 
                         20051217.00

     The seven deadly sins.  Gnothe seauton, know thyself, so
what is more apposite to my concerns!  Your adducing it, a
gesture of true understanding of my problems, the knot in
which the diverse threads of my thoughs converge.

     The seven deadly sins.  Apposite also as an antidote,
emetic, Gegengift to the self-righteous Kierkegaardian
exhibitionism which parades through the streets shouting,
look at me, look at me, I am so righteous I can afford to
claim to be in the wrong before god.

     The seven deadly sins.  With the seven sins you get down
to brass tacks.  How wrong, in what way? And as for "deadly",
what's wrong with being dead? At least for the lugubrious
17th century authors of Schemelli's Gesangbuch (Hymnal) whose
songs Bach turned into music, being dead, or as one baroque
extravaganza would have it, "mit Jesu zu Bette gehen" (going
to bed with Jesus) is the ultimate purpose of life.

     *5. *  Mit dir will ich zu Bette gehen,
     dir will ich mich befehlen,
     du wirst, mein Schutzherr, auf mich sehn
     zum Besten meiner Seelen.
     Ich f"urchte keine Not,
     ja selber nicht den Tod;
     denn wer mit Jesus schlafen geht,
     mit Freunden wieder aufersteht.

     *5. *  With you I want to go to bed
     to you I will entrust me,
     you, my protector, look on me
     to my soul's advantage.
     I fear no need,
     not even death,
     for whoso goes to sleep with Jesus
     is resurrected in the company of friends.

              * * * * *


     In thinking about ethics in a formal way, I have
concluded that it has two branches: a) an accounting of what
ought to be, but, b) in my mind perhaps even more important,
an accounting of what is. And what is in turn has two twigs:
i) what people actually do, and ii) what they they pretend to
themselves they ought to do. What is so eminently accessible
to the author on Ethics, and what is so consistently ignored,
is recorded law, both secural and ecclesiastical, both both
common and statutory law.  I am appreciative of your drawing
my attention to the seven deadly sins as yet another bench
mark, - or is it seven bench marks? - for what men - and
women, boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen, claim they ought
not to be doing, - while doing it all the time.

     The provenance will be significant. What monk in what
monastery thought this up, figured this out. What committee
or council passed on it? When and under what circumstances,
if ever were attempts made to implement seven sins
legislation and in what court room?

     Seems intersting and important to me to look at these
seven deadly sins closely, to see how they, like costumes for
a masquerade will become me, costumes that I adjust to fit my
spirit, as I try them on seriatim.  The reference to flesh is
nonsense.  Flesh is dumb and knows no sin.  Pride, Anger,
Envy, Lust, Sloth, Gluttony, Avarice, Sleep: a remarkable
summary of the spiritual and physical necessities of my
existence.  Can anyone, with a straight face, claim to live
without them?  Call Aristotle to the rescue. It is not that
Pride, Anger, Envy, Lust, Sloth, Gluttony, Avarice, Sleep are
inherently evil; they are inherently necessary; and it is
only the excess - or the deficiency - of any one of them that
is to be impugned. Obviously the catalogue that stigmatizes
them as deadly, reflects the invidious exaggeration of the
moralist who tries to persuade us to pretend to be Puritans.
What is essential is just the right quantity, the right
degree of Pride, Anger, Envy, Lust, Sloth, Gluttony, Avarice,
Sleep.  Agreed that too much is harmful, too little is just
as deadly.


                      * * * * *
Copyright 2005, Ernst Jochen Meyer
