Self-Description: A ‘Dumb’ Game, but Words Abound

I am pleased that some readers have disagreed with my one-word definition of myself as “befuddled.”

My point was that I cannot cope with the high technology of our times. I admitted that I cannot work my videotape recorder, but I didn’t mention that I have never got money from an automated teller.

James T. Humberd offers a one-word definition of himself as “curious.” Humberd scorns the game proposed by reader Jay Heller as “dumb.” But he admits he has played it, and “most everybody agrees that in both its positive and its negative connotations, my word is accurate. My word? Curious .”

If I weren’t befuddled, I would like to be thought of as curious. As Humberd says, it has its positive and negative connotations. The positive definition is “eager to learn or know.” The negative, according to Webster, is “arousing attention or interest because unusual or strange; odd.”

Actually, I wouldn’t mind being thought curious by either definition. I don’t agree with Humberd that it is negative to be thought odd. In fact, to be curious for knowledge is odd. On second thought, I am not only befuddled, I am curious and I am odd.

Audrey Bishop of Agoura writes that the word for her is frivolous . Ms. Bishop notes that in listing words that defined me I listed one word twice: “Generous, thoughtful, humane, compassionate, generous.” Well, yes. I like to think of myself as twice generous. But perhaps that repetition only proved that I am befuddled.

Ms. Bishop’s reasons for thinking of herself as frivolous are curious. “While growing up, I was led to believe that creative , industrious and artistic were worthy goals. My teachers frowned upon my penchant for frivolity and I tried without too much success to overcome this apparent flaw in my character. Time after time, frivolity broke through like sunshine through the clouds.”

Ms. Bishop notes that the dictionary defines frivolous as “empty, silly, of no value.” She argues that it should have added, “to anyone else.” In fact, she says, “frivolity is food for the soul . . . sunlight on the water, gold flecks in the stream, the rainbow in the sky. . . .”

In suggesting one-word definitions of various celebrities I said that Jim Bakker might call himself a sinner and Mother Teresa might call herself a humanist.

In a letter to the editor (that’s more serious than a letter to me) Cynthia Tews writes: “It amazes me that so many journalists think humanism is a synonym for humanitarianism. Humanism is a religion that deifies man. For Jack Smith to describe Mother Teresa (as firm a believer in Almighty God as one could hope for) as a humanist is embarrassingly ironic.”

Claire Chambless of Anaheim documents the same point: “I just wonder,” she says, “if you might have meant to write humanitarian.”

She quotes her Webster’s Universal Dictionary:

“humanism . . . name given to a phase of the intellectual movement which characterizes the transition from the medieval to the modern period, that is, of the Renaissance, and which found the ideal system of culture in a return to the study of the classical poets and philosophers; an attitude of mind, system of thought, which concentrates specifically upon human interests and the mind of man, rather than upon the external world of nature, or upon religious ideals.”

On the contrary, she notes, humanitarian is defined as “devotion to humanity; one who seeks to promote the welfare of humanity, chiefly by attempting to reduce pain and suffering. . . .”

“Maybe just this one time,” she concludes, “you were indeed befuddled.”

Indeed. Mother Teresa is a humanitarian. I am a humanist.

I am not satisfied, though, with the definition offered by Tews. She says “humanism is a religion that deifies man.” Humanism is not a religion. It is the disavowal of religion. It deifies no one. It holds that mankind must solve its own problems.

Webster’s New World (the dictionary used by The Times) defines humanism as “any system of thought or action based on the nature, interests, and ideals of man; a modern, nontheistic, rationalist movement that holds that man is capable of self-fulfillment, ethical conduct, etc., without recourse to supernaturalism. . . .”

I am not so befuddled as to deny Mother Teresa her faith, or to make light of her work.

However, it occurs to me that only humanists will prevail in the Persian Gulf. Saddam Hussein claims that God is on his side. George Bush claims that God is on our side. In World War I, German soldiers wore belt buckles that said “Gott mit uns.” (“God with us.”) As it turned out, God was not with them, though. He permitted the death of thousands, on both sides.

I am still befuddled.