I think his name was Lukas. It was almost fifty years ago.
He is the only genuinely ambidextrous person I have known. He was neither left-handed, nor right-handed. He was both. Maybe neither.
I watched him take notes in a meeting. Sometimes he wrote with his right hand, from left-to-right on the paper. Sometimes he wrote left-handed, from right to left, tilting the notepad the other way. His secretary told me she had to learn to read script both ways, sometimes on alternate lines.
Our newest grandson, whose name is Jao, is just a bit over a year old. We have wondered whether he will be left- or right-handed. We have not wondered, as seriously, whether he will be ambidextrous, because we assume he will be left or right.
Is it plant or animal? Is it male or female? Was that a hit or a miss? Is that particle here or there? Is that idea right or wrong?
I used to belong to a church that defined itself theologically; by its formal beliefs. Some churches define themselves by their ancestry; some by their behavior; some by this or that practice; some by what they won't eat, or how the men tend their beards, or their hair. We were theological, so we tended to how we stated what we believed. It made us uneasy to say it so baldly, but we thought we would get to heaven because of what we believed, far more than by how we behaved.
We seem to have a tendency to either/or-ness. Abortion is wrong. Life is good. Death is bad. Or is it good, sometimes? Eating meat is good. Eating meat is awful. Catholics are going to heaven, and Muslims are going to Saudi Arabia. Or are the Catholics going to Saudi Arabia? Wouldn't that be hell? Nuclear power is bad. Burning coal is bad. Is burning wood in town bad, too?
Lukas was not right-handed. Lukas was not left-handed. He was both-handed. It worked precisely as well, either way. Some of us are very close to neither-handed: it does not work very well either way. If you have ever played baseball, you will know what that means. I spent some time, once, trying to take off from my right foot and shooting a basketball with my left hand. I am definitely right-handed, except with a shovel: I am not sure which is which.
Most ethical issues are not simply right or wrong. The people who wrote most of our texts on ethics were not ambidextrous. They were right, or wrong. You shall not kill (except maybe in a war, or while protecting your kids). You shall not steal (except maybe if you are being starved to death). You shall not lie (unless telling the truth would be worse). You shall not, you shall not, you shall not. Unless. Unless. Unless. Unless.
To be moral, one has to stop thinking that everyone is either right-handed, or left-handed. One has to be nuanced to be moral. There are no simple absolutes one can chisel into stone, unless it is the non-specific encouragement to be good, or kind; that kind of abstract thing. And then the hard work begins: what exactly should we do?
He is the only genuinely ambidextrous person I have known. He was neither left-handed, nor right-handed. He was both. Maybe neither.
I watched him take notes in a meeting. Sometimes he wrote with his right hand, from left-to-right on the paper. Sometimes he wrote left-handed, from right to left, tilting the notepad the other way. His secretary told me she had to learn to read script both ways, sometimes on alternate lines.
Our newest grandson, whose name is Jao, is just a bit over a year old. We have wondered whether he will be left- or right-handed. We have not wondered, as seriously, whether he will be ambidextrous, because we assume he will be left or right.
Is it plant or animal? Is it male or female? Was that a hit or a miss? Is that particle here or there? Is that idea right or wrong?
I used to belong to a church that defined itself theologically; by its formal beliefs. Some churches define themselves by their ancestry; some by their behavior; some by this or that practice; some by what they won't eat, or how the men tend their beards, or their hair. We were theological, so we tended to how we stated what we believed. It made us uneasy to say it so baldly, but we thought we would get to heaven because of what we believed, far more than by how we behaved.
We seem to have a tendency to either/or-ness. Abortion is wrong. Life is good. Death is bad. Or is it good, sometimes? Eating meat is good. Eating meat is awful. Catholics are going to heaven, and Muslims are going to Saudi Arabia. Or are the Catholics going to Saudi Arabia? Wouldn't that be hell? Nuclear power is bad. Burning coal is bad. Is burning wood in town bad, too?
Lukas was not right-handed. Lukas was not left-handed. He was both-handed. It worked precisely as well, either way. Some of us are very close to neither-handed: it does not work very well either way. If you have ever played baseball, you will know what that means. I spent some time, once, trying to take off from my right foot and shooting a basketball with my left hand. I am definitely right-handed, except with a shovel: I am not sure which is which.
Most ethical issues are not simply right or wrong. The people who wrote most of our texts on ethics were not ambidextrous. They were right, or wrong. You shall not kill (except maybe in a war, or while protecting your kids). You shall not steal (except maybe if you are being starved to death). You shall not lie (unless telling the truth would be worse). You shall not, you shall not, you shall not. Unless. Unless. Unless. Unless.
To be moral, one has to stop thinking that everyone is either right-handed, or left-handed. One has to be nuanced to be moral. There are no simple absolutes one can chisel into stone, unless it is the non-specific encouragement to be good, or kind; that kind of abstract thing. And then the hard work begins: what exactly should we do?
Comments
Post a Comment