Descartes to Plato to JT

The salon was amazing last night! Here's the scene: After driving to Dallas in frightening traffic, you end up in the arts and cultural district of the big city. This means that in the heart of tall, beautifully lit buildings - night is gorgeous in Dallas - sculpture gardens, twinkle lights, small boutique type stores, and wineries begin to materialize around you. One immediately feels like she should use correct grammar, hold a glass of chardonnay, and utter phrases like, "Yes, but invariably Descartes's Aristotelian way of thinking would have you believe that the enlightenment... "Je pense, donc je suis" and what not...and let's also remember Newton...".

OK, so I am a huge nerd, but even if I wanted to say something hoity-toity, what comes out is really something like, "Ooooh. Pretty!"

Once in the Dallas Institute, everyone is invited to partake in a variety of wines, whiskeys, and brandies after which you may make a sweep (or in my case, a pillage) past the snack table, usually adorned with all kinds of fancy finger-foods, most of which you are encouraged to spread on a cracker. People mingle. They talk about the horrendous traffic, shake hands and meet new friends, and discuss the fact that they know Dr. L wants them to sit in the inner circle, but that they'd rather sit outside of the spotlight.

Wonderful Dr. L eventually invites everyone to join him in the "living room" of the Institute. This literally is a large, cozy common room where chairs are set up in a huge circle that can accommodate 25 people or so, and there are chairs behind this inner circle if there are more than 25 attending the salon (which is ALWAYS the case). The inner circle is considered the hot seat. In other words, if you signed up to be at the salon (as opposed to just walking in), you are supposed to sit in the inner circle and are expected to be more proactive in the discussion than those who sit behind the circle.

Dr. L, as usual, senses my plan to wait until the last second to join everyone in the common room so that I can take a seat in the wings and always says, "Ginger, you'll be sitting in the inner circle tonight, won't you?" To which I sheepishly reply, "Yes, Dr. L,"eyes cast down to the floor. (Dang-it!)

We assemble. Dr. L reminds us about the salon guidelines:
1. A salon is a venue for conversation rather than argument or debate.
*The best salons are marked more by ideas than by opinions.
2. Conversation consists of both listening and speaking.
3. There is a difference between casual and serious listening an speaking.
4. Every remark made should be taken seriously. Most so-called "dumb" questions or comments are really honest inquiry.
5. One doesn't have to be staid or colorless in conversation, but one should try to say thoughtful things. Personal style should not mask a thoughtless utterance.
6. If one hears one's own voice two times consecutively, one should probably not speak again for a while.

Then we dive into the topics. The people who participate in the salon represent all walks of life. I think Rich and I are usually the youngest in the room. Most people there are business men and women. Some are teachers. Some are students. Some are retired. Some are not from the US. We are not all the same race, and many of us have different belief systems (in other words, the salon is not a place that only represents the stereotypical white Southern Baptist Texan), and this means that there are a variety of opinions and suggestions which is MARVELOUS. Also, despite (or maybe because) of our differences, the salon feels very familial. People are incredibly edifying to each other; they actually take time to consider all opinions and they value all input. Giving one's opinion to a large room of strangers requires that 25-35 people in the room become vulnerable to each other, which, interestingly enough, helps to create that familial bond.

After the discussion, people mill around some more and talk, gesturing with half empty wine and brandy glasses, and they depart with well wishes and pats on the back, as friends do.

The more salons I attend the more comfortable I am in the inner circle. I know that even if I simply sit and absorb the conversation, I am maturing mentally and spiritually.

The salon is good for my soul.

I do want to conclude this entry with some thoughts/ideas from last night's salon. Feel free to comment:
1. Is the West's privileging of reason over emotion a prejudice?
* This was a difficult one because it required a yes or no answer.
* We had great difficulty defining reason and discussed that possibly the individual is the balance between reason and emotion. (Plato's charioteer and the two horses)
* We wondered if the ability to reason took away from the emotion. We wondered which came first reason or emotion (Do we make decisions out of emotion first, and then use reason to justify them? Do we make reason-based decisions which then define our emotions?)
* When we say emotion, do we mean passion? What's the difference?
* Can choice be emotional?
* Is reason scientific?
* Transcendence requires both reason AND emotion.
* Is reason intelligence?
* What does this have to do with the West? Is the statement true; do we PRIVILEGE reason over emotion? How is that a prejudice?
* We (the US) wanted to be the first to the moon. This is a decision that was qualified rationally and scientifically, but really didn't we just want to beat the Russians to it, an extremely emotional argument?
2. "In the long term secularization holds more dangers for the human race than religious fanaticism." - Historian Paul Johnson. What are the dangers of secularization?
* Define secularization: Is it the opposite of a religion base in which one's behavior is conducted according to reason? Generally, religion is a catalyst for morals. People are more readily able to accept rules in a religious circumstance (especially if God says this is right and this is wrong). A secular society does not have that catalyst/tool, therefore it may be more difficult to set rules.
* Does secularization lose the value in human life?
* Does religion have something that secularization does not?
* What about the sacred? (the sacred transcends doctrine or religion; ie. The Native Americans knew the sacred just as much as a devout Catholic, Muslim, or Buddhist does) .
* In fanaticism, there is no sense of moderation. Fanaticism is the antithesis of the sacred.
* The danger is that religious fanaticism creates an "us v. them" mentality, but what are the benefits of this?
* Secular=non-threatening
Religious= turn or burn type threat
* Moral values are not dependent upon religion.
* Is religion secular control?
3. Why, in fact, did Justin Timberlake choose to bring sexy back now? From whence did he have to bring it?