Awake!, April 22, 1979

Download: PDF — Awake!, April 22, 1979

Awake! — April 22, 1979

Source: jw.org

Contents

Page Two

The Worship of Me

“Me First”—Today’s Idolatry

‘Me-ism’ Makes Victims of Us All

Sin?—What’s That?

Needed: Awareness of God, Awareness of Others, Awareness of Self

Samplings of “Me First” as a Home Wrecker

Should “Biorhythms” Regulate Your Life?

She Knew What to Do

The Amazing Dolphin

Discovering Chinese Food

Why I Made the Choice I Did

When Another’s Conscience Is Involved

Watching the World

Should You Turn the Other Cheek?

Did You Miss It?

Page Two

The Me Generation. That is how many characterize our times. Me-firsters champion a philosophy of selfishness that not only harms themselves but also victimizes family, society and national interests. It is a tree that bears rotten fruit

THE WORSHIP OF ME 3

“ME FIRST”—TODAY’S IDOLATRY 4

‘ME-ISM’ MAKES VICTIMS OF US ALL 7

SIN?—WHAT’S THAT? 9

NEEDED: AWARENESS OF GOD, AWARENESS OF OTHERS, AWARENESS OF SELF 12

SAMPLINGS OF “ME FIRST” AS A HOME WRECKER 15

The Worship of Me

“WORSHIP myself? Ridiculous!” For you, it may be “ridiculous.” But for growing numbers of others, it may not be. In fact, the trend in this direction is so pronounced that many call this the “Me Generation.” The evidence to support this description is considerable.

“Well, maybe selfishness is getting a little out of hand. But worship of self? Isn’t that going overboard on the subject?” At first glance it may seem so, but the picture may change as the self-awareness movement comes under closer inspection.

True, awareness is important. We need to be aware of what is happening around us. We need to be aware of the people with whom we associate—family members, neighbors, those in our community, even everyone on earth, in view of our shrinking world. And, yes, our awareness must certainly take in ourselves, our thoughts and acts, our needs and responsibilities.

However, the self-awareness that is now being preached by the psychologist-gurus is narrowed down until the guiding doctrine seems to be, ‘Me first; you second, or sixth, or whatever—it doesn’t really matter to the Imperial Me.’ Not all of those involved in the movement go this far, but many do, whether they state it so explicitly or not.

Why the Surge in MEism?

There are reasons for the surge in the self-awareness movements at this time. The old values have been challenged, and many of the orthodox religions fail to uphold them. The new codes advocated by many psychologists and psychiatrists are unsatisfying to the human spirit, and are often contradictory. Spiritually, millions drift on restless seas, searching for reliable rudders and strong anchors.

Disillusioned, they are fertile soil for teachings that put self on a pedestal. They embrace “teachers to suit their whims and tickle their fancies, and they will turn from listening to the truth and wander off after fictions.” They are exploited “through the pretensions of philosophy, guided by human tradition, following material ways of looking at things.”—2 Tim. 4:3, 4; Col. 2:8, An American Translation.

Have Some Found the Answers?

However, many feel that they have found genuine answers in self-awareness movements. They feel that they have found the rudders and the anchors needed to weather the stormy seas. Have they? Are they happy, contented, no longer groping, no longer searching?

There is cause for reasonable doubt. The following series of articles probes more deeply into the pros and cons of the self-awareness movements.

[Box on page 3]

THE SELF-AWARENESS MOVEMENT

Why this surge in ‘MEism’ now? Is it a passing fad? Is it of practical value? What are its fruits?

Does it meet emotional needs? Can it eliminate guilt feelings? And what about sin? Is it outdated?

If self-awareness isn’t the answer to our emotional gropings, what is?

“Me First”—Today’s Idolatry

Many in our generation have lost faith in human institutions—government, laws, science, religion, marriage, and in people. Where to turn to fill the vacuum? Many are turning inward, to themselves. It is not new. It is only a revival.

THE creed of today’s me-firsters is relatively new for the 20th century. It rejects the regard-for-others approach that was more common earlier in this century. That code of ethics taught persons to think of others, to do good to others, to encourage them, and to fit oneself in with others. All of that is taboo with the new cult of “King Me.” While this extreme may be new for this century, it is not really new—only a revival. It is very ancient history repeating itself.

Here is a sampling of the new code of ethics, as gleaned from the current crop of self-help and self-awareness books:

“Looking out for number one.”

“Winning through intimidation.”

“Few of us learn how to use the world, instead of being used by it.”

“While it is possible to act in the best interests of others, the important thing to understand is that that will never be your primary objective.”

“Morality has very little to do with success.”

“You have the right to judge your own behavior.”

“Resolve to live up to a code of ethics that is self-determined, not one that has been imposed by others.”

“Guilt is an addictive drug as strong and as destructive as heroin.”

“Are you letting people walk all over you?”

“Revolutionary new techniques for getting your own way.”

When such pronouncements are made in the pages of the books, they are cushioned in a context that relieves them of their harshness. Often sound principles are presented that are helpful, and the intention here is not to categorize the entire contents as rank selfishness. However, the tenor of these books is exemplified by the above-quoted admonitions and query. These are the ideas seized on for the ads and jackets of the books to entice readers. These are the sentiments used as titles. These are the impressions left on readers. The mood permeating the followers of the new movement is one of exalting the individual in contrast to society in general. The same self-centeredness is found in movies, television, athletics, newspapers and magazines.

The Self-Awareness Workshops

One of the pioneer groups in self-exploration was founded in California in 1962. Many others now operate. They explore what is within the person, seeking to bring it out into the open. Let it all hang out, as they say. Political novelist Fletcher Knebel describes one exercise that is typical:

“One exercise knocked me out: Silent, blindfolded, hands grasped behind our backs, 24 of us made contact with shoulders, arms, legs, hips while exotic Oriental music played. This mass grope, people dumbly fumbling and rubbing to communicate with others, seemed to me the epitome of human existence. We seek one another desperately, yet touch only fleetingly and comfortlessly. I dropped out, sat on the floor and wept. For what? My own loneliness and hurts, perhaps. I never forgot that experience.”

While novelist Knebel claims to have found some value in experiencing self-awareness training in the workshops, he did find objectionable aspects such as the following:

“The movement enshrines almost as much gutter language as the U.S. Marines. Some group leaders radiate more obscenities than insights. . . . ceaseless recyclings of the same four-letter words dull the very awareness the leader seeks to sharpen.

“Too many modern American gurus promise the moon and deliver a moonbeam. . . . One weekend of a psychological revelation can be about as lasting as a Chinese dinner.

“The movement’s most serious flaw, in my opinion, is its limited application to the world. . . . Just try a sensory-awareness weekend among starving Mali herdsmen, in torture suites of Uganda’s military compounds, or across the street from KGB (secret service) headquarters in Moscow. Scant personal ‘growth’ occurs in lands in the clutch of poverty or tyranny.”

Television’s New Religion: “Feelgoodism”

Tom Shales of the Washington Post wrote a column about television ads. Here are some excerpts:

“Perhaps never in history have so many been urged to feel so good about so little. That’s because TV ad men, who have always been involved in the politics of self, have discovered a new tool for moving merchandise. It’s the feelgood ad—the ad that tells you to feel good about just being you and about anything that will bring you closer to that goal, whether it’s deodorant, pudding or a new set of steel-belted radials. . . .

“Unquestionably there is a religious fervor to these spiels. . . . But what’s really being deified in the new ads is the viewer-consumer himself. . . . the dominant point is that extremism in the worship of self is no vice—is in fact a virtue— . . .

“Television tells you to grab for all the gusto you can. It never suggests that your gusto might infringe on somebody else’s gusto. It just says, go ahead, grab, or you’ll be sorry. . . .

“Television, the greatest salesman ever invented, may have done too splendid a job on selling us ourselves. If we were plunged pell-mell into a really serious economic disorder, would we be equipped to cope with anything so unthinkable as self-denial?”

The Neo-Narcissists

In Greek mythology Narcissus was the son of the river god Cephissus and the nymph Leiriope. As the myth goes, he was of surpassing beauty. When he saw his own reflection in a spring he fell in love with himself. He was incapable of loving others, and was so enthralled with himself that he didn’t even rouse himself to eat. He pined away and died. Today orthodox psychoanalysis uses the term Narcissism to mean an intense degree of self-love, so much so that the patient is indifferent to other persons—unless he can cause them to notice and admire him.

Repeatedly, today’s MEism has been called the new- or neo-Narcissism. Nathan Fain, in a magazine article entitled “The Age of Narcissus: Here’s Looking at Me, Kid!” called the trend “an inundation, verily, of national narcissism the likes of which we’ve never seen before.” He called it “the last American growth industry: the retreat into one’s own body,” and added:

“It is the last—and perhaps ultimate—frontier. And despite fundamentalist campaigns to monger guilt, inspire fear, and generally keep the lid on, the American art of self-love has entered its high classical period.”

But Is It Really “Worship of Me”?

One person referred to this exalting of Me as “a new religion.” Another called it the “worship of self.” For many in the self-awareness movement it doesn’t go this far; for some it does.

The Bible indicates that self-centeredness can become worship. “Covetousness,” it says, “is idolatry.” “Greed is a form of idolatry.” (Col. 3:5, New World Translation and Today’s English Version) The Greek word that these translations render as “covetousness” and “greed” is pleonexia. Barclay’s Bible commentary says:

“Pleonexia is basically the desire to have more. The Greeks themselves defined it as insatiate desire, and said that you might as easily satisfy it as you might fill with water a bowl with a hole in it. They defined it as the sinful desire for that which belongs to others. They defined it as the passion of acquisitiveness. It has been described as ruthless self-seeking.”

Of such ones, Philippians 3:19 says: “Their god is their belly.” Or, as Today’s English Version renders it: “Their god is their bodily desires.” Such ones stubbornly insist on having their own way, in effect, idolizing their own will. Centuries before Christ this was labeled idolatry: “Stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.”—1 Sam. 15:23, Revised Standard Version.

Actually, me-olatry goes all the way back to the first human pair. They wanted to set up their own code of right and wrong. Hence, when falsely told that they could “be like God, knowing good and bad,” the woman found it something for which to long. First she, and then her husband, took this course. It was a fatal mistake.

So today the creed of the me-firsters is not new. It is very ancient history repeating itself. It existed at the time of man’s beginning, and was foretold to be present at the last days: “In the last days . . . men will be lovers of themselves.”—2 Tim. 3:1, 2.

[Box on page 5]

THE ME-FIRST CREED

Love yourself.

Love without possessing.

Let your emotions flow.

Let it all hang out.

Be assertive.

Don’t feel guilty.

You decide right and wrong.

Do your own thing.

I’m okay, you’re okay.

Don’t judge.

Don’t preach.

Walk tall.

Live in the here and now.

This is it!

‘Me-ism’ Makes Victims of Us All

The effects of the self-centered philosophy of me-first are far-reaching indeed. Unfortunately, all of us are affected by the fruits produced by this evil tree.

IS America a declining power? That is the question raised by a weekly news magazine in the United States. What prompted the question is summarized in the article as follows: “Morally, traditional ideals of hard work, self-restraint and sacrifice are eroding in a widening mood of me-ism that has brought not only rising delinquency, family breakups and other disruptions but declining standards in education and the work place that compromise the U.S. competitive position in the world.”—U.S. News & World Report, November 27, 1978.

Me-firsters chant their pet doctrine, ‘Do your own thing.’ A Chicago man did his, which was sodomy, and 32 boys are dead. He murdered them, threw some into the river, and the others he buried under his house and garage. The remains of 28 have been found there. In 1968 he was convicted of sodomy with a 16-year-old boy and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He served only 18 months. Had he served his full time 32 boys would be alive today. Instead, they became the victims of so-called victimless homosexuality.

Five years ago there were 27 deaths of young victims of sodomy in Houston. They were engulfed in a homosexual torture ring. Yet society in general is beginning to take a liberal view of the homosexual lifestyle. California state senator H. L. Richardson doesn’t: “Homosexuals go out after what they call ‘chickens.’ Chickens are young, susceptible boys, usually in their early teens, who then become victims of a kind of lifestyle they otherwise may never have considered. I certainly consider these youngsters and their parents victims.”

Is this homosexual life-style good or bad? God’s view is this: “God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error. . . . those practicing such things are deserving of death.”—Rom. 1:26, 27, 32.

In his special report, Senator Richardson also showed how others are victimized by such immorality: “Whenever there is a loose community attitude toward homosexuality, porno movies and prostitutes, the crime rate skyrockets. Hollywood is a living example. Some of that area has become such a cesspool that the legitimate citizens and businessmen are being forced to leave the community.” Financial losses from property and businesses can be huge in such cases.

“Pornography can cause sex deviancy,” says Dr. Victor B. Cline, professor of psychology. He further states:

“When not asserting First Amendment protection for pornography, its defenders called it a harmless diversion—possibly a therapeutic one—that might keep rapists and sexual deviates off the street. . . . Psychological and medical literature is replete with research which demonstrates that sexual deviancy can arise not only from exposure to real-life acts but also from pornography. . . . Thus, while we may say that in a free society each person should decide for himself whether to risk the use of pornography, we must also consider the rights of someone who may fall unwilling victim of a sexual deviant and his fantasies—all of which may have come about merely because one person had the opportunity to take a chance with erotica.

“Ultimately, society has to set some limits when the possible harm is seen as too great to be tolerated. I think that point has long since been passed with pornography. To me, those who claim that the exhibition and sale of pornography is a ‘victimless crime’ are just wrong. The scientific evidence speaks too strongly to the contrary.”

The moral breakdown sends its roots into many areas other than sex. All of us pay, in a number of ways. One way is by higher taxes to pay the cost of police protection, the court systems and prisons. Another area that the roots from the tree of me-ism reaches, as mentioned in the news magazine’s concern with America’s declining power, is

‘Declining Standards in the Work Place’

All of us know—and are victims of—the decline of quality in the products we buy. Me-minded manufacturers use inferior materials. Me-minded workers demand more pay for less work and poor workmanship. Not only this; many are greedy thieves.

“A leading investigator of employee stealing calls theft—not baseball—America’s national pastime,” says a magazine article entitled “White-Collar Crime—It’s a Sin Even If You Don’t Get Caught.” “America’s most resourceful and successful crook,” the article opens, “wears a white collar.” It continues:

“More likely than not, he or she is respectable, hardworking, churchgoing, . . . and nonviolent but a criminal nonetheless. The crime: stealing from the company, the customer, the client, the government—an awesome, larcenous total of more than $40 billion a year. That figure is ten times the annual total from violent crimes against property.”—U.S. Catholic, January 1979.

Most persons give at least lip service to the Golden Rule, but applying it is another matter. Also, each one has his own method of rationalizing his sin. Many reason: ‘Take money from the store cash register—their prices have such losses figured in.’ ‘Sneak materials from off the job—they don’t pay me enough anyway.’ ‘Everybody’s doing it. Why shouldn’t I?’ Both white-collar and blue-collar workers view this as fringe benefits. The employer views it as thievery, and the costs are paid for by you and me. We are the victims.

Many businessmen do worse, as New York’s district attorney pointed out, saying: “Stock-market swindlers and manipulators, corporate officers making illegal profits from inside information, people in business hiding profits from tax authorities, and enormous numbers of stock-market investors were using foreign accounts to evade income taxes on their trading profits.” People who do this were “those who would be the first to complain about a robbery or mugging in their neighborhood.”

Whom Can I Sue?

It is estimated that over seven million lawsuits were filed in the United States in one year. They come like an avalanche and bury the courts. Many are legitimate, many are frivolous, many are greedy. It’s an epidemic of ‘hair-trigger suing,’ as one jurist called it. Patients sue doctors, clients sue lawyers, students sue teachers, workers sue bosses, customers sue manufacturers, people sue people. It even affects the family: “Children haul their parents into court, while husbands and wives sue each other, brothers sue brothers, and friends sue friends,” as we read in an article in U.S. News & World Report, December 4, 1978.

That article lists some cases to show the extremes to which the impulse to sue has gone. A former student asks $853,000 in damages from the University of Michigan, partly because of the mental anguish he suffered because he got a “D” grade in German when he expected an “A.” A prisoner escaped, and when captured he sued the sheriff and guards for $1 million for letting him escape, because he had extra time added to his sentence. A mother sued officials for $500,000 for preventing her from breast-feeding her baby beside a community wading pool. A young man sued his parents for $350,000, charging that they did not rear him properly and now he can’t fit into society. Parents sued when their girl broke her finger trying to catch a pop fly in a school softball game, claiming that the instructor failed to teach her how to catch properly.

Experts contend that “the specter of litigation is sapping productivity, creativity and human trust, creating ‘a fear to act’ in many segments of society.” Also, it is felt that these suits will further erode the personal relationships and institutions that have helped to hold society together.

Thus, people wish to do as they please, but want others to take care of the consequences. They want to sow folly and wild oats, but let others reap the resulting problems. This is me-ism’s mandate. Everyone is its victim.

Sin?—What’s That?

“Sink the guilt trip,” one ME advocate said. The plain truth is, those who feel no guilt are sick.

CAN sin be ended by issuing a proclamation to that effect? That would be like ending fever by breaking the thermometer, like ending crime by throwing out all laws. Discarding the Book that defines sin does not remove it. Even without the Bible sin exists and there is awareness of it. Speaking of those not acquainted with God’s laws, the Bible says:

“Whenever they do by instinct what the Law commands, they are their own law, even though they do not have the Law. Their conduct shows that what the Law commands is written in their hearts. Their consciences also show that this is true, since their thoughts sometimes accuse them and sometimes defend them.”—Rom. 2:14, 15, Today’s English Version.

Regardless of the claims made, you serve whomever or whatever you follow: “You are in fact the slaves of the master you obey—either of sin, which results in death, or of obedience, which results in being put right with God.”—Rom. 6:16, TEV.

Sin and guilt exist in the imperfect lives of all of us. Acting like the woman of Proverbs 30:20 does not alter that fact: “Here is the way of an adulterous woman: she has eaten and has wiped her mouth and she has said: ‘I have committed no wrong.’” Today’s Me generation copies her refusal to see sin and guilt. As the cover of Dr. Karl Menninger’s book Whatever Became of Sin? says: “The word ‘sin’ has almost disappeared from our vocabulary, but the sense of guilt remains in our hearts and minds.”

The Value of Guilt

“Some people,” psychoanalyst Willard Gaylin says, “have never experienced the feeling of guilt. They are not, however, the lucky ones, nor are we fortunate in having them in our midst. The failure to feel guilt is the basic flaw in the psychopath or antisocial person.” He differs with the gurus of me-ism who say that guilt is a useless emotion. “Guilt,” says Gaylin, “is not only a uniquely human experience; its cultivation in people—along with shame—serves the noblest, most generous and humane character traits that distinguish our species.”

Within ourselves we form an identity or model of ourselves. We identify with this internal model. It becomes a standard or ideal against which we measure ourselves, either approvingly or disapprovingly. It is built up by our associations with parents and their teachings or examples. Other persons whom we respect or admire contribute to this internal ideal growing within us. Principles observed or studied add to it. If we study the Bible this model or ideal becomes patterned after that of Jehovah God, for the Bible reflects principles embodied in God, such as justice, love, wisdom, power, work, purposefulness, and many others. The closer we come to living in accord with this right standard within us, the more we can respect ourselves, yes, even love ourselves.

However, when we fail to measure up to this ideal within, we feel guilt. Is this useful? On this point, psychoanalyst Gaylin says:

“Guilt is not a ‘useless’ emotion, it is the emotion that shapes much of our goodness and generosity. It signals us when we have transgressed codes of behavior that we personally want to sustain. Feeling guilty informs us that we have failed our own ideals.”

Conscience Makes Us Unique

Of all earthly creatures, only humans have conscience. The basis for its operation is the standards or ideals that we have within. If we study the Bible and become Godlike, we can safely let our conscience be our guide. If our conduct falls short of God’s will, conscience pricks us, and we feel guilt.

Animals have no conscience to make them feel guilt. Dogs may look guilty when they have disobeyed, but it is only a fear of our displeasure. But because of conscience the conduct of people comes under scrutiny. “Their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts [as to what they should be], they are being accused or even excused.”—Rom. 2:15.

In their endeavor to “sink the guilt trip,” people sear their conscience to make it insensitive, to silence it. They become “marked in their conscience as with a branding iron.” They also must seek to replace their former internal ideal with a new one, one with lower standards or no standards. It is a return to the age-old immorality, but disguised and sugarcoated as “the new morality.” In doing this, both “their minds and their consciences are defiled.”—1 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:15.

We should retain the valuable ability to feel guilt. To do that, “hold a good conscience.” If a conscience is weak, do not defile it by going against it, but strengthen it by bringing to Christian maturity the “secret person of the heart,” which is based on God’s Word.—1 Pet. 3:4, 16; 1 Cor. 8:7.

Face Your Guilts

“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” in whose likeness man was created. (Rom. 3:23; Gen. 1:27) Hence, all have cause to feel guilt. Those who don’t are hiding unsuccessfully, like the proverbial ostrich that sticks its head in the sand.

The first human pair felt guilty when they sinned, and hid themselves. When found and confronted, they did what so many of us do: tried to shift their guilt to someone else. The record states: “The man went on to say: ‘The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree and so I ate.’ With that Jehovah God said to the woman: ‘What is this you have done?’ To this the woman replied: ‘The serpent—it deceived me and so I ate.’”—Gen. 3:12, 13.

It is said that misery loves company. Guilt is even more delighted with company—the more the merrier! Dr. Menninger wrote:

“If a group of people can be made to share the responsibility for what would be a sin if an individual did it, the load of guilt rapidly lifts from the shoulders of all concerned. Others may accuse, but the guilt shared by the many evaporates for the individual.”—Whatever Became of Sin?, p. 95.

To what can this eventually lead? On “the sin of war,” he says: “All behaviors ordinarily regarded as criminal and/or sinful are suddenly sanctioned—murder, mayhem, arson, robbery, deceit, trespassing, sabotage, vandalism, and cruelty.”—P. 101.

Menninger proceeds to paint the sin more vividly and asks questions, saying:

“The picture of one screaming, burning child or of one half-dismembered or disemboweled woman shocks and revolts us, although we are spared the sound of the screams and groans. We are not witnesses to the brokenhearted mother’s sorrow. We know nothing of the despair, the hopelessness, the loss of everything. We don’t go with them into the hospitals and observe the hideous wounds, the agonizing burns, the shattered limbs. And all this is only one tiny dot on a great map of millions. It cannot be described. It cannot be grasped. It cannot be imagined.

“But who is responsible for this evil? Surely it is sinful, but whose sin is it? No one wants the attribution of responsibility for this. Someone told someone to tell someone to tell someone to do so and so. Somebody did decide to launch it and somebody has agreed to pay for it. But who? And how did I vote? . . . Sometimes I think the only completely consistently moral people are those who refuse to participate.”—Pp. 102, 103.

Cope with Your Own Guilts!

Honesty demands that each of us face his sin and guilt. Mental health requires that we rid ourselves of it. Jehovah provides the way for us to do it.

God’s Word points out the only adequate way to cope with sin. Face it: “If we make the statement: ‘We have no sin,’ we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8) “He that is covering over his transgressions will not succeed.” (Prov. 28:13) Confess your sin to God: “I said: ‘I shall make confession over my transgressions to Jehovah.’” (Ps. 32:5) Forgiveness follows confession: “If we confess our sins [to God], he is faithful and righteous so as to forgive us our sins.” (1 John 1:9) Guilt then vanishes: Forgiveness from God comes through Christ, and such forgiveness will “cleanse our consciences from dead works.” (Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:14) Then our consciences need no longer feel guilt.

So, face your sin, acknowledge it, confess it to God, seek forgiveness of it. Sometimes punishment may follow, but oftentimes confession is followed by forgiveness and that ends the matter.

The Me generation seeks to dismiss guilt by denying sin. Sin literally means “to miss the mark.” Their “new morality” certainly misses the mark, as shown by its fruits. The contention of the behaviorist psychologists that we make no personal decision and, hence, have no responsibility sweeps sin under the rug. It is a no-fault psychology: no one is responsible, no one is to blame, no one is guilty, no one is sinning. It is just the kind of psychological gibberish the me-firsters seize upon and hide behind and ask with raised eyebrows, “Sin? What’s that?”

Healthy psychology is to acknowledge sin and cope with it. God’s Word is the key enabling us to do this. It shows that we must have a proper regard for ourselves, must be considerate of others, and, above all, must love our Creator Jehovah God and accept his principles as our guide. The next article develops these points.

Needed: Awareness of God, Awareness of Others, Awareness of Self

“You must love Jehovah your God . . . You must love your neighbor as yourself.”—Mark 12:30, 31.

WE NEED to see ourselves as we are, how we are made, what history has revealed about us. What course has proved to be the practical one, the beneficial one?

We are fleshly, but we also have a spiritual side. Shall we be like hedonists, catering always to the flesh? Or like ascetics, punishing the flesh to exalt the spirit?

Of course, the Bible does not favor hedonism. And contrary to the examples of some religions, the Bible does not favor asceticism either: “True, it has an air of wisdom, with its forced piety, its self-mortification, and its severity to the body; but it is of no use at all in combating sensuality.”—Col. 2:23, The New English Bible.

The Bible favors not extremism but balance and reason. “Let your reasonableness,” it says, “become known to all men.” (Phil. 4:5) If we glut the flesh, the spirit starves. If we become fanatical in our approach to spiritual matters, the flesh suffers. Care for the flesh without becoming materialistic: “Having sustenance and covering, we shall be content with these things.” The flesh is important, but the spirit is far more important: “The spirit of a man can put up with his malady; but as for a stricken spirit, who can bear it?” So it is vital to be aware of the spirit’s needs: “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.”—1 Tim. 6:8; Prov. 18:14; Matt. 5:3.

You Need to Love Yourself

Love yourself? Doesn’t that sound like the Me generation talking? No, for this is not the self-centered love of the mythological Narcissus, which ruled out the possibility of truly loving others. It is, in fact, necessary to love yourself before you can love others. Modern psychology knows this, but it was acknowledged 35 centuries before today’s psychology. Moses wrote at Leviticus 19:18: “You must love your fellow as yourself.” You are to love yourself, and your neighbor as yourself.

We are to love ourselves in the sense of caring for ourselves, respecting ourselves, having a sense of our self-worth. To be able to do this we must measure up to what we know to be right in God’s eyes, to what our properly trained and sensitive conscience expects of us. If we fail we are displeased with ourselves and feel guilt and blame. Unhappy with this state of affairs, we try to shift this blame to others, and it spoils our relationships with others.

This is illustrated in the case of Adam and Eve. They knew what was the right thing to do. When they did the opposite they hid from God because they felt guilt. When he confronted them, both of them tried to shift the blame—Adam to his wife, and to God for giving him this woman; Eve shifted hers to the serpent. (Gen. 3:12, 13) Adam could no longer feel genuine love or respect for himself, and it spoiled his relationship with both his wife and God. Eve also tried to shift blame so that she could clear herself and thus respect herself. But, with persons whose conscience is not totally seared, guilt is not dissolved this way. We may try, but we do not fool ourselves, and our inner displeasure gets in the way of our loving others. You do need to love yourself.

You Need to Love Others

Modern psychology also recognizes this need. Psychoanalyst Willard Gaylin said in the January 1979 Atlantic magazine:

“There is no such thing as individual survival. The human being is human because of the nurture of other human beings, and without this will not survive. Or if love and caring are supplied only minimally, he may survive as a biological entity without the qualities of humanness that elevate him above the common animal host. Even after development, if at any key point an individual is withdrawn from contact with his kind, he may re-create in his imagination social relationships that sustain him for a time, but he suffers the risk of being reduced to an animal.”

Psychoanalyst Otto Kernberg, in the June 1978 issue of Psychology Today, said:

“All other things being equal, there is something that happens to one in a deep relationship with someone else which brings great satisfaction to the individual. . . . And when this can’t be attained, one feels emptiness and chronic dissatisfaction.”

We need recognition from others and to be accepted by them. The best way to receive is to give, as Jesus showed: “Practice giving, and people will give to you. They will pour into your laps a fine measure, pressed down, shaken together and overflowing. For with the measure that you are measuring out, they will measure out to you in return.” (Luke 6:38) There is happiness in receiving, but more in giving. To give our love exercises it and makes it grow, increases our capacity to love others; and we reap their love in return. Love others first, and in this way cause them to love you. This is shown by the love Jehovah has shown to appreciative mankind: “As for us, we love, because he first loved us.”—1 John 4:19; Acts 20:35.

Small children need to learn the importance of loving others. The value of their playing with others of their age is that it teaches them that they cannot always have their own way, cannot always do their own thing, cannot always be me-first. Small children tend to demand their own way, but they soon learn that the price of companionship is that others must have their turn at being first. Me-firsters end up lonely.

You Need to Love God

We are tiny nothings compared to the size of the earth, which is tiny compared to our sun, which is a small star among billions in our Milky Way. The Milky Way galaxy is only one of billions in the universe. In its vastness we are microscopic and totally insignificant—unless the God who made the universe made us, cares for us, has a purpose for us. He does, and for this reason alone our lives can have purpose and meaning. He loves us; we need to love him. This is a point emphasized repeatedly in the Bible. A religious writer, Leslie K. Tarr, contrasted the me-first philosophy with Christianity, saying:

“The gospel of self-interest strikes at the heart of all that is noble in our culture and is diametrically opposed to the Christian gospel. ‘Looking out for number one’ is the battle cry of a new barbarism. The gospel is a summons in another direction. Its appeal is to deny yourself, take up the cross, . . . turn the other cheek, and go the second mile. In contrast, that call to ‘look out for number one’ sounds shabby. . . . The inward-oriented gospel, in its secular and religious forms, is a far cry from the message which directs our eyes first toward God and then outward toward others.”—Toronto Star, November 25, 1978.

The respected historian Arnold Toynbee spoke of the serious morality gap confronting us, and of science he said:

“It has not helped him [man] to break out of the prison of his inborn self-centeredness into communion or union with some reality that is greater, more important, more valuable, and more lasting than the individual himself.”—Surviving the Future, by Arnold Toynbee.

The modern gurus of Me-ism avidly pursue the Me rainbow with floods of me-first books, and try to find their ‘pot of gold.’ But thousands of years of human history have revealed that no lasting benefit has resulted from human philosophies. “Wisdom is proved righteous by its works,” and human wisdom has no such proof. (Matt. 11:19) Men may scoff and say that the Bible wisdom is impractical, but the fact remains that the world has never tried it—not love of God; not love of neighbor; not even the proper love of self. And certainly not the Golden Rule that Jesus proclaimed: “All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them.”—Matt. 7:12.

Psychiatrist Karl Menninger, in his book Whatever Became of Sin? stated: “To transcend one’s own self-centeredness is not a virtue; it is a saving necessity.”

We need to be aware of ourselves, of others, and most certainly to be aware of Jehovah God. Jesus put these needs in proper perspective when he was asked: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” His answer: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.”—Matt. 22:36-40.

Samplings of “Me First” as a Home Wrecker

“Do you think that the so-called ‘me’ society leads to more broken marriages?” an interviewer asked Dr. Robert Taylor, author of books on the subject. “Yes,” he answered. “I believe the ‘me’ philosophy is contributing to the high divorce rate we have now.”

Today’s self-fulfillment fad is causing “whole neighborhoods,” an editorial in “U.S. News & World Report” said, “to subordinate or abandon jobs, politics, civic service and family responsibility in favor of self-realization classes, exotic exercises, getting stroked with peacock feathers and fur mittens, communal hot-tubbing, extramarital sensations and other pursuits imagined to produce pure happiness.”

“The modern parent is remote from his child.” Why? A report in “Newsweek” explains: “He feels he has ‘little to pass on and, in any case, now gives priority to his own right to self-fulfillment.’”

“In an age that emphasizes maximum personal expression and gratification, many parents don’t want to sacrifice anything of themselves for their children, who are viewed as a burden. So either they don’t want their children at all, or they want their kids to be quiet and inconspicuous. . . . People are more egocentric than they were 20 years ago.”—“Homemaker’s Magazine,” June/July/August, 1976.

A special CBS television report last December focused on a divided family and the ill effects it had on the children. The mother was in the women’s liberation movement, which precipitated the divorce. The children expressed sadness that their mother’s job took her away from the home too much, and their father lived separate from them.

Concerning psychiatry “U.S. News & World Report” said: “Society as a whole may have suffered from some psychiatric practices. There is a widespread feeling, rightly or wrongly, that the anxieties of modern America have been increased by psychiatric advice that often encourages an individual to ‘do his own thing’ even if it breaks up families.”

Under the heading of “Me, Me, Me,” “Newsweek” magazine reviewed the book “The Culture of Narcissism” by Christopher Lasch, a history professor. The current tendency of parents to give ‘priority to their own right of self-fulfillment’ leaves their children emotionally crippled and without a moral code. He contends that the new awareness movement “provides self-defeating solutions, advising people not to make too large an investment in love and friendship.”

At first, women’s magazines focused on home, food and children. Then came magazines for the working girl. Later it was magazines for the feminist movement. The newest entry is a magazine called “Self.” “The Wall Street Journal” editorial that told of this magazine concluded that the publishers thought that their readers “want to concentrate not on children or sex or politics but on their own pretty much unattached egos. Not a terrifically encouraging message for the end of the decade.”

Should “Biorhythms” Regulate Your Life?

A NOTED female tennis star suffered a “stunning defeat” on June 29, 1977. Some are of the opinion that she was a sure loser on that particular day. The reason, they say, was that two of her “biorhythm” cycles were low at the time of her defeat.

Possibly you have heard the term “biorhythms.” What are they? Can knowledge of biorhythms help you to regulate your life more successfully?

In this article we are not discussing what scientists call “biological rhythms,” that is, fluctuations in areas such as heartbeat, hormone production, intellectual abilities and moods. All humans experience periodic variations in these and many other bodily functions. As a result, everyone has an ‘off day’ from time to time, when a person is clumsy, irritable, inefficient and dull.

The biorhythm theory, however, goes to the point of claiming that all humans undergo three cycles of fixed duration that are the same for all people. Supposedly, there is a physical cycle of 23 days (involving both well-being and fatigue), a 28-day emotional cycle that ranges from elated cheerfulness to depression and an intellectual or mental cycle of 33 days that varies from periods of high creativity to times when one can hardly think straight. All three of these cycles are said to begin at the moment of birth and to continue uninterrupted throughout a person’s life.

A system has been devised for putting the three biorhythms on a chart, which includes a horizontal line that extends from left to right at the middle. The point farthest to the left on the chart is one’s date of birth. The three cycles are represented as beginning on the horizontal line at that date and thereafter rising above and dipping below the line. When a cycle is above the line, the faculty it represents is supposed to be functioning well. When below the line, it is believed to function poorly.

“Critical days” are said to occur when a cycle intersects the line (the point where it changes from plus to minus or minus to plus). If two or three cycles hit the line at the same time, that day is viewed as a potential disaster. Advocates of the biorhythm theory believe that by figuring out the three cycles mathematically, people can predict favorable or unfavorable days for doing things.

A Theory That Lacks Foundation

Some, however, raise serious objections to this belief. “There is no scientific basis for the assumption that our biological time clocks are triggered at birth,” declares a biomedical technician at Massachusetts General Hospital. “Rather, it has been found that some of the cycles affecting pregnant women are definitely in synchrony with those of the fetus.” The technician also points out that all information about biological cycles has been collected from adults. “But many cycles measurable in children, such as the cardiac and metabolic, exhibit increased frequencies compared with those of adults. Given that a child’s ‘day’ is only a matter of minutes at birth and reaches a maturity of 24 hours over several years, it is reasonable to believe that a child’s entire biorhythm is faster.”

Publicity has been given to certain accidents (such as automobile or air crashes) that happened during “lows” or “critical days” in the biorhythm cycles of persons involved. However, accidents often have multiple causes. Seldom can they be attributed only to the individuals whose biorhythms were calculated as being low. Too, when favorable things happen to a person whose biorhythms are at a high level, often other persons are really responsible for the favorable circumstances. For instance, if an athlete gives an outstanding performance, the reason may be exceptional supportive play by teammates.

An Unconvincing Record

Do facts really support the belief that good things occur when a person’s biorhythms are at high levels and that disasters take place when those levels are low? Interesting in this respect are results of research by a group from the Laurentian University in Ontario, Canada. The researchers examined 400 mining accidents. On the results of this investigation, Newsday of September 25, 1978, reported: “Writing in the journal Perceptual and Motor Skills, the investigators contend that the data ‘do not support any of the basic biorhythm predictions . . . Mining accidents (both surface and underground) were not more likely to occur on critical days, around critical days or during the down portion of the various cycles.’”

An article in Psychology Today (April 1978) published the results of an experiment on baseball pitchers (who obviously must be in good physical and mental condition to pitch well). The writer explains:

“I looked at exactly 100 no-hit games pitched in the major leagues from 1934 through 1975. They included all the no-hitters pitched during the period by lone individuals . . . I wanted to determine whether the 100 pitchers, taken as a group, had unusually favorable biorhythm readings. Was there an abnormally large number of ‘positive’ readings in their physical cycles?—or in their emotional and intellectual cycles, for that matter? The answer, straight down the line, was no. From their biorhythm profiles, you would never guess that these men were giving the greatest performances of their careers. It could just as easily have been a sample of 100 individuals selected at random.”

A Form of Divination

How should the biorhythm theory be viewed by persons who wish to please God? The Bible contains no specific mention of biorhythms. But the Word of God does relate the efforts of one individual to determine in advance the correct day for performing a certain action. It says:

“Haman was furious when he realized that Mordecai was not going to kneel and bow to him, and when he learned that Mordecai was a Jew, he decided to do more than punish Mordecai alone. He made plans to kill every Jew in the whole Persian Empire. In the twelfth year of King Xerxes’ rule, in the first month, the month of Nisan, Haman ordered the lots to be cast (‘Purim,’ they were called) to find out the right day and month to carry out his plot. The thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the month of Adar, was decided on.”—Esther 3:5-7, Today’s English Version.

Casting lots in this way was a form of divination. According to the Bible, all efforts to discern the future through divination are forbidden to persons who wish to please God. We read: “There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead. For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable things Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you. You should prove yourself faultless with Jehovah your God.”—Deut. 18:10-13.

Of course, the biorhythm theory does not involve casting lots. But it does involve efforts to discern the future through divination by a method of numerology. An article that appeared in Time magazine made the following comments:

“The biorhythm craze grew from the mystic speculations of Wilhelm Fliess, a colorful Berlin doctor who was Sigmund Freud’s closest friend for more than a decade. . . . Fliess published books and essays of impenetrable mathematics, all revolving around his mystic numbers, 23 (representing the masculine or physical principle) and 28 (representing the feminine, emotional principle and presumably based on the 28-day menstrual cycle). For a time, Freud was so impressed that he was sure he would die at the age of 51, the sum of the two numbers. A young patient of Freud’s, Hermann Swoboda, developed the first biorhythm calculator, based on Fliess’s belief in 23- and 28-day cycles. Later Fliessians added a 33-day cycle representing human mental life.”

“Time and Unforeseen Occurrence”

Interest in biorhythms stems from a desire on the part of many people to make their lives predictable. However, the Scriptures (especially in the book of Ecclesiastes) make it plain that human life cannot be mapped out in advance like that. We read: “I returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all.”—Eccl. 9:11.

Many events come up unexpectedly. Such chance happenings defy efforts to predict favorable or unfavorable times to do things. Interesting in this regard is the further counsel from Ecclesiastes: “Send out your bread upon the surface of the waters, for in the course of many days you will find it again. Give a portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what calamity will occur on the earth.”—Eccl. 11:1, 2.

With few exceptions ‘calamities’ that befall people are something that they “do not know,” indeed cannot know, in advance. Fortunate circumstances, too, often arise suddenly, unexpectedly. Hence, the wisest way to use one’s time is to be a generous giver to a wide variety of people, ‘giving a portion to seven, or even to eight,’ so to speak. Whenever an unexpected calamity strikes, the generous giver finds that people reciprocate helpfully in ample measure.—Luke 6:38.

Formulas based on “mystic numbers,” such as those employed in calculating biorhythms, are devoid of scientific basis and fare badly when compared with known facts. More importantly, as a form of divination such calculations run counter to Biblical teaching. In view of what is set out above, biorhythms could never be a beneficial means of regulating your life.

She Knew What to Do

JUST how valuable is the material published in Awake!? A letter from one reader says, in part: “I wanted to write and express my thanks for the many articles in both the Awake! and The Watchtower. In December 1977, I had reason to be especially thankful. Both my legs were scalded badly in a home accident. Instantly remembering the information given about treating burns with cold water, I jumped into the bathtub and ran cold water over my legs. Later, at the hospital, the doctor told me that that action saved me from skin grafts. Sections of the burn were still either deep second-degree or shallow third-degree burns.

“Due to the information given in the Awake! [July 22, 1966, pages 12-16], a potentially very serious accident was minimized. Many persons remarked they would not have thought of using that treatment or they had never heard of doing it before.”

The Amazing Dolphin

By “Awake!” correspondent in Ivory Coast

IT WAS to be her first baby. Like thousands of other mothers-to-be, she anxiously sought out her own mother as the time approached for her to give birth. How beneficial it would be to have “mom” on the scene to help with the new arrival!

In families around the world, succeeding generations of mothers have shared those sentiments. But the family now under consideration is really quite different—all its members are dolphins!

Knowledge of such behavior among dolphins may be new to many, even though these creatures have been known to man since ancient times. In fact, the dolphin figured prominently in Greek legends. The famous Delphic oracle was named after a dolphin (Greek, delphis), the form of which Apollo was said to have taken. For a while dolphins were even associated with royalty, the crown prince of France being known as the dauphin (dolphin).

Stories about the dolphin’s playfulness and its willingness to save drowning humans have doubtless prompted a great deal of interest in this creature. Some American aviators, who were shot down in the Pacific, however, were not very pleased with the help some dolphins gave them. To their dismay, the dolphin rescuers pushed their life raft toward a Japanese-held island.

Nevertheless, until quite recently comparatively little was known about these amazing aquatic creatures. So we might take a closer look at them and see what we can learn.

Description and Family Life

Though outwardly resembling fish, dolphins are mammals. They nurse their young, breathe air and maintain a constant body temperature very similar to that of humans. Surprised? So were 13th-century Catholics when they were ordered to stop eating dolphins on “meatless” Fridays. Without a doubt, these creatures are not quite what they appear to be!

A close look at the dolphin reveals some interesting differences between it and fish. Search as you may, you will look in vain for gills. But if you are observant, you will spot a small hole high on the dolphin’s back, just behind the head. This is the animal’s single nostril; it does not use the prominent bill for breathing. The holes just behind the eyes open up to a pair of ears so sensitive that they have been described as of a perfection unequaled in the animal kingdom. Do you notice something different about the tail? That’s right, it is horizontal rather than vertical, as in the case of fish.

In every sense, the dolphin family is a large one, including such giant cousins as the 31-foot (9.5-meter) killer whale. Why, even the smaller bottlenose dolphin can measure 10 to 13 feet (3 to 4 meters) in length and can weigh close to 900 pounds (409 kilos)!

Family relations are not exactly ideal. The killer whale, for example, is likely to regard other relatives as a tasty snack! Still, in their separate groups, members of the dolphin family enjoy fine community living, with large adults assuming the dominant role.

In the watery world of the dolphin, such family living has many advantages. For instance, when a baby is born, it must surface rapidly to get its first breath. Since the “baby” is a third of its mother’s length, it is a good thing that dolphin midwives are present to lend a flipper. Yes, even “grandma” can get into the act.

But postnatal care does not end there. At birth, both the mother and the new baby are surrounded by other members of the community. They guard against any predatory sharks that might be attracted by the scent of blood. If a shark should put in an appearance, he has a better chance of living to an old age if he quickly swims away without bothering anybody. In a matter of minutes, sentinel dolphins can kill a shark by using their heads to butt the unwelcome intruder in the liver.

Each baby dolphin also has a “sitter.” Along with the mother, this “sitter” assures that the baby will receive constant care and supervision. Such care may include discipline when obedience is anything but instantaneous. Dolphin mothers have been known to deal with a rambunctious youngster by taking it between their jaws and then either submerging it or holding it out of the water for about 30 seconds. Usually one such “spanking” is sufficient to restore calm!

Wonderful Design

Something that has long intrigued researchers is the speed with which dolphins can swim. Calculations made as far back as 1938 indicated that the dolphin’s shape should permit speeds of up to only 12 miles (19 kilometers) per hour. But these creatures are known to swim in excess of three times that speed! How is such rapid movement, seemingly in defiance of hydrodynamic laws, possible? Is it largely a matter of strength?

According to some reports, dolphins are six times as strong as a man, pound for pound. But strength alone does not seem to be the prime factor in the dolphin’s swimming speed. The key lies in the creature’s ability to pass through the water so smoothly that very little drag results. This is attributable, not only to the manner of swimming, which eliminates any wake, but also to the dolphin’s remarkable skin. Resting on a multitude of small, elastic supports, the skin acts as a shock absorber. Also, a process known as “auto-obliteration” reduces surface friction. When scraped or cut, the skin produces a grease that flows into the wound, restoring the animal’s streamlined surface and preventing further hemorrhaging. One theory based on the dolphin’s rapid replacement of surface skin cells is that, when in a hurry, this creature “jumps out of its skin”—not literally, but by shedding skin cells to reduce the effect of drag!

As sea creatures, dolphins must often plunge to great depths to catch their food. They may spend more than five minutes at depths of 200 meters (656 feet) and then return rapidly to the surface to breathe. For humans, a like feat is impossible. This is not only because of the immense pressure encountered at such depths, but also because of the danger of getting the bends, often a fatal ailment caused by ambient pressure forcing nitrogen gas into a diver’s blood, making it “boil” if he surfaces too quickly. What makes the humanly impossible possible for the dolphin?

There are several factors. When diving, the dolphin’s heartbeat may slow down by as much as 50 percent, with only the brain, heart and other vital organs being supplied with oxygen. This, in turn, lessens the need for air. What is particularly interesting is that the dolphin can voluntarily empty its lungs of 90 percent of their contents, something impossible for humans. Any remaining nitrogen is then absorbed by an emulsion produced in the lungs and is eliminated harmlessly when the animal surfaces to breathe. As far as the crushing pressure is concerned, the dolphin’s rib cage is extremely elastic and, therefore, can be compressed in the depths without damage.

While humans cannot depend on seawater to support their body’s need for fluids, dolphins can. Why is this? Seawater contains 35 grams of salt per liter. This is too much salt for human kidneys to handle; they are capable of removing only 22 grams. Therefore, in the case of humans, drinking seawater just serves to increase thirst and hastens death by dehydration. But dolphins experience no such difficulty. Their kidneys, designed for an ocean environment, remove so much of the salt that they can drink seawater with impunity.

Another remarkable feature of the dolphin is its ability to stay warm in icy waters that, in only minutes, would kill even strong men. Why is this? The dolphin has the capacity to remain almost constantly in motion, even when resting. Lolling near the surface and apparently sleeping, this animal will occasionally propel its head out of the water with a powerful tail stroke. The action not only permits breathing, but also helps to generate needed heat. However, this valuable heat would be dissipated rapidly were it not for two other built-in properties—a three-quarter-inch (2-centimeter) layer of insulating fat and the ability of the dolphin to restrict blood flow to the skin surface.

…

Refine Search

Index Downloading...

Awake!, April 22, 1979