Tuesday - The Duality of Prodigality.

Last Thursday as Ken, Kirsten, Ryan and I were standing in the rain talking about prodigality - Ken brought up the fact that he prefers to consider this story to be more about the prodigal father than the prodigal son. He immediately piqued my interest.

As I think about it now, I think the notion of prodigality applies to both parties involved (no pun intended). I am...really quite perplexed when I think about how prodigality spent in seemingly identical ways, albeit through completely contrary intents, manages to result in a feast. A lavish party for someone who for all logical reasons does not deserve it, given by someone who for all logical reasons need not do so. The son, as the general story goes, takes all he is given and squanders it in not-so-responsible ways. The father, as the general story goes, takes all he has and gives it away (again) as only a truly grateful person can. The older son seems to be the only person exercising any moderation at all. And he is the one who seems to get the short end of the stick in terms of offering whatever morals we're supposed to derive from this parable.

How is it that an all-out expenditure of the shit we own leaves one person wholly dejected and the other wholly rich?

This is where I would generally look to some theoretically brilliant philosopher for insight, but I got nothing.

I am reluctant, or maybe just unwilling, to chalk it up to a reconceptualization of "rich."

[So evidently, CTRL+S publishes your text as opposed to saving it. Riddle me that. Google should really change that shortcut. Or maybe I should stop using them. Regardless, my apologies to those who read this prematurely and felt that I just left my thoughts incomplete.]

I don't think it is enough to just say something along the lines of "well, the father is rich because he has his son back again" or "well, the son is poor because he was chasing after stuff that doesn't really amount to anything." Applying this parable to an explanation for why material gain is vanity is, in my opinion, too shallow. It misses the complex duality of this parable. Father and son both spent their stuff in equally prodigious ways. If the son is going to get docked for chasing after wind, the father too should lose points for throwing a lavish party. Any sort of explanation that appeals to personal intent seems to be found wanting because convincing yourself that you're spending for "good" does not actually exclude the fact that you are indeed spending.

But somehow, it really does work out to be that way. The son exercises prodigality and is unsatisfied. The father exercises prodigality and gains everything.

I don't get it.


Pax.