As noted elsewhere in these Pages, human beings decide on the prevailing context of their approach to everything acceptable to themselves, perhaps to others. That context is identified as a compound, made up of various elements that play an important role in forming the person. If well cast, the context is going to contribute to forming well the person and likely forming other individuals, especially family members. It may be for good or ill – or in-between in a kind (feeling) of neutrality. My prevailing life context is dominated by a spiritual orientation (faith and prayer without ceasing); by an intellectual orientation (search for evidence and meaning); by moderation (choices for balance in life); by service (aiding others as ministry to God); by a prevailing motivation (loving and serving); and by communication (including joy of affirmation). It takes a lifetime to perfect that contextual orientation. The objective is to gain a good (righteous) life and to leave a human legacy of life-meaning related to God and values that he advocates.
I have met persons who make their first orientation to be physical (perhaps to be and do anything that will make them effective athletes); to be professional (perhaps to be an officer of a business or community); to be a celebrity (perhaps to be found among persons of temporary popular interest); to be private (perhaps to escape to some hermitage); and, so the stories may be formed in the various subdivisions of major areas. I have worked and sometimes counseled with persons taken almost entirely with an element of formation rather than a compound that makes a life worth living, comfortable to conclusions that serve the ideals of life. In the formation of our lives we develop a contextual habit that defines us, even if many do not try to find clear definition. If the matter were better understood, there would be fewer divorces, failures in life, mix-ups in general life activity, and general functioning as decent persons, whether Christian or pagan, educated or uneducated, and the story can be played out related to ages, races, genders, or whatever.
Recognizing the general middle-course (balance) in society early in the twentieth century, the founder of the Reader’s Digest designed a magazine that served the decency of life for persons who were the live-and- let-live genre of society. It was a raging success. (A study showed the Digest to be one of the favorites of collegians.) The context of the magazine was to offer some of the best articles in current publications and spice it all with items related to humor. There was an underlying context that it had to be interesting to the ordinary reader, that there was lightness wherever it could be fitted in, and that it had value to all persons both in spiritual and material accents. The articles touched the main items in the news and everyday life. They were relatively short as articles go, and useful especially to the ordinary citizen giving little attention to the fierce issues of nations and people, of science and religion, and the like, but also not evading any other everyday matters of life. Usually there was a book miniature in closing, often better than the book in that it removed some of the details not necessary to catching the force of the author’s purpose. There was a section of humor with language, persons in military uniform, even a patter on language in speech. A copy from twenty years ago to this writing included: Trick photography: focus pocus; Seed catalogue: kernel journal; Band uniform: toot suit; Friendly dog: smoochie poochie. A fellow on Safari mentioned a: Rhinoceros trotting like a dainty battleship. There was space enough after a two paged article on excellence to include two short paragraphs of real experience cast in a humorous context: The New Yorker in Arizona was asked, after miles of driving past deserts sands and cacti, what she thought of Arizona answered: I’m impressed. I never seen so much of nothing so well fenced. (Language pictures) At this writing, Reader’s Digest continues as an incorporation but not with millions of persons who once read it monthly and talked about its articles and humor. What happened? The magazine dropped many reviews and hired its own reporters, left off some of what some critics called: pablum for society, and changed the original vision for it. There is in the general society a desire to-live-and-let-live that ought to be addressed in the media that reflects not only the problems but the sense of good will and decency *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020