‘No, Really, How ARE You?

’
JULY 4, 2018 ~ JUSTIN ~ EDIT"‘NO, REALLY, HOW ARE YOU?’"

Around the world, conventional greetings and farewells

normally include wishes for good health, and often imply that
health and all good things come from above. Today, few people
know that the word “goodbye” is a shortened form of “God be
with ye”, from Elizabethan times. This connection is easier to
see in countries whose language is based on Latin
– Adio, Adios, Adeus, Adieu (‘to God”) in Italy, Spain, Portugal and
France, respectively – because Roman Catholicism greatly
influenced those languages. That’s not to suggest that leave-
taking in those places expresses any more conscious religious
feelings today than Goodbye does for English speakers;
these expressions are all conventional formalities.
“Hello. How are you?” has no obvious connection to a loving
thought, let alone anything spiritual, but it does help maintain
the conventions of polite society – something that’s getting
rarer. The expected answer to “How are you?” is “Fine, thank
you” – implying that the question is a kindness. Maybe it was at
some time. But a serious or honest answer is not expected. And
changing the usual pattern would be the mark of someone who
is either a stranger to the language, or is trying to be rude.
Suppose you greeted a casual acquaintance, “Hello. How are
you?” and she answered, “Why do you ask! Do you really want to
know?” That’s not an appropriate response. Your reaction
would be negative – discomfort, embarrassment, or annoyance.
Asking seriously after a person’s well-being assumes some
intimacy, and the right setting.
Openly religious societies do still name God directly in their
greetings and farewells. In Islam, “I’ll see you later” is answered
with “If God wills it”, and “How are you?” brings “Thanks be to
God!” Fundamentalist Christians may insert a ‘”God bless you”
into any greeting or conversation. But in mainstream America,
“Thank God” seldom has any religious meaning.

It isn’t only greetings and farewells that involve wishes for

health, and often references to the spirit world too. From the
beginning of civilization, speech in all kind of ceremonies,
celebrations and social get-togethers has included thanks to the
gods for their good gifts, and invoked their blessings on the
group’s activities, be they hunting or crop growing, seeking
fertility and health, or fighting enemies. Considering how
serious and vital these rituals of gratitude are, it seems strange
that most of them also include strong drinks, and mind-altering
substances. The drinks – libations – are not only offered to the
gods; they are imbibed by the participants too. This has
continued from the dawn of civilization into modern times,
perhaps with gradually less attention to the libations and more
to the imbibing.
“Libation” means ‘pouring out’. Being a gift to (and from) the
gods, something considered particularly vital or pleasing must
be chosen, including blood or milk or even water; but in most of
the world libations have been alcoholic, and still are. This is
surely because alcohol can bring so much enjoyment, and has
been highly valued in all civilizations. The earliest evidence of its
use is the production of rice wine in China, 9000 years ago! (See
the recent National Geographicarticle by Andrew Curry, “Our
9,000-Year Love Affair with Booze“.)
Raising a glass to honor, celebrate, thank, or wish good health to
someone – what we today call “toasting” – has a fascinating
history, some of which dealt with dark, and sinister
events. Today there are even toastmasters’ associations to help
do it right. Those of us used to the casual bar scene suppose
there’s no need for that, but such is a low-class view, historically
speaking. The traditions come from upper class manners,
especially rulers. But for my purposes – i.e., looking for
the spirit of the tradition – a few points stand out.
Here is Zeus holding a drinking bowl (crater) being filled by his
cup-bearer Ganymede from a pitcher of wine. Zeus will take a
drink, and pass the crater for his Olympic guests to share.
To raise a glass originally drew attention to the fact that the one
making the
toast drank
from the same
source offered
to all those
present. It’s a
group drink, not
an individual
serving. This
gesture increases the spirit of sociability, but that’s not the only
reason for it in earthly cultures. Persian, Greek, Roman and
other royal societies (but presumably not the immortal
Olympians), knew there was always a risk that some sinister
agent had poisoned the cup – an unexpected accompaniment to
the joy of drinking. (Shakespeare’s Hamlet presents this dark
fact in dramatic form, while Danny Kaye’s film The Court
Jester has a comic scene about it.) Even in today’s non-noble
democratic society, we’re all aware that there are risks inherent
in that first drink, but relating to the poisonous effects of excess.
By the time of Plato, Greeks were expected to ‘pour out’ the first
taste of a bowl
as a ‘toast’, in
remembrance
of those in the
underworld
(Hades) who
had fallen, and
to honor the
gods. The
word toast in
this situation derives from Roman times, when a few crumbs of
toasted bread were added to wine, to lessen its acidity and
enhance its flavor. So from being an improvement of the drink,
the toast came to mean the drink itself, and all the cheer and
ceremony that goes with it, up to the present.

Drinking parties were common among Plato’s contemporaries

too, as illustrated in his dialogue Symposium, which literally
means “together-drinking”. If the guests controlled their
drinking properly, and took it slowly (helped by diluting with
water the large pottery jar – amphora – holding the evening’s
supply), it could open their hearts, encourage trust and bring
fellowship. Moreover, Socrates, being a most spirit-oriented
man, discussed the deeper blessings of Dionysos – the demi-god
of wine (being born of Zeus by a mortal mother) – namely, the
ways he could inspire men and women to rise above their selfish
desires and seek what is eternal and truly good.

It seems ironic
that Socrates,
at the moment
of death, asked
the
executioner
who handed
him the poison
hemlock cup,
if he might
‘pour out’ a
little. But his
wish to make that traditional gesture signaled both his gratitude
to the gods for this painless death, and his confidence for a
future in “a better place”. You see this is Jacques-Louis David’s
famous 1787 painting of the scene.

‘Pouring out’, as well as celebrating with wine also belong to the

Abrahamic religions of the Middle East. Jewish Passover and
Christian Easter services are celebrated with a communal cup.
At the Last Supper, Jesus says the wine is his blood – a new
covenant – which is ‘poured out’ for many, to put away their sins
(Matt 26:28).
It’s true that orthodox Muslim societies, such as Saudi Arabia
and Iran forbid making or consuming alcohol, which they claim
proves their cultural superiority. I would note that the rule is
widely ignored. More significant, though, is that the early Qu’ur-
anic verses originally permitted drinking in moderation, but the
Hadith (reported sayings of Prophet) later forbade all alcohol,
perhaps because people were unwilling to control their
drinking. (See Surahs 2:219, 4:43 and 5:90-91)

The Latin-based countries mentioned earlier toast with wishes

for health – what English speakers call ‘salutations’ – ‘Salute!’,
‘Salud!’, ‘Saude!’ and ‘Sante!’ Interestingly, the same health
meaning attaches to a military salute, which is about as formal
as most Americans ever get. It may at first seem strange to
connect military activity with wishes for health, because war is
inherently unhealthy. But a nation’s ultimate existence
sometimes depends on being protected from conquering
enemies, which is primary to any people’s health. Wishing good
health to those charged with carrying out this mission is
perfectly appropriate, even though many may die or be injured.
I believe most of the formalities spoken of here, which we
observe and partake of, are in some way linked to wishes for
health, whether in greetings and leave-taking, or salutations, or
celebrations of personal or group advancement, or life stages.
This is expecially true when the formalities include drinking. I
also believe the majority of such formalities are quite empty of
thought about what true health means, how to achieve it, and
where it ultimately comes from.

I’d like to believe these habitual formalities had a beginning, in

some long-gone culture, when social relations were heartfelt
and taken seriously, with good will and understanding – a
culture to which we might one day return. This idealistic feeling
comes from a personal belief that real health –
i.e. spiritual health – is the ultimate purpose of the Creator’s
divine providence, for every human being, including those who
are made ill by their own foolish choices.
In John’s apocalyptic vision, the holy city, a “new Jerusalem” was
seen coming down from heaven.

In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river,
was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits,
and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree
were for the healing of the nations. (Revelation 22:2)
Health and wellness are primary goods, in all nations, in every
society, however poor or allegedly well developed. But in the
latter – especially in our country today – they are no longer
considered a right for everyone. Increasingly those in the lower
classes, whose health is already at risk for many reasons, receive
less and less health care. Apparently forgotten are the rights
with which, as the Founders claimed, God has endowed all
humans. “Life” is the first named of those rights, without which
the rest become meaningless. By extension, anything that
sickens, poisons or shortens life is also a violation of this right.

Granted, these rights don’t guarantee that the state will keep
every citizen alive and healthy. Rather, life and health are not to
be taken away intentionally by the state, without due process of
law, and certainly not by the few financiers who have turned all
aspects of healthcare into debt creation, in their steady and
successful efforts, over the past 50 years, to redistribute wealth
upward to the few who own the debt. This “financial
engineering” harms the economic health of the real economy,
and puts the most creative minds to the service of the FIRE
sector (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate), which turns what
should be service industries into forces that control every aspect
of the economy in unhealthy ways.
In healthcare as business, financialization brings the greatest
loss of life and health to those already disadvantaged. This is not
just, nor is it some unfortunate accident of the ‘natural laws of
economics’, as alleged by those benefitting the most. There are
no such natural laws; these outcomes result from intentional
policies on the part of politicians and the financiers they
support. A scholarly and readable recent book on these issues is
Elisabeth Rosenthal, An American Sickness – How Healthcare
Became Big Business and How You Can Take It Back (2017). A
lengthy sampling, including 10 “Economic Rules of the
Dysfunctional Medical Market” can be seen here.
Understanding these economic and political facts is
discouraging, but needed, to find pragmatic cures. However, let
me reemphasize the point of this blogpost. It’s not primarily to
consider and learn what is pragmatic, but rather to reconsider
and possibly relearn the spirit and spirituality of health. The
next time we’re toasting with friends, let’s ask someone we care
about, “No, Really; How ARE you?” It might change both of us for
the better.