In case anyone’s wondering why the pace of posts has (perhaps thankfully) slowed, I’m back home but feeling even more tired than in the hospital. I’m a bit overwhelmed by how much healing lies ahead, and for the time being my writing has been shelved. What follows is a post written after my prior hospitalization, which was just a couple of weeks ago, though it seems like ages. This piece no longer captures my current feelings about the conversation it describes (so much has happened that the entire episode and essay seem less vital than before), but I still think it has something important to say about world views. Mainly, I’m posting it to keep up the flow. Before long I hope to feel better and start writing again. Thank you, everyone, for your support and patience.
We should always remember that our viewpoint is limited, and that others see the world differently. Of course we all know this superficially, but it remains easy to mistake personal values for eternal truths. Recently a discussion with a close friend forced me to face how enamored I’ve become of my moral system, and how it actually represents mere opinion rather than cosmic imperative.
In my writing I frequently emphasize unity as a basic feature of creation, and humility as a sign of maturity. It seems self-evident to me that all beings are so closely linked as to be essentially unitary. It also seems obvious that the wisest response to this reality is to treat other human (and animal) lives as equal in value to my own.
How easy it has been for me to avoid recognizing this as a minority opinion. Our Western culture runs on the engine of competition, which is powered by the twin assumptions that some beings are more valuable than others, and that gifted and driven (i.e., better) people deserve whatever they can grab of the earth’s resources. In the world at large, little more than lip service is given to the fact that a person who is superior at competing can be inferior in many other ways. Policy gets determined by neo-Darwinian thinking.
Over a year ago my friend and I had a conversation about humility. This man has helped me in many ways vital to my current state of mental and spiritual stability. He advised me on my moods and my meditation. He introduced me to venerable mystical traditions that I’d previously ignored. I look up to him as a mentor and a teacher. And yet I also see areas where my understanding seems to exceed his own. So when the subject of humility arose, I decided to explain what Alcoholics Anonymous and other sources have taught me about its value.
In the time since, I learned the day after leaving the hospital (the first time, back in January), this friend gave my input much consideration. He thought about it from the points of view of traditional spiritual wisdom and modern utilitarian ethics. He contemplated whether adopting a more humble stance would help him grow or change him into someone he could never respect. In the end, he completely rejected humility as a trait worth pursuing.
After he told me his conclusion, I tried to reexplain what being humble implies, so that he would understand that it doesn’t rule out self-esteem, or honest valuation of personal gifts, or taking a strong stance. It seems impossible to me that anyone could deeply comprehend this concept and still dismiss it.
But the fact is, what seems impossible, isn’t. My friend’s logic is sound if one accepts modern values. He cited Steve Jobs as a prime example of a person who was anything but humble and arguably achieved greatness as a result. He pointed out that Jesus Christ didn’t hold back from naming himself the only Son of God (if we believe the gospels’ rendering of Christ’s words). If one of the greatest spiritual leaders of all time refused to act humbly, why should anyone?
There are many valid arguments that challenge my friend’s position. Christ apparently believed himself the literal Son of God, so his claiming the title was mere honesty, not arrogance. Plus, the most enduring Christian teachings emphasize collective welfare over personal glory. A doctrine of self-aggrandizement may have worked in past epochs but is disastrous in the current era of shrinking resources and exploding population. I brought many such objections to bear on the debate that waged between us.
Still, a debate is nothing but an exchange of words, and words can never pin down ultimate truth. What’s more, there is no validity to my claim that humility is inherently superior to arrogance. It may offer healing to a wounded world. It may be conducive to social harmony. But it cannot be proven to be a cosmically sanctioned quality. Indeed, there may well be situations where humility undermines genuine human or even spiritual progress.
It’s even worth asking whether my own attempts at replacing my former pridefulness with genuine humility is actually an outgrowth of the low self-esteem that has plagued me forever. Does my humble ethic constitute spiritual sacrifice or self-betrayal?
Well, in my own defense, I don’t think my favoring humility is anything other than a sincere effort to be a decent human being. My gifts are not lost on me, only my former sense of exceptional importance. I know my strengths, and I see my weaknesses. I recognize my common qualities and my unique ones. In the end, I believe seeing myself as equal (neither more nor less valuable) to everyone else is both rational and humane. I believe my former arrogant attitudes were the ones driven by low self-esteem, not my current more tempered ones. But of course, that’s just an opinion.
Given all the thought it has provoked, the whole episode has been a good lesson, though a painful one. Good, because it reminds me that my beliefs must always be held provisionally. Painful, because it reveals a yawning gap between my friend’s worldview and my own. It may be that we can continue to communicate despite this difference, but I believe it will be hard for each of us now that we see how neither of us truly embraces the values of the other.
Friends don’t need to agree on everything, but it helps if they share basic standards. This isn’t the first time I’ve encountered a glaring difference between my perspective and that of a close friend, and I know that true caring can overcome such conflicts. Unfortunately, however, for a relationship to remain balanced and healthy after such a rift, the parties need to approach one another with a modicum of true humility.
>> Share on Facebook>> Tweet
1
mary at http://YourWebsite
WOW! You really spoke to me with this one Will. But…after reading it I scrolled to the top to read the intro that you had written and was disappointed to read ” This essay no longer captures my current beliefs about this subject” What? Please explain!
Posted at February 10, 2012 on 8:03am.
2
Will at http://willspirit.com
Hi Mary–
I just revised that intro paragraph after reading your comment. Only rarely do I make such substantive changes in published text, but I’m not feeling my best and my ability to express myself seems diminished, so I cut myself some slack. Here’s how I’ve changed that segment: “This piece no longer captures my current feelings about the conversation it describes (so much has happened that the entire episode and essay seem less vital than before), but I still think it has something important to say about world views.” Part of what I’d been trying to convey was that this sudden turn in an important friendship hurt me deeply—having a friend attack you when you feel weakened like that is upsetting. The whole reason I held off publishing the piece was that I feared it had been written partly in response to personal injury rather than philosophy. The hurt feelings have since healed somewhat: I have too many other concerns to bother with feeling wounded on that level. So to some extent the piece no longer speaks to my current space of mind. But I still agree with its basic tenets, which is why I decided to post it and keep the blog going while I wait for my normal clarity to return. Thanks for the comment and for pointing out the problem in the introduction.
–Will
Posted at February 10, 2012 on 8:20am.
3
Trabel at http://YourWebsite
Well, it’s not humility, it’s self-assurance: one feels so comfortable in one’s own skin that he/she does not feel any need to `prove` oneself through achievements.
As for Steve Jobs: how `great` he was if he couldn’t take proper care of his health and his existence?
Posted at February 10, 2012 on 9:27am.
4
Will at http://willspirit.com
Trabel–
Humility? Self-assurance? Sounds like semantics to me. But I think we’re talking about the same thing. As for Steve Jobs, these days I’m asking the same questions about myself. Not that I have thought myself ‘great,’ but I’ve been wondering what went wrong that I’ve ended up so ill.
Thanks for the comment,
–Will
Posted at February 10, 2012 on 9:44am.
5
patrice j at http://patricemj.wordpress.com
I really enjoyed this piece a lot. Sometimes I think people who want to take over the world just get a kick out of tying the humble folk up in knots with the golden thread of their own creed. This timeless practice needs to be put in check. But who will do it? To instigate, to stand up to tyrants we do require a level of certitude and if they want to call that arrogance than so be it. Without arrogance we wouldn’t be participating in a democracy. Be arrogant Will, we will stand humbly arrogant together.
Blessings to you and please don’t blame yourself for what is happening to you. I know that’s hard, but that’s maybe something of which you could let go?
Posted at February 10, 2012 on 6:37pm.
6
Will at http://willspirit.com
Patrice–
For me, the Dalai Lama epitomizes humility, and yet he quite effectively spreads his various messages: promoting compassion, working to correct the Tibetan plight, etc. He does this by standing up for ideals without viewing himself as separate from or better than other people. No arrogance required. I agree there is a great deal of arrogance in our political system, but I don’t believe it is essential to healthy exchange of ideas, even though it is one effective stance for such exchange. I see arrogance \ as a byproduct of capitalism rather than of democracy. As I said to another commentator, some of this is semantics. But some isn’t. If we define humility as the lack of an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance, and arrogance as the opposite, then the difference is pretty clear. One can be promote ideas in the public sphere with either stance. But humility fosters a sense of compassion and coherence, whereas arrogance promotes judgment and discord.
As for letting go, I’m working on it and you’re right, it’s hard. But that’s the nature of most valuable lessons in life, so I keep trying.
Thanks for the comment.
–Will
Posted at February 11, 2012 on 6:17am.