Don't

Osmose

Osmose - to gradually or unconsciously assimilate some principle or object;


Have you ever stopped to consider how many of your deeply held "beliefs" are not actually yours? Most of what we "believe" comes from one of two sources. The first and most prevalent is childhood. The old "Nurture" accounts for what most people think and believe about most everything. Indeed, the apple or in this case the moral and ethical center, does not fall far from the parental tree.


The second most common source of your belief system comes from the same source but involves a profound rejection of it; we often refer to this as the generational gap or simply being a teenager. In either case radical shifts in what we believe seldom take place much beyond our teenage years.


However, it is possible to change. One common adult period of ethical readjustment involves being the parent of one or more teenagers who are themselves inspecting and dissecting your professed beliefs. At times the teen years are as life changing for the parents as they are for the young adults.


But the point of the Borg Cube is to emphasize that many of our cherished beliefs have been gained through a process of slow accumulation. We take on the moral and ethical tenets of those around us. Society, peer groups, church, television, motion pictures, assorted role models, even advertising can shape your moral compass.


The obvious question at some point is: "Are your most embedded beliefs really yours?" Or did you just osmose them from your environment? Perhaps the direction of this influence is the other way around, the environment osmosed you. Come to think about it, you should probably come to think about it. Which may lead you to several uncomfortable conclusions, including:

"the unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates

Bertrand Russell - In His Own Words

Life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim. --Bertrand Russell

I ran across this Bertrand Russell quotation the other day and was a bit taken aback. Cynical was not really his style. Critical yes, but not cynical. I realized this would be my second Russell quote in as many months, which led me to today's litany of quotes from the esteemed philosopher, mathematician and social commentator.

•

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - also B. Russell

I was with him right up until the last line. I too think that we tend to reject any evidence that goes against our engrained belief system and accept all types of nonsense that supports what we already think we know to be true, factual or real. I don't quite see how he got to the origin of myths with this. Besides the best quote on that subject is: "History becomes legend, legend becomes myth."

•

All movements go too far. - B. Russell

My favorite BR quote even though when I was younger I completely disagreed with its main point. "Our" movement after all was going to change the world.

•

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. --

Bertrand Russell

I phrase it a bit differently - I have one big prejudice, I abhor voluntary stupidity.

•

In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted. -B. Russell

One of the hallmark slogans of the sixties - 'Question Authority' became the more universal - 'Question Everything.' Bertrand and I would add - 'Question Yourself.'

•

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. -Bertrand Russell

While I wholeheartedly endorse the sentiment, the point needs to be pushed further. Intelligence is spoken of in the bible, but god is credited with having an exclusive.

--
photograph from National Geographic

Bumperstickers to Explain It All

There's a difference between a philosophy and a bumpersticker. -- Charles M. Schulz

Just a bit of a metaphysical pondering on the back end of the classic American motorcar. I was prompted to explore the variety of philosophical bumperstickers by this next one I saw the other day in of all places - the People's Republic of Berkeley.

This prompted an ugly scene, I saw the car parked in the lot of the Berkeley Whole Foods. Angered lefties had thrown tofu and sprouts all over the vehicle. Will vegan violence never end?

I just like this one, the meaning escapes me.

This one for my friends who never quite "got" buddhism.

for my platonic friends

(apologies for all the white space, the blogger software and I are having a disagreement; I lost)

no need to elaborate

Friedrich really?!

I just couldn't resist.

and this is simply my favorite bumper sticker ever

Thinking Outside Several Boxes

“We should stay on the lookout for marginalized people — people whom we still instinctively think of as ‘they’ rather than ‘us.’” Indeed, we should “keep trying to expand our sense of ‘us’ as far as we can.” -Richard Rorty 


The quote above comes from a New York Times article by Stanley Fish. NYT readers already know Dr. Fish and others may wish (or not) to read the article. I warn only that he is an academic and tends to write about as clearly as academics can, which means semi-dense.


The point of the Rorty quote is obvious, we should strive to include more people in the "us" that we consider our us, our family, our race, creed, humankind. But his article starts not with a conflict between human and human but with Dorothy picking an apple off an Ozian tree.


The tree protests: "Well how would you like for someone to come along a pick something off of you?"


And therein yet another opportunity to overuse the line: "We're not in Kansas anymore."


The point is, OK one of the points is, that we think in categories and those boxes, those segments of reality are constructed by our society, by the way we was raised up. On the nature/nurture scale, this one is way over on the nurture side. Momma done taught us how to think. Sure we can grow and change but big swings in our view of reality are few and far between. As Fish says: 


"Wholesale conversions like Paul's on the road to Damascus do occur, but more often a change will affect only a small corner of one's conceptual universe."


So don't expect a lightening strike to change your olde friend's views on women or politics anytime soon. Which brings me to point number two for today. I have a friend who is in lock-step with everything the republicans are doing over the debt ceiling right now. In fact, he thinks they are being too lenient. His is 104% anti-Obama and would let the country default, if that's what it takes to get rid of Barack.


I, as you may remember, do not agree with the republicans; on the other hand, I completely disagree with the democrats as well. I don't think all politicians are crooks or evil; I simply think they are politicians. We have a ridiculous system that requires allegiance to a political party before and ahead of doing what is best for the country, the nation and the citizens. Stupid system.


But I was talking about my friend. I have come to realize that he is not an idealogue. He has a long held belief system that aligns with the right wing of American politics. He does not think social welfare in any form is the business of a constitutionally derived government. He is not a mean, heartless person; in fact, he is a highly principled individual. His principles are based on certain beliefs and observations that I disagree with, that I feel are exclusive of the larger "us" in Rorty's thinking.


But my friend is not a bigot or a racist, he is a principled individualist. In fact, it troubles him that many of those who agree with his political views are indeed, as he puts it, "those nut jobs with cabins in Montana stocked with freeze dried weasel brains." 


We agree to disagree about nearly everything political but secretly we both are hoping for a random lightening strike. Rorty would point out that we probably are hoping those bolts of conversion will impact those we still have in the "they" box.

Elixir of Nepenthe

Nepenthe (pronounced [nə-ˈpen(t)-thē]) is a medicine for sorrow, literally an anti-depressant – a "drug of forgetfulness" mentioned in literature and mythology. 


Imagine what that would be like, a drug of forgetfulness. My first thought was that it would inevitably be abused. Who would take it? How severe must the trauma be to demand forgetting? Would their be psychological gatekeepers of the nepenthe?

Would a bad break-up be sufficient distress to prescribe the drug? I think not.


The loss of a child. Perhaps, yes. Direct, immediate psychic trauma would meet my criteria. War experiences, torture, physical abuse. But "a medicine for sorrow," we learn so much from our experiences, particularly from death. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, an elderly neighbor; don't these losses prepare us for the truly painful losses. We all have different attachments to friends and relatives, but what if we never learned about death, about how it feels. Yes, we become callous; we call it experience, wisdom; we call it life, the measure of being human.


No, I think nepenthe would have to be saved for those really awful experiences, those that carry such sorrow, such trauma that forgetfulness would be the humane course to recovery.


Surely nepenthe would come in a gilded chalice and possess a bitter yet forgetful taste.

A Pondering Quote

Our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different. -William James

I remember this quote a bit differently. And I am not going to sully my smeared memory by googling the 'correct' version.

Our normal waking consciousness is but one type of consciousness. Whilst all about us, separated from us by the filmiest of veils lie many other forms of consciousness patiently waiting for us to awaken to them. -William James as remembered by my consciousness  

To me the meaning is clear - ordinary reality is not only just one of a myriad of ways of perceiving reality; it does in fact shape the reality we identify as ordinary or waking consciousness. Change your reality, change your perceptions of reality or change your perception of reality, change your actual reality. 

Astronomers now believe their are literally hundreds of thousands of potential earth-like planets circling stars near and far (mostly far). I would suggest that there are just as many realities circling each of us, we need only awaken to them. How to do that? How to experience those realities just out of your sight? 

Well, meditation comes to mind as a well traversed path. Drugs are clearly another (insert caveats here). But I think one preliminary step is almost a necessity, particularly if your end goal is enlightenment, nirvana, wisdom or growth. You need to honestly embrace the belief that those "filmiest of veils" exist and then examine them to see them for what they are. We construct the veils, the walls, the impediments to the multiverse of realities and, of course, only we can take them down. Step one - recognize your energetic funding of your own limited view of realities.

Say goodbye to the world you thought you lived in. -Mika

--
art by Thor Lange

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis*

I must begin this post with an apology to my academic friends, in particular to the linguists in that group. I will be doing a popularized take on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis today, which will not be up to the standards of rigor expected in the ivy covered walls. I do this because I have experienced two real world examples of this linguist theory in my day-to-day wanderings over the past couple of months; each time in the unspoken regions of my mind I was thinking - Benjamin Lee Whorf.

First some background. Today the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is generally referred to as Linguistic Relativity. The theory states very simply that the differences in languages leads to differences in both human experience and thought. Meaning that those speaking (and thinking in) very different languages actually perceive the world differently. Or stated another way, language determines your worldview. That may seem intuitively obvious but I guarantee you that is only because you heard this theory first. Until very recently the predominate linguistic view on this issue was that thought precedes language and at the deepest level all humans think alike.

Perhaps an illustration is in order. Take the statement: John broke the window. Now in english there is an agent of the breakage, that would be John. But in some linguistic cultures agents are not part of the language. Ask a member of that culture about the sentence and they are likely to report something like: the window broke. Who did it is not relevant. Wait you say, so in those cultures John is not responsible? Who's going to pay to fix the window? Well it can be a lot more subtle than that.

Try this one - The orange and blue polar bear. You see him up there at the top, right? You know he is not really orange and blue, it's the light. But what if I told you that bears like that feed at low light; in the fall and spring there are long periods of low sun creating a lot of orange light and bluish shadows. So the statement - orange and blue bear refers not only to the colors but to the observable fact that at those times of day or night the bear might well be hunting for food and therefore more dangerous to cross paths with.

A white bear is a nuisance, a orange-blue bear can kill you. Same bear, different outcome. Good to know the local language and the worldview it conveys.

Yes, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity is a lot more complex than what I have explained. Believe me I know; I had a good friend who was all but obsessed with Whorf for many years and we all heard endless permutations and applications of Whorfian thought.

Now to the incident that prompted this rumination on Mr. Sapir and Mr. Whorf. I was in the Golden Bough bookstore in Mt. Shasta doing some lazy browsing. The staff person and a customer, who was obviously a friend were having a discussion about angels. It was clear to me that they were not going to resolve their differences because despite the fact that they were indeed both speaking english, they did not share a common worldview. I also noticed that their differing takes on reality were completely influenced by how they derived meaning from their own words. As I said they did not share a language in the sense that they assigned the same meaning to the words they were using.

At one point, perhaps 15 minutes into the debate, the staffer was shelving some books which brought him into my aisle and he said:

"What do you think, are there angels or not?"

I gave my dura mater a yawning flex and replied:

"Well I am currently working on a novel in which one of the main characters is an angel."

"So you believe angels are real," said the customer.

"Another one," grumbled the staffer.

"Actually I don't think angels are real, but neither do you," I said, directing my answer at the customer.

"Certainly I do," she protested.

"Well then why do you say believe in angels? Why is it a matter of faith and not fact?"

I never did get to tell them that the reason they would never agree was because they were not speaking the same language and did not share a worldview. It sounded like they were having a discussion but their beliefs did not encompass the possibility of the other person being right.

By the way, just in case the other two people from the other discussion that got me thinking about Sapir and Whorf, just in case they are reading this. There was a correct answer to the question you were debating. It was southwest. And I know one of you thinks they said that, so you should have won the argument. But when you stand on a hilltop and point due north and say "southwest" you can't be completely right; either your finger or your voice is mistaken. But then the entire discussion was about the meaning of direction and you two will never agreed on that. So much linguistic relativity.

Did you get lost just a bit in that last paragraph? Was it the obtuse nature of my writing or was it linguistic relativity?

Think For Yourself

There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.

-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

I seldom queue my blog posts, generally I write within 24 hours of making them public. But I do keep a file of potential topics filled with ideas for future posts or issues that needs some research before I expound. Earlier this fall (Sept. 6th, 8th & 10th) I put up quote inspired posts. I had gone through my cyber-stock of quotations and pulled out four that tweaked my fingertips; I then produced three posts and one draft. That draft has sat here in the blog queue for two months; every week or so I post-date it by another week and then it rolls around again and I shove it into the future again. Clearly I want to say something but I also just didn't seem ready.

The quote I am kicking around is the one by Goethe above:

There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.

Which sounds a bit like #99 on my 100 Things About Me:

I have one prejudice; I abhor voluntary stupidity.

Last week Monday I spent an afternoon searching for "Voter on the Street" interviews just a day before the mid-term election, I continued that experiment on election day watching exit interviews done at polls around country. What struck me is that it may not be stupidity I dislike so much.

My issue has never been with IQ or education, no it has always been with entrenched points of view that are resistant to facts, logic, open discussion or new information. Voter after voter parroted some sound byte created by some political wonk or wonkette for the express purposes of giving those voters a rational for their position. Further investigation showed that these pithy bits o'wisdom were nearly always focused on a set of beliefs not on a particular policy or candidate. It seems if you question a single nugget of illogic you are, in fact, shaking the very foundations of an entire complex of beliefs that a person has constructed to frame their view of "How Things Really Are" and/or "How Things Ought to Be."

I do believe I am going to alter my point of view. Stupidity is not really what bothers me. What I abhor is the inability to change; the unwillingness to hear another point of view and consider the merits of that position. To believe so fervently in your own worldview as to be invulnerable to enlightenment.

Perhaps they shouldn't have started this great endeavor with words like: "We know these truths to be self-evident . . . " But then again, I've been wrong before.

The Fabric of Friendship

I base my fashion taste on what doesn't itch.

-Gilda Radner

Like Gilda I make my sartorial selections based solely on comfort. I once wrote that "96.4% of my clothes are cotton" but I really don't think I own that many shoes anymore. I remember as if it was yesterday the first dress slacks my mother bought me, they were gray and felt like fiberglass on my legs. I just don't get scratchy garments, perhaps there is a wide variation in tactile sensitivity or it may be that I am simply too sensitive for this harsh world. But this is not a post about clothing but rather one about comfort. I stumbled upon the Gilda Radner quote and it reminded me of one of my absolute favorite lines -

I like my friends as I like my sofa that they may easily be reclined upon.

Unfortunately I am reminded of this by an olde friend who is ever so slowly slipping away. Not from life mind you but from our friendship. I had not been able to figure out exactly why this was happening until recently when I was with him and a small gathering of his friends. The conversation was sarcastic, critical of everyone identified as "they" and just plain unhappy. I don't know what happened to my friend but he now runs with the truly disenchanted and morose.

I enjoy the company of bright, talented, interesting and interested friends and those who seek comfort in our friendship. Opinions can held and defended without vitriol, disagreements tend to be of degree not of core beliefs. Laughter is genuine, conversation is expansive and care is inclusive that they may be easily reclined upon.

You Say You Want a Revolution

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.    
                                                                    -Thomas Jefferson


Nope not a Tea Party fan here. I have stopped calling them tea baggers because of Bill, oops I did it again - nevermind. I am not a fan but I completely relate to their feelings of being disenfrancised and so should everyone of my generation. Remember the resistance of the great silent majority to the "revolution" of the 60s, you remember the one born of drugs, sex, rock & roll and then fueled by the war in Vietnam. There was simply mindless opposition to what was being said. Change was an evil word.

Now I will admit that the opposition to the Tea Party rhetoric is more articulate today and the opposition holds both the White House and the Congress. The Johnson and Nixon administrations had all the power around Vietnam until we took it away from them.

How did that happen?

Recruitment, which is precisely what the Tea Party movement must continue to do. Winning a couple of seats in November from a few old, worn political soft targets won't do it. Any revolution that seeks to overturn the current order without burning it down must have a strong, vocal base. Wacko speeches and thinly veiled conspiracy theories won't reach enough of the disgusted voters who may be sympathetic to the emerging platform of the Tea Party.

Many on the left and in the middle thought that Obama was going to be like a little rebellion now and then, clearly they were wrong. Sorry friends but I did tell you. Yes I know "only two years" and "Bush left the financial mess" and "worldwide economic downturn" but the left wing talking heads on CNN are just as much talking point mimes as are the Fox News naysayers. We've been through one revolution, how was that for you? I mean compared to today . . . Yes, you can work within the system, if the system works.

I'm not sure if the Tea Party will ever be the storm in the atmosphere that Jefferson was referring to but I, like most of you, feel the days of slow gentle rains are not going to cut it anymore. What we need is another good cleansing tsunami.
---
art: Barry Blitt-NYTimes

If You Meet the Buddha on the Road

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. -Andre Gide

The San Francisco Bay area has a lot of teachers. A wide variety of traditions spawn these transmitters of wisdom - buddhist, hindu, new age, tantric, christian, jewish, islamic, gaian, feminist, eco, gecko, whacko and other. With several invitations to local events this past week, I have once again encountered a cross-section of these teachers. Invariably I am struck by the same observation when I attend such a gathering, a reflection I first had over twenty years ago which seems to be as accurate today as it was then.

Nearly every lama, priest, rinpoche, tulku, mahatama, guru, maharishi, mawlawi, mullah, rebbe, goddess and just plain teacher I have encountered over lo these many years has devotees. I have no problem with the teachers, my issue is with the followers. OK, so maybe I have some issue with some of the teachers, but they can teach, push, hawk, sell or prostelytize any position, scripture, devotion, gospel or worldview they like. As someone once said: "It's nearly a free country."

No my gripe, complaint, distain is not with the guru but with the devotee. The slavish devotion, which in many eastern traditions is referred to as Bhakti -- that I have a problem with. I simply have a full body revulsion listening to any presentation where when the speaker enters the room, half of the audience falls on the floor in worship. What brilliance has this person offered up that prompts someone to extremes of adulation?

"He's a man, he's just a man and I've had so many men before in very many ways. He's just one more." lyrics from Jesus Christ Superstar.

The title of this post is incomplete, the full title of the book by Sheldon Kopp is: If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!

True teachers, in my view, tend to admonish their listeners away from disciple-hood; they advocate a free and questioning approach to their teachings, not a prostrate worship of someone who is just another seeker with some insight to share. But clearly there is some wide spread need to bow and scrape to a slightly more enlightening being than oneself, which is why I suppose I stop to pet every cat that crosses the path of my journey.

Stuff

Every increased possession loads us with new weariness. -John Ruskin

For me it began in 1999, I was moving from San Francisco to Ann Arbor. I had lived in the Haight-Asbury section of the City for a decade and while I had not accumulated a lot of new stuff there, I was still living with the detritus of my profligate years in L.A. Besides I was moving to a fully furnished house in Michigan and there was simply no place for my stuff.

The living room went to a couple of friends who had just returned to the City. The kitchen I still visit in Sonoma, there was a lot of divestiture and donation. But still a load went by moving van to the midwest, far less than had made the L.A. to S.F. move a decade earlier but I still was burdened.

After six years in Michigan I uprooted again, this time for Las Vegas. Once again, I tried to untether myself from more of the stuff of life. I gave up my 15 yr. old platform california king and my wide wooden desk of 25 years. I managed to depart for the desert with only a car load of personal items and three boxes shipped ahead. I was feeling lighter.

Three years in Nevada and I was even less encumbered, the memorabilia box was ceremonially cremated, the family album was sorted and parsed. I do still have a half empty storage closet up in Sebastopol waiting for my next surge of dispossession. 

Since moving into the Berkeley apartment I have acquired the high mag. binoculars w/ tripod, which break down and fit under the back seat of the car; one rotating fan, which will be donated to a forever overheated friend and one blow-up bed. I really, really don't want stuff. I have also learned that actual baggage is much easier to put down than the psychological leavings of a life. Real permanent things truly do make me weary. The head stuff -- well that's what wisdom is all about.

Dis-Ease

Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal.

-Albert Camus

Today a little vignette to illustrate my point. About twenty years ago, I knew a lady, perhaps she was a client. Marnie was 36, had three kids and a husband who traveled for work often. She worked full time, kids were in school - 9th, 6th and 3rd grade; family planning don't you know. Big comfortable house that came with a big uncomfortable mortgage. The office where she worked was about fifteen miles from home, not a long commute but not right around the corner either. Dean, the husband, worked in the city a solid 40 miles one way and he was out of town two weeks a month though not always for the full week each time. Enough frequent flyer mileage that airport travel and big winter weather patterns were a family concern, at least for the adults.

Money was not tight but they did spend what they made. They did not want for the stuff their social standing required but without any real savings they were precariously perched on the lowest rung of the upper middle class. There was no marital cheating, no heavy drinking except perhaps at the two or three major social events of the year. Sometimes they had sex but mostly they were too tired. The kids were everything and as Marnie said at our first meeting: "Our family is everything and that's not enough."

I had scribbled in my notes: "middle class malaise" - a pithy but accurate diagnosis.

A couple of months into our conversation I had a vacation coming up and Marnie joked about patient abandonment. When I returned there was a cancellation for her next appointment, so we had a interlude of nearly a month between sessions. When we met again, she had a new plan for her family. There had been an accident, four of the neighborhood boys were in the car and one was killed. He was the son of one of Marnie's neighborhood friends. He was one of her son's friends but David, her son, had been at a weekend soccer meet and not in the fatal car. 

Marnie and her family were past the trauma, it had been over three weeks since the accident. But her plan came out of the realizations of that loss so close to home. She and her husband were about to tell the children that they were going "slow down the treadmill" -their imagery not mine. No more designer clothes, no more new gadgets, more home cooked meals, more family time. Eventually, dad was going to cut back on travel. Basically, they were going to stop living up to some ideal that Madison Avenue was promoting, again their language. Oh and -- no more therapy.

If you will, try to put yourself inside Marnie's body before the life changing accident. Feel the pressure of keeping up, get a sense of the frustration that comes out as "it's just not enough." Imagine the stress of each child, not one not two but three, the husband, job, bills, the future and the path that stretches in front of you. Got it?

Now take all of that angst, pack in all into one big amorphous blob; detach the family, the job, the entire external world. All you have left is the feeling of dis-ease, of not being calm or content or quiet or relaxed or at ease. Now stuff that big gob of unsatisfactorness into your body, your heart, your spirit, your soul. And wake up every morning feeling without ease. Nothing to attach the feeling to, not a job or a bad relationship or too many bills. The feeling of dis-ease exists as an entity unto itself and unto yourself.

There are people who have that experience every day of their life.

Sure there are degrees, sometimes you can control the darkness with strength of will. Pharmaceuticals work sometimes too, of course, what suppresses the anxiety also damps down the joy. Then you get to add in life, you remember this dis-ease comes fully formed without the everyday anchors of work, money, relationship, health care, Iraq, hurricanes or oil spills. No you get to start your day already burdened by the grey of greys, now stir in what the "normal people" call life and prepare for the big overwhelm.

The point? 

Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal.

Don't be a nobody [or be a nobody, wait reverse that].

Backwaters of Time

August, die she must

The autumn winds blow chilly and cold;

September I'll remember.

A love once new has now grown old.

-Simon & Garfunkel, April Come She Will

Autumn is my favorite season, not so much in California and not at all in Las Vegas but I do get nostalgic for the midwest come autumn leaves. This year I will have a different perspective, not only does my apartment aerie have a grand view but I look down on about ten square miles of Berkeley and this city does love its trees. Granted there are a fair number of evergreens and I can even see a few palm trees, not the brilliant maples and oaks of my dappled memories but color is acomin'. Already the greens have muted and dulled or begun a subtle yellowing. The trees are withdrawing their life force for the winter, more a seasonal ritual here than a freezing winter necessity.

So as fall in Berkeley plays out, I thought I would ponder and muse about where life doth wander. Time has been on my mind often lately. My high school friends gathered last weekend for a 45th reunion, the pictures from the pavilion at the legion made we wonder. I placed a couple of calls to olde classmates from those days and wondered even more. Facebook has put me back in touch with several college friends, many of whom I saw last fall at our 40th class reunion in Kalamazoo. Makes you think, OK makes me think and then write.

I am going to devote September to all of this nostalgic meandering, mixed in with autumnal musings from my perch, I might have to toss in some musical references not only because it was the sixties, but I've also just received six new remastered CDs that will occupy my ears for the near future.

Come October I shall be ready for something new. A leaping off or a vaulting over but this month, well this month we shall laze in the backwaters of my times.

A final word to those readers who never click thru my linked offerings out onto the wonderful world wide web. Try it this month, I promise at least two or three delectable surprises. I will turn one hump day into a super special link day and include several other hidden gems for your amusement and bedazzlement.

Conversation with God

For those younger or straighter or way over there on the right, above is a Terry Gilliam (Monty Python) image of the supreme being. Didn't want to get anyone confused early on today. You should select your own imagery for the personage of god or God for today's discussion.

Back at the end of June, I did a link dump and one of the items I tossed out was a Conversation with God. Some of you read it, many did not. The article contains an interesting and perhaps off-beat reflection on who or what the deity is or might be. I do recommend the article, I can wait here if you would like to read it now.

No really, I can wait.

O.K. maybe later, shall we continue. I would like to discuss just one aspect of the thesis put forward in the Conversation with God. This comes about mid-way in the conversation, when the human ask about prophets:

[man] ‘OK, so what about our more famous "prophets"; Jesus of Nazareth, Moses, Mohammed…’


[god] ‘hmmm… sadly misguided I’m afraid.  I am not here to act as a safety net or ethical dictator for evolving species. It is true that anyone capable of communicating with their own cells will dimly perceive a connection to me – and all other objects in this universe - through the quantum foam, but interpreting that vision as representing something supernatural and requiring obeisance is somewhat wide of the mark.  And their followers are all a bit too obsessive and religious for my liking. It's no fun being worshipped once you stop being an adolescent teenager. Having said that, it's not at all unusual for developing species to go through that phase. Until they begin to grasp how much they too can shape their small corner of the universe, they are in understandable awe of an individual dimly but correctly perceived to be responsible for the creation of the whole of that universe. Eventually, if they are to have any hope of attaining level two, they must grow out of it and begin to accept their own power and potential. It's very akin to a child’s relationship with its parents. The awe and worship must disappear before the child can become an adult. Respect is not so bad as long as it's not overdone. And I certainly respect all those species who make it that far. It’s a hard slog. I know. I've been there.’


I know a couple of references in there, like 'level two', require a second reading of the article but what impressed me most was not the rather simply idea that religions as we know them are immature expressions of basic human thought but more importantly that we have available to us now the resources to move beyond our philosophical adolescence. The "quantum foam" as he calls it. We or rather the religious believers of our species simply put the wrong labels on all of this. These labels have the singular quality of diminishing the potential of the human race. Baseball players point to the sky god when they cross home plate, but not when they strike out. Every success in life is attributed to god's will or his mercy but failure -- well that's our fault for not seeing his divine plan.


It, the big It, the great answer, what it really is all about doesn't come down to any "One Thing." However, recognizing who we are and not fobbing our potential off on the divine kindness of some mythical entity would be a good place to start.

What To Do, What To Do?

If there's something I learned about in life, it's that you have to stand up to bullies and assholes every once in a while. Because let's face it -- an asshole is not going to be less of an asshole because you call him/her out on it. However, they definitely will become a bigger asshole if you let them get away with it. --- Dr. Pauly

As I have said way too many times, the general arena of standing up to socially inappropriate behavior is a lot easier for large males. My own personal philosophy on generalized assholery is to ignore it unless the perpetrator will take such silence as license to continue. The exchange can almost be scripted:

1) Begin with behavior and associated verbalization that meets the criteria for inappropriate conduct. 

2) Ignore it.

3) Reoccurrence of behavior.

"Hey dude, enough already."

"What?"

"You're being a dick. You're annoying everyone, so just stop."

[insert key response here with or without escalating levels of bad behavior or attitude]

"No really --stop. This is not a debate. Stop now or go away, those really are your only options."

Part II: What do you do when someone you really care for goes off on a wild ass tangent with their life? I mean sure let them explore if the adventure is about growth or finding a new way or just outright fun. But what do you do when they return and are just so screwed up that no one can deal with them. 

I am not talking about drugs, alcohol or other addictive evils but more about a philosophy of life that just doesn't make sense to anyone who was there when they began their adventure. In my current particular case it involves a close friend who has late in life come to politics and now espouses certain views that while not completely out of the mainstream are being advocated with the fervor of a conspiracy nut.

Tolerance can only come with distance. The necessary distance means ending a relationship that I have valued for many years. I really don't want to do that but history does not always override current behavior.

Manichean

Manichean (man-i-KEE-uhn)
1. pertaining to a strongly dualistic worldview.
2. An adherent of the dualistic religious system of Manes, a combination of gnostic Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and various other elements, with a basic doctrine of a conflict between light and dark.

I am by nature opposed to dualism. I don't believe in light versus dark or good versus evil. Yet, many of the world's great religions are founded on such beliefs, not to mention many more secular philosophies, dozens of national constitutions and nearly all wars.

On one hand I believe any thoughtful person will concede that nearly nothing can be framed in a purely good versus evil dichotomy. Even in the darkest of evils and the brightest of perfections there are elements of the other. But more importantly the human minds that are observing these clashes of opposites almost never agree on which side is light or evil or dark or good. Grey is the color of the day, all day, every day, until the final day.

Standing on the far side of the battlefield we invariably find other humans who feel as strongly about their position in the light of good and truth and right as those on our side. Yes, yes I know you want to bring up Hitler and the Nazis right about now. I concede there are historical aberrations to contradict any position. However....

As fairly evolved sentient beings we are or should be capable of using our ability to perceive subtle nuances to inform our worldview. We should be able to discount the jingoistic speeches of political leaders and make measured judgments about our side (light) and the other side (dark), because there are equally intelligent, evolved individuals on the other side who would reverse those dark & light flags.

Part of the problem is one position cannot grow to be better, more light or inherently correct unless the opposing philosophy becomes more dark, more evil and inherently wrong. Such dramatic opposition leads to conflict, battle and war. Where does it all end? I would suggest the more productive question is to ask: Where did it all begin?

Conflict usually begins when there exists one or more dualistic views. If you strongly believe your position to be right, then others must be wrong. Wrong equals opposition to your position, which is by self-definition -- right. I encourage examining where your beliefs are dualistic or oppositional to another and then perhaps -- listening to the other. Start small. Begin with a minor disagreement. Leave terrorism, abortion and whaling for later.

Ever wonder why the dominate color of this blog is grey.

Philosopical Pheedback

Earlier this month I asked you this question:

"Indicate some of the fundamental beliefs, concepts, philosophy of life or articles of faith which help carry you along, tide you over rough spots or guide you in the every day conduct of your life."


Today I want to give you a synopsis of the responses I received and perhaps add a few thoughts of my own. I deleted all names and email references from the emails and comments and then scrambled them. I didn't want any hint of: "Bob said that" or "Barry is a joker" to taint my reactions to your submissions. Here are some hi-lights with commentary.

I read your blog but have never communicated with you, we don't know each other in real life; your view on things makes me calmer about my life. You make me more thoughtful and more hopeful, even when you drift into what I assume was some earlier period of cynicism in your life. I think it is because you don't despair and you say things are basically right with the world. I need to hear that, which leads to my axiom: "Look for the good and listen for it too." I guess I should add: "and read for it too." Thanks.


I was a bit shocked by that response, but upon reflection -- calm is something I do. Oh, and thanks for the compliments, it fuels the blog fires. On the other side of the chasm, there were several offerings that contemplated the end:

Life Sucks and then you die.. I am really looking forward to that last part.


Life is just to die. Lou Reed


He not busy being born is busy dying. Bob Dylan


For death, I believe we are in a circle of life -- in a sense this is one life -- you don't go forward until you've learned the lessons you need to in this life.


There was also recognition that answers and paths are often elusive:

What does around comes around, so do the right thing; of course, figuring that out at times can be a challenge.


Consult not your fears but your hopes and your dreams. Think not about your frustrations, but about your unfulfilled potential. Concern yourself not with what you tried and failed in, but with what is still possible for you to do. John XXIII


Lately it occurs to me, what a long strange trip its been. Grateful Dead


Surrender to the flow but don't be confuse it with the inevitable flush.


There was a lot of hope put in ourselves.

At the end of the day you go home with yourself, you need to be good with yourself and your actions.


To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children... to leave the world a better place... to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. Ralph Waldo Emerson


In dwelling, live close to the ground. In thinking, keep to the simple. In conflict, be fair and generous. In governing, don't try to control. In work, do what you enjoy. In family life, be completely present. Tao Te Ching

I really like that quote from the Tao, even though I cannot bear personal witness to any of those precepts. I are a poor Taoist. However, there were several submissions that mirrored my feelings about life.

I no longer follow a religion, instead I try to live by a quote from my favorite movie: "Life moves pretty fast, if you don't stop to look around once in a while, you could miss it." Ferris Bueller


John Lennon offered a similar observation: "Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans."

My favorite such comment, often found on lapel buttons: Enjoy life, this is not a dress rehearsal.


A buddhist view of life was offered from Thich Nhat Hanh: We are here to awaken from our illusion of separateness. 


My favorite quote in that area comes from William James: Our normal waking consciousness is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all around it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there life potential forms of consciousness entirely different. We may go through life without suspecting their existence, but apply the requisite stimulus, and at a touch they are there in all their completeness.  


"To give freely of oneself and serve others" was offered by one reader. I like to have friends with knowledge and talents I do not have. I often say: Don't bother to learn that, I already know it; learn more about what you know that I don't. You don't have to be all that you can be, you can have friends to round out your philosophy, which is why I asked in the first place.

Finally, one of my favorite views on life, I have heard uttered by it's creator. The quote was submitted by two of you, so we jointly offer it was a motto for getting along in this life.

"Don't be a dick." Wil Wheaton

Insomnia & Philosophy

Today marks the final installment in a three month series of New York Times Op-Ed pieces on insomnia. Back in February the Times launched this series they called All-Nighters:

What do you do when the world's asleep and you're awake? 
All-Nighters is an exploration of an ancient malady and modern fixation -- insomnia. With contributions from writers, scientists, artists and others, it will document the many ways we approach sleeplessness -- as a nuisance, a disease, a curse, and opportunity or even a gift.


There have been twenty-eight articles in all in the All-Nighters series, as someone who has not had a serious bout of insomnia is over thirty years, I found the full set to be a revealing take on the subject. Several of my friends who have frequent episodes of sleeplessness, did not find them as intriguing:

"Been there, done that too often. Reading about it doesn't help."


"I started reading the first few articles late at night when I couldn't sleep; so besides being tired and awake, I was also pissed off and annoyed at the efforts to chronicle insomnia by what were obviously late night dilettantes."


Just a few days ago the editors of The Opinionator section ("Exclusive Online Commentary from the Times") introduced another new feature -- The Stone, as in The Philosopher's Stone. The Stone is proposed to be "a forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless."  The first article in The Stone was entitled: What Is a Philosopher?

While I intend to follow this new venture as it unfolds, I have two early (too early?) comments. First, this appears to be an open-ended discussion not limited as was the insomnia exploration. Giving NYTimes editors and writers free reign with a subject as vast as philosophy seems at least to be overly broad and subject to criminal expansiveness.

More critically, the pieces tend to be short; not blog-short but still depth is often sacrificed to brevity. As in the opening article: What Is a Philosopher? I dare say should you read that 1300 word piece, you will come away with many propositions but nary an answer to the question: what is a philosopher.

Still an interesting attempt by the NYTimes folks. I would point out again, this is online content and at least for now still free.