This will be a fairly lengthy post that covers different subjects. I'll interact here with the Michael John Carley book, the Jeane Kirkpatrick book, and the book on love by John Townsend. I finished Carley yesterday, and Kirkpatrick today. And I just started the Townsend book. But this post doesn't mean that I won't interact with these books in the future. Strict rules don't apply to James' Thoughts and Musings!
So here we go!
Michael John Carley, Asperger's from the Inside Out.
Carley talks about Michael, a person with Asperger's who committed suicide: "I'll never know whether Michael Bambrick said to himself, 'I'll just deal with it,' in reference to his diagnosis. But I've heard others utter these words, walking away from me, or from a support group, rushing out the door, desperate to get away. These situations don't turn out well" (50).
This goes back to what I discussed in What Do I Do With It? Paradoxically, first admitting that one has Asperger's is a necessary step to living a successful life with it. And dealing with it can involve hearing others' sad stories as well as sharing our own. And, yes, this is a paradox. Society tells us that we succeed by thinking that we can do something, not by acknowledging our weaknesses. Conventional wisdom tells us that we succeed by hanging around with successful people, not with the dateless and the jobless. Yet, I have to come to terms with who I am in order to succeed. I have to be humble. As Jesus said, we need to become like children. You go down before you come up.
"Should you be fired (most people get fired at least once, myself included), treat it as a setback--one that you can learn from--but get right back out there. Maybe you screwed up, maybe you got screwed, maybe you were simply misunderstood, and maybe the job simply wasn't a good fit for you. But just as this book asks you to assume control over so much, it also asks you to know where and when you have no control whatsoever. The days of working for one company your whole career are pretty much over, and that's for everyone. You will most likely bounce from job to job just like so many others do. All you can do is your best" (180-181).
Excellent advice! I've been fearful for a long time about entering the job market. Will I get a job? What if I get fired? But all I can do is my best. And there are many with Asperger's who have jobs, so there's hope.
A quote from Hans Asperger, the psychologist who discovered the syndrome: "It seems that for success in science or art, a dash of autism is essential. For success, the necessary ingredient may be an ability to turn away from the everyday world, from the simply practical, an ability to re-think a subject with originality so as to create in new untrodden ways, with all abilities canalized into one specialty" (219).
Well, that will serve me well in academia! I can come up with original ideas! As far as academia goes, I haven't really come up with anything earth-shakingly original, at least not yet. But I do know that there are times when what the group thinks doesn't particularly strike me as the "end all, be all" of reality. For example, certain commonplace evangelical interpretations of Scripture just don't cut it for me. They don't account for all of the data, as far as I'm concerned. Groups may act as if they're sacrosanct, but I'm usually the one who asks the pesky questions that few want to deal with. And you can see that in my blog. A good example is my post, Matthew 12:22-37: Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure if going against the flow is due to my Asperger's, and I realize that neuro-typicals are also original. Moreover, there are times when, all by myself, I tend to go with the standard views of things, only to encounter fresh originality from others when I enter a small group or a classroom. So community can be a blessing and a curse to originality!
Jeane Kirkpatrick, Making War to Keep Peace.
I found the following excerpts relevant to the history of the Iraq war as well as the UN's current relationship with Iran:
"[T]he [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspection system is not designed to be efficient in catching cheaters; the agency negotiates with member states the conditions of access to their facilities, much as [UN ambassador Rolf] Ekeus negotiated with Saddam.
"In regular inspections, conducted under regular rules, the IAEA inspects only facilities declared by member states, and these only when nuclear material is present. The agency is not authorized to search for undeclared weapons or facilities. The composition of the inspection team must be approved by the nation being investigated. Members may veto classes of people--for example, Americans--if it judges them unacceptable as inspectors. The number of inspectors and their access to the country can also be controlled. The requirement (imposed by some, not all countries) countries that a UN inspection team procure visas provides early warning of any intention to inspect. Saddam sought an escape from the special requirements of the cease fire [in the 1990's]--and the restoration of Iraq's previous rights as a UN member, and he largely achieved his goal.
"The IAEA also does not provide much protection against governments that lie and cheat. The agency is governed by its member states, some of which are themselves engaged in cheating on the principle of non-proliferation and lying about it. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Lybia, and Syria are all members of the IAEA and sit on its governing board...
"The IAEA suffers problems typical of UN and quasi-UN agencies. It is politicized and tends to be dominated by a third world agenda" (53-54).
That's a pretty telling quote! Why's the UN make it so difficult to inspect aggressors for WMDs? I can see why Bush didn't listen to the "We need to continue the inspections" line. Hopefully (for the sake of the world's security), some of those rules have changed as the UN deals with Iran. And all of those mean nations are on the IAEA? That kind of reminds me of Sudan being on that UN commission on human rights. What moral authority does it have to judge anybody?
John Townsend, Loving People.
"You were designed for love; that is part of the human architecture. This material is not about becoming someone you're not. In fact, it is about becoming more of who you were truly meant to be. It is ultimately about the authentic part of you that God created. It may be buried way down inside, inaccessible, frozen, dormant, or undeveloped. But you have a God-given capacity to give and receive love, and you will be a better person when it begins to emerge and become part of your everyday life" (13).
Ordinarily, I would recoil from a quote like this. I hate it when I hear people say, "Humans are social animals." It seems to ignore people who are socially challenged. This quote also reminds me of something C.S. Lewis once said: Christianity doesn't make us something we're not--it allows us to be our true selves. I've often felt differently, since I've always thought that Christianity was trying to make me into something I'm not: a happy, happy extrovert.
But do I desire to give and receive love? You know what? The answer is "yes." We all want to belong. I just don't know how to do so. That doesn't mean I want to be around people all of the time, but part of me does want to give and receive love. I don't like people beating me over the head with a "Love others and be an extrovert" command, for I feel as if I'm acting totally out of character when I try that. But at my base is a desire to give and receive love. And that may be a start.
"Of course, learning to love is not effortless; there is work and diligence involved. As the saying goes, you get what you pay for. Basically, there are two criteria for those who want to be loving people--humility and tolerating discomfort. Humility refers to accepting the fact that you do not know it all already. And tolerating discomfort is about being willing to try new things and take risks, some of which will involve vulnerability and failure" (13-14).
This quote doesn't make me mad, but it reminds me of a situation this week that did make me mad. I'm in this one group, and it says that I should get out of my comfort zone. Case in point: one reason I like going to my Catholic church is that I don't have to interact with people. I'm comfortable there! I can't stand going to evangelical churches where everyone is schmoozing and I feel on the outside looking in. But people in the group say, "How will you grow if you're in your comfort zone?"
And the same goes with the job market. I'm looking for a job in which I don't have to deal with too many people. I'm not in the mood to be pounced on, pressured, and (in the end) fired. The people at my Asperger's group gave me suggestions on how to find such a job. For example, I can work the graveyard shift at Kroger's. (Don't worry, mom and grandma, I'm only thinking about it.) But the people in this other group say that I should look for a job in which I have to interact with a bunch of people. That's how I grow, after all.
I can partly see their point, but it makes me mad! For one, everyone else on the face of the earth gets to make choices. They go to the church that makes them feel comfortable. They allow themselves to be consumers. So why can't I do the same? (Of course, I can! But I have to stop caring about what others think in order to enjoy my choices fully.) Second, I've been in social situations in the past. I had a job in which I had to work with people. It was a disaster. I didn't grow from that experience. I got scarred! I'm not even sure what I would have done differently if I had it to do over again. And, third, do I have to throw myself into the lions' den in order to grow? Can't I grow slowly? I mean, you don't put a student who has just learned his multiplication tables into a calculus class, right?
Overall, I just don't like people shoving how they think I should be down my throat. I want to grow, sure, but I don't want total discomfort.
Also, what about humility? I'm open to hearing new ideas, sure. But I treat them as suggestions, not as commands that I am not to question. They're things to consider that I've not thought of before, and that's it! A lot of times, humility is taken to mean, "You're stupid! You don't know how to run your own life, so you have to do what I tell you, without question." And if you do question, then you're accused of not being humble. And this goes for all sorts of settings!
So I hope I didn't confuse or scare anyone. Have a nice evening!