hostilities between secularists and their religious counterparts is a lose/lose proposition. “There’s a sense of superiority on both sides—nonreligious and religious—and yet we need to talk, to find respect that goes both ways.” He finds that, in general, “Americans are hostile to each other’s starting points. We tend to be absolutists rather than admitting we can be wrong.” In the last months of his Interdisciplinary Studies Program at Wayne State University, he teaches both “irreligion” and “religion” to older students, and while the effort is difficult at times, the upside is that students are encouraged to think through the premises of why they believe as they do. Social progress, he insists, can sometimes come from rational discussion and refraining from hostilities.

As someone drawn toward social action in the 1960s, he elaborates on the chapter “Hope,” which was based on his work in South Africa to end apartheid. “The chapter is fueled by the sense of that struggle,” he remarks, “and if we want to ask ‘Is there hope,’ I would reply that hope is very historical and concrete. Hope is what we have achieved over human history and by all the times the baton has been passed from one social movement to another.”

I ask Aronson about Barack Obama, as the theme of hope pervades his campaign. However, I also want to discuss the “Unity Event” at the 2008 Democratic Conference. Billed as an interfaith gathering, secularists were excluded, despite an appeal from Ron Millar, Associate Director of the Secular Coalition for America, who wrote the Democratic National Committee in order to have an invitation extended to nontheists. (News coverage about this incident is available on the Secular Coalition web site.

In its August 18, 2008 edition, The Denver Post published a guest editorial by Aronson, “What About Democrats Who Are Not People of Faith?” He was also interviewed about this matter on Rev. Weldon Gaddy’s show “State of Belief,” broadcast during August 23-24, 2008 by Air America Radio. In both his commentary and interview, Aronson asks: Why, if this was a unity and values event, weren’t nontheists and secularists invited? In the Denver Post he observed: “If the Democrats are trying to strike unifying chords among their entire kaleidoscopic range of liberals, moderates, and progressives, it should be obvious that secularists cannot dare be left out of the ‘big tent’ event, and that it should be about beliefs and values, not solely about religion.”

Regarding Obama’s relationship with secularists, Aronson comments that in Obama’s 2006 “Call to Renewal” speech, the presidential candidate sought out common ground between believers and the nonreligious. Obama, in fact, argued that “because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they’re something they’re not”. Obama also pointed out, however, that “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.” The means to true progress is to “recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country.”
“Since becoming the Democratic nominee,” Aronson says, “Obama has contradicted his points about finding common ground.” Aronson recounts a Labor Day speech in Detroit that Obama gave when Hurricane Gustav was coming ashore. Due to the urgency of the occasion, Obama cut his planned speech to just ten minutes. Aronson couldn’t attend the event, but he followed the coverage, and noticed that Obama invoked God or religion at least six times, and then asked his audience to join him in a moment of silent prayer. “This wasn’t a ‘moment of silence,’ Aronson points out, “but rather a prayerful message, and once again secularists became an invisible minority, with religion being forced on them.”

Ironically, based on his research of the recent Pew Poll on religious identity (U.S. Religious Landscape Survey), Aronson finds that perhaps two-thirds of the American public gets its values from outside religion. Values are derived from a multitude of factors, including from pragmatic life experiences and science. Among Democrats, Aronson estimates, upwards of 40% are nontheistic or do not believe in a traditional god.

Regarding Obama’s courting of theists, Aronson concedes that this is probably a campaign strategy. It is likely that, when polled, people under-report that they will not vote for Obama due to his race. Not many people will openly admit to racism. However, if Obama successfully appeals to the traditionally religious, he may get a significant percentage of their vote to offset losses due to racism.

Aronson proposes a new effort, aimed at future state and national Democratic conventions. “We need to do what the religious do,” he says, “and hold Secular Caucus meetings. If enough people do this, then we can assert ourselves, invoking the values we share, and insisting that they must be included in any ‘big tent’ event. That is pluralism, that is mutual respect.”

It bothers the father more than the father can say,
this sound of the teeth and tongue of the son chewing
the food in the open mouth, this food that was the work
of the mother sitting beside the father and beside
the son, the mother between the father and the son, staring
down at the food on her white plate, praying
that the father does the work this time, the hard work
of keeping his mouth shut about the sound
of the son eating. She remembers the last time, the sound
of the father saying more than a father can say
to a son and keep a son’s love, a sound so like hatred
in the voice, so like hatred for the life taking the life-giving
food, that the boy stopped eating and the mother swallowed
hard. And it frightened the son and the mother, and even the father
more than any could say. So then there was no sound
at the table, only the echo of a sound. And now there is only
the memory of that echo, to remember, to keep holy.

Sin wouldn’t matter so much
If there was a nicely muscled
Sky-bound Michelangelo figurine,
Even some indignant angels,
A demarcated heaven and hell,
A legible book of days
A risen scapegoat, any old chance
At transcendent punishment,
Forgiveness, or redemption.

But there isn’t.

And that is precisely why
You had best take responsibility
And live the categorical imperative
And be a lady or a gentleman,
And sin only when you really must
(And then, mostly sins of the flesh)
So that when you die
When your consciousness
Discharges like lightning into the clearing
Your regrets won’t linger like ozone
And foul the irreverent air.

The elusive quest quiet at times, riotous
others, seems ceaseless.
I search for it, I think about it trying to
understand its true meaning.
I shudder when I think I might not get there,
reach it, know it or like it.
It is a word used often, usually in the same breath
as, war, politics and death.
I write and it gets closer, we are intimate, I feel
clear and it familiar.
It taunts but seems to relent as I embrace it,
recognizing it with admiration.
It is fleeting, and so the trance subsides,
leaving warmth and hope.
One step closer to attaining my peace,
allowing it to attain me.
a reunion.
For once at birth,
we were acquainted, now like old friends,
we share a moment and it’s gone.

For Now

Today I sit with thoughts of pain, and I embrace them for now.
Today I smile as I see the rain, it echoes through me for now.
Today I cry somber tears as I remember all I’ve lost for now.
Today I know that I will make it through, for now.

.

.

.

Containing the Night Thoughts of a Sexagenarian

It is this heavenly tale, that the child in one could wish for, that
keeps me awake tonight, on the eve of my sixtieth year,
fearing death and wishing for grace, not knowing what
either is, or even if either is, though the unbreathing
stillness of bodies has me fairly convinced of the
former, and of the latter I have seen so little as to
doubt what I have seen as aberrant, some twist in the
air and light that, so full of desire for the magic of
exemption, I have deluded myself, half knowing
I lied, half believing my own white lie. But by
sixty I’ve come to believe that the only grace
is the goodness of the rational mind, and the
only evil the old instinctive animal brain, the
knob of the cerebellum, seeking its own satis-
factions of food and sex and selfhood, the
ultimate isolate one, that yet does not
understand that we are together in this
flowing, amazing hologram, with
or without a creator that may or
may not care; that, come alive, we
have every right to judge the nature
of existence, for, however arrived
at, our brains are analytic, not made
to hunker down in obeisance to
riddling gods, nor to any phantom
that hides in a cloud of unknowing.
For we have one another and have
courage and the hope of courage
and the practice of courage,
to help us, and, when the
wind is calm, and
the waters lean down
for the moon, we have
lonely senses to share till
at last our time has run out. Now,
as I think in the night, somewhat afraid
of the day that will see me another year older and
that much closer to death, I mark the speed of time
that has seen me, a moment ago, a child walking home from
school, or a man going off to harm’s way, or this or that or the
other, and think of these things that we have, of others and courage
and love, of human intelligence used as it plainly was meant to be
used, and I think that I’ll sleep and awaken less anxious than I was
considering a heavenly tale, for in the realist reality, the closest
thing to the truth, there is finally a peace of mind that is a grace in a
sweet surrender. It is the heavenly tale that the child in one should
wish for. It will allow me to sleep in the night of my sixtieth year.