WHAT IS IT YOU PROFESS?

Overemphasis on logic, adversarial binaries, rule of law, dated precedent has cost us the core of professionalism as well as a steady erosion of democracy.  

When I was at the U of Chicago Div School ('78-'82) the just-previous dean had recently succeeded in driving out what he called "phenomenology" because it eliminated the supernatural dimension of religion, or so he thought.  This has happened repeatedly over history.  Whatever religion is in power insists on a supernatural dimension and claims they have the only access to it.  Undemocratic as it may be, this is powerful.  But the "phenomenological" always sneaks back, often with a new name.  This time it is called embodiment cognizance.

That dean left since the Div School centers on comparative religion and history of religion.  Many of these studied entities DO claim supernatural access but not all,  Some don't divide the world simply as "super" versus "natural."  More rarely some experts did not logically and rationally describe the systems, but went to experience them.

The mantra at the U of C is "what is your method?"  The way you get to the conclusion often dictates what that conclusion IS.  Sometimes there are as many conclusions to a discussion as there are methods.  I am interested in the excluding device of the uber-rational, math-like, and the impact on professions over the centuries.  In the beginning a person who "professed" was one who had accepted the responsibility of high impact on human lives, thereby earning trust and status that was enforced by peers.  Today these people are seen as cold and greedy exploiters who claim exemption to responsibility:  doctors, judges, theologians and -- of course -- professors.

I argue that the natural corrective to the callous and and the unjust is the development and protection of the "animal" unstudied compassion for sentient beings -- maybe even the ability to connect with the world, both rock and landscape.  The great lesson of Solomon and the baby claimed by two mothers is that law *ownership" versus justice "truth" must be resolved by love.  Neither med school nor law school nor seminary is able to teach this, but it can be kindled there.

I would argue that it mostly isn't.  Two monitoring devices push love out of the professions.  One is the monetizing, listing, mathematical ways that the present law proceeds, buttressed by insurance and stigma.  The other is the reality-filtering nature of what journalism has become, always looking to please the publisher who believes he or she knows what will sell, usually something sensational.  Journalism used to be a profession.  Now it is the manicurist who can afford good presentation.

The end?  Look at our Supreme Court where one man professes to love only beer or the President who thinks we are toys to be manipulated.  The way back?  We begin with stories and memory.  And science, laughing, brings us embodied sentience, a once lost majority of human life that our technology ironically reveals once again.