so i’ve written about the first five of the seven: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth and wrath in this mini-series within a series. secretlife has graciously written entries six and seven, which are on envy and pride, respectively. and this has given me sufficient time i think to ponder the sins of which i wrote.
these seven deadly sins all rest on a single foundation: the self. lust, as a deadly sin, is about harming others (e.g., significant others, spouses) through the pursuit of sex; gluttony is about not sharing abundance and keeping it to satiate your wants; ditto, greed; sloth is about placing your anxieties, fears and concerns about yourself above those of others; wrath is about committing a form of insubordination and trying to take justice into one’s own hands, when it should more properly be left to no one, man or woman. and as secretlife has ably demonstrated, both envy and pride are similarly related to placing ourselves above others.
so does this mean then that each of the seven deadly sins can be collapsed into a single deadly sin? why yes, yes it does. and that deadly sin is ego.
if we cannot keep our opinions of ourselves in check, we run the risk of committing any of these sins, of devaluing others. ths is what signor alighieri tried to warn us about. and even though all of us recognize the dangers posed by the seven deadly sins, still we read about them in the news all the time. indeed, it would appear that we modern humans have difficulty in appreciating signor alighieri’s millennium-old wisdom.
we place a great deal of emphasis on the self in modern society. self-help books are extremely popular and a number of folks have amassed personal fortunes by telling us how to be happy, or indeed, happier.
i refuse to believe that i’m alone in being just a mite disgusted by all of this.
now, i don’t mean to suggest that i’m not guilty of these things. on the contrary, i commit them during the course of every day, i imagine—some more than others, as those who know me would probably be quick to point out. and sure, i, like most of us, am interested in being a better person—however idiosyncratically we choose to define what that nebulous expression really means—than i was yesterday.
to a certain extent of course, there are perfectly valid reasons to “improve” oneself. the best reason of which i am aware is that self-improvement carries with it the promise of being better positioned to help others. for example: if i worked at a job where i earned half a million dollars/year (i don’t, let me make that abundantly clear), i’m certainly in a better position to help those earning a subsistence wage than someone else who just getting by—that’s just common sense. i am also better positioned to provide a good life for my wife and any future kids. similarly, if i am well-connected and a friend needs a favor, the odds of my being able to find someone capable of helping my friend are much greater than the odds of a hermit who shuts him or her self away from the rest of humanity.
so clearly, some degree of emphasis on the self can be a good thing. it isn’t that an emphasis on the self is necessarily bad. but it can become unhealthy.
in the ‘60s, introspection and self-discovery came to be dismissed as “navel-gazing”. this is unfortunate, b/c the result was to cause others to question the value of any self-discovery. you cannot know where you’re going if you do not know where you are now, and without self-discovery, how would you know where you are now?
i happen to believe that there’s something to be said for the ancient wisdom “moderation in all things”, although i also believe that this is incomplete wisdom. i believe a better formulation would be “moderation in most things”.
after all, who wants to be moderate in terms of how we love or feel? who wants to be moderate in terms of how we think or speak? in the final analysis, moderation cannot fairly be said to be an unqualified, unalloyed good.
so moderation in all things, i say.
including moderation.
so am i making any sense? is moderation in all things really the best way and i’ve missed something? comment and let me know.
ed
The page you were looking for no longer exists
silverwhisper posted on Oct 10, 2006
| views: 451
Comments
-
satyr said on Oct 10, 2006....
Excellent series, silver. Definitely caused some gears to turn in a few heads (including mine). So you're a moderate, eh?
(smiles) You make good points on limiting moderation. Moderation in moderation - I like that.
-
lioneljay said on Oct 10, 2006....
Ed, I agree that ego is definitely the root problem here.
What interests me is how our perception of these "deadly sins" has evolved in the last hundred years. I think that this evolution tells quite a bit about who we are as a society.
First off, let's ignore the beliefs of those who ascribe to traditional religious values for the sake of following a religion. I make the distincetion here between those who are ethical and have similar values to the religious, but for reasons other than to follow a particular religion and those who define themselves in terms of a religious system. (Hoping that is not terribly unclear at this hour). I'm ignoring these people because I'm interested in the goings-on in secular society and don't want the discussion muddied by the inclusion of the devoutly religious.
I wager that within our secular western society, it would be fairly easy to rank the seven deadly sins in terms of how much people generally despise those who are guilty of each sin. Indeed, the fact that such terms as "pride" and "envy" have become normalized and diluted says a lot. We laugh a bit at lust, and we use the term regularly to describe our own desire for our mates or for others. We hardly think of lust as a truly bad thing, simply as something to be kept more or less under wraps.
Gluttony and greed, the sins of material excess, have become trivialized through movies like Animal House and Wall Street. I think it's fair to say that we laugh at gluttony as often as we condemn it. And I've said here more than once that greed has become institutionalized in our American business culture. Just look at all the pension plans that have been raided in order to "right a sinking ship" by a failing business, only for the business to keep on sinking while the top brass escape in lifeboats loaded down with millions in pension dollars for their own pockets.
Gluttony, though, does have a negative side and it combines with sloth to be the worst of the modern deadly sins. Together, gluttony and sloth lead someone to become overweight and out of shape. In modern American culture, this is a true sin. In Victorian times, being a little overweight was culturally attractive as it indicated that you had enough money to eat well. Today, though, such an appearance is more often interpreted to mean that you're simply too lazy and too undisciplined to go to the gym and to refuse the acne-prince who asked if you wanted to "supersize that."
Thoughts?
-
scalywag said on Oct 10, 2006....
silver, i'll get back and post here later.....I still haven't read all seven yet and want to do that first.
-
FaithfulDisciple said on Oct 10, 2006....
Good point Ed, ego centers on the concern and pleasure of one self. The second commandment which is to love others as we love ourselves is in effect a great neutralizer of this sinful narcissistic-self obsession.
For if we respect the rights of others in equal manner as we respect our own rights, these so called 7 deadly sins can be avoided.
While not all men are created equal, we must not look at one another with discrimination trying to compete and outdo the other. This kind of attitude is the perfect setting for the commission of pride, envy, wrath, and greed.
The best way to avoid these deadly sins is to practice kindness, charity, and compassion in our relations with others.
-
rmuxagirl said on Oct 10, 2006....
You and SL made perfect sense throughout the series and witht this post too. I think all 7 deadly sins deal with succoming to the ego and allowing the Ego to control our life.
-
silverwhisper said on Oct 10, 2006....
satyr: my thanks. heh...moderation in all things.
LJ: excess was the very watchword of the 80s, wasn't it? and it's really continued right on--look at the skyrocketing incidences of consumer debt.
FD: i'm not in the habit of dispensing christian counsel but if i did, it would be a lot like what you wrote. :>
RM: pretty much my thinking. :>
ed
-
Chimaera said on Oct 10, 2006....
In an alternate universe, ed, you'd make a decent cognitive scientist. While I wouldn't necessarily collapse it all down to ego (a much-abused word, BTW), but your point about moderation is well-exressed. There's a principle in cognitive science, taken from Chomskyian linguistics, called reflective equilibrium. Without boring you with the whole yadda-yadda, it boils down to the fact that avoiding intelligent judgments is a problem. While originally a point about the treatment of data in linguistics, psychology and other 'soft' sciences where one doesn't have proximal access to the studied phenomenon, I find that it works out well to the human condition in general.
Also, interestingly, there seems to be a fundamental connection between moral reasoning and rationality -- the appear to be inextricably mutually interdependant and share certain key defining characteristics. Oh well, the unexamined life, and all that jazz...
-
silverwhisper said on Oct 10, 2006....
as my sole familiarity w/ cog sci is what little i've gleaned in our exchanges in the past, i have little choice but to bow and say thanks. :>
i'm not sure i quite follow the second paragraph perhaps b/c i'm not sure i understand what you mean by moral reasoning. ?
ed
-
RollingC said on Oct 10, 2006....
An ego that is balanced and humble, knowing it's own limitations and moral obligations and influences on others would be....wait a second...that's a perfect world I'm thinking of and there's no such thing here on this planet.
Powerful and deep blogg you put up silverwhisper.
-
Chimaera said on Oct 10, 2006....
By moral reasoning, I'm talking about the thought processes involved in making moral decisions.
-
silverwhisper said on Oct 10, 2006....
rollingc: thanks, man!
chimaera: ah. i agree that avoiding some method of making decisions is fantastically unwise. re: the correlation, is it possible they relate to what we colloquially refer to as wisdom?
ed
-
WhyChromosome said on Oct 10, 2006....
Now there's a good point by Chimaera. What on earth (or in our heads) are/i] the thought processes involved in making moral decisions? Are they based upon rationality or are they on another level entirely? Could one argue that without rationality, morality does not actually exist? Okay, this has been argued, but with what validity? Morality is a concept and a very flexible one, it seems. There should be fundamental bases for morality but at the same time, there has been a lot of arguing about them for a considerable time.
I agree also that 'ego' is somewhat over-used. But in the right context (as SW has provided) I can take it on board pretty well.
I'd be more interested in knowing if anyone thinks there is absolute good or absolute evil. Try anwering without involving any particular religious beliefs if possible, simply because it would be nice if we don't alienate people who do not share those same beliefs. If such things exist, how much rationality is required to make moral decisions relating to things that are 'good' or 'evil'.
Apologies use of the word 'things'. Can't think of the better word right now. Hope my post makes some sense, and if not, please Chimaera and others who have a much better handle on these things (sorrry) than I, do not be too scathing. While you folks across the Pond are settling down for the evening it's already scraping around towards midnight here. Been a long day, in other words. Goodnight, all. I'll catch up later.
Great post, SW. Thanks.
Whyc
-
WhyChromosome said on Oct 10, 2006....
This new, improved version of posting posts is NOT an improvement. We are writers of sorts and we like to EDIT! I only wanted 'are' (after 'heads') in italics, not the rest of the post -- but we can't edit any more!!
Any chance of getting the 'powers that be' to restore the old system??
Whyc
-
silverwhisper said on Oct 10, 2006....
must remember to close those tags, man. :>
ed
-
silverwhisper said on Oct 10, 2006....
rolling c, i'm on it.
whyc: i've asked about that. i think they're working on addressing it.
ed
-
CreativeWoman said on Oct 10, 2006....
I feel so convicted by this series.
Thanks for making me think, Silver.
CW
-
missb said on Oct 10, 2006....
Great summary for your series, Ed :)
I agree with moderation in all thing, including moderation itself.
Cheers!
-
secretlife said on Oct 10, 2006....
[pondering the lint in her navel]
thanks for the wrap up Ed.
-
*dudes* said on Oct 10, 2006....
Sins or mistakes in our lives could not be avoided, its part of being human, I would not rather focus on these things, I would rather focus on fulfilling God's purposes in my life, of course, before this, we should know our purpose in our lives and the one who will show us what's our purpose is our Creator, God in heaven, we will know this through His son Jesus Christ.
If you wnat to know more of getting to know Jesus, you can be part of our spiritual family:
http://www.everynation.org/en/home.html
*dudes*
-
harriedpsychmajor said on Oct 11, 2006....
I'm really beginning to enjoy your "on the nature of" series, especially because it seems as if we think on the same lines.
Many of our problems in the social and emotional realms come from dichotomous thinking, where the solution of a problem is found in extreme measures. I think in studying this all-or-nothing mentality we see in our society, we can learn a lot about moderation. We can apply this thought to the seven deadly sins, and look at their extreme natures in order to help alleviate the effect they have on us as individuals.
-
Chimaera said on Oct 11, 2006....
It is exactly wisdom, ed ;)
-
sam_ting_wong said on Oct 11, 2006....
I agree that moderation in all things is the key.
But would this also mean that we should not love with extreme sincerity?
-
silverwhisper said on Oct 11, 2006....
dudes: thanks for stopping by. as i believe i've made clear, i'm not a theist. i assume that link is some kind of online ministry?
harried: glad you're enjoying this. my buddy chimaera and i (and a few others) have a running joke about false dichotomies.
chimaera: would you believe i had to put my gamer hat on to see that? that's just sad!
sam: i think that there are certain things in which moderation is not warranted and your example, love, is precisely the one that leaps to mind for me. :>
ed