Manichean Worldview

This is an encore post from 2010. It has always been one of my personal favorites and the time seems right to consider dualism again.

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.

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

Godwin's Law

I wrote about Godwin's Law way back in January of '07, soon after I had started this here blog. Well it clearly has been too long because I have run into several discussions recently where a good dose of Mr. Godwin's logic would have served all parties well.

Here goes:

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an early principle of Internet dialog or it damn well should be. This sanguine postulation was formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law makes the trenchant observation that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis, Fascists or Hitler approaches one." 


Or to state it less mathematically: some lame ass who can't really think for himself is going to call the other guy a Nazi or a Fascist or even Adolf himself. Sooner or later as the discussion heats up and the flaming begins, someone will pull out this universally overused analogy. Generally the user cannot spell analogy nor pronounce fascist.


Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions, the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion, electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms and more recently blog comment talk pages. To this I would add any and all group discussions particularly one that involves the potential consumption of large amounts of wine. [Oops, did I give too much away there. Will they know I am writing about them?]

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.

Picking Your Battles

I remember a younger version of me who was adverse to waiting. Taking time to make a decision seemed like just a waste of precious time. The facts were the facts, the options were clear, just get on with it. I guess with age may come wisdom but certainly comes patience and contemplation. For nearly a year I have been pondering one particular interpersonal relationship with no fear of deadline or timeline. I didn't have what I required to move forward. This is not simply procrastination. I do think about the issues involved, I sit with what was before and what might be in the future. It just isn't yet time.

When a similar situation came up over Memorial Day weekend, one of my friends who was directly involved said something about "picking your battles" and while not precisely a fight, it was a conflict which could easily have led to a confrontation. He chose to linger in limbo rather than push forward while still "unprepared and unarmed" (his words not mine). The warlike metaphors seems a bit overwrought, so I engaged in a little wordplay.

Battle has militaristic, confrontational overtones but crusade or campaign might work.

Picking conjures synonyms like cull, sift, harvest and gather.

It became clear to me that I was more into the picking than I was into the battle. I was indeed gathering my thoughts; culling my feelings, sifting through the possibilities and gathering myself for an eventuality.
Once again the younger me spoke up and suggested this period of rumination might better be called out as mental masturbation. Ah, the impetuousness of youthful ganglia. But I had to think, it has been nearly a year, perhaps my friend has something to say about our estrangement. Perhaps the time had come. Could I get a sign or a stage direction here?

As if in the "ask and ye shall receive" mode, I dropped by while another friend was doing some household divesting. They offer me several tables of items that will soon be the property of Goodwill. I did not care to even check the inventory because I am still post-accumulation. But then she said: "Well maybe one of our friends might need something here." I took a quick glance and sure enough right there in the first pile was an artifact of our youth my olde friend had talked about perhaps ten years ago. Here was my sign. I picked it up and that evening made the call. Now I just need to find the words before the next full moon.

Have You Listened to the Other Side Lately?

I have mentioned before that these days I have a much more politically diverse group of friends then I had a decade or three ago. This means that I get email forwarded from all sides of the political spectrum. My usual response is to fire back some sobering historical fact or debunking statistic whether I am responding to liberal or conservative propaganda.

Periodically I file some of these items away for future use or further dissection. Today in the wake of three consecutive anti-war and some might say anti-government posts, I want to paraphrase a few examples that might make everyone ponder their political position whether left, right, middle or other.

* In the early 60's Secretary of State Dean Rusk was in France when President Charles DeGaulle made another of his often repeated threats to pull France out of NATO. He told Rusk that he wanted all US military out of France.

To which Rusk responded: "Even those buried here?"

**More recently, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if George Bush was not practicing more American empire building in Iraq.

General and then Secretary of State Powell responded: "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return was just enough to bury those that did not return."

***At a International conference of naval officers, a French admiral noted that European citizens learn more than one language, yet "Why is it that we always have to speak English at these events?"

A U.S. admiral quickly said: "Perhaps its because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German."

Now don't going running to Snopes to verify these little stories, they are clearly metaphors that serve as a reminder that no policy, foreign or domestic, is all good or completely evil and that a wider perspective is something sorely lacking on all sides of nearly every political debate.

I remind you once again of my favorite quote that really was said by someone I know. I was there for the first utterance and can historically verify its accuracy.

"We all agree that one political party is stupid and the other is evil; all we are debating is which is which."

A Hawk-Dove Conundrum

Part three of my anti-war series arises from another real life encounter that made me think about how we express our opinions on what is clearly an emotional subject for many.

I was in the Oakland airport doing a pick-up for an old friend. I was early, the flight was late, so I pulled my "killing time" book out of the trunk. I was sitting in the large pre-screening ticketing area when I heard an airport bell captain speaking in a loud, commanding voice for all to hear. I don't have the exact words but he was pointing out the six camouflaged, beret-wearing soldiers. I did catch: "On their way to serve their country." There was more than a smattering of applause, travelers at the doorstep of the escalator gave way to the soldiers with several pats on the shoulder. I don't use airports much these days but a few calls to friends who are frequent flyers told me that this was not an isolated occurrence.

What got my attention was a middle-aged man a few seats away from me. He was in the line of sight between my seat and the soldiers. He was not happy with the scene unfolding in front of us. Moments later he folded his newspaper and headed for a nearby bar, I followed him and took a seat just around the bend in the bar so he and I were close but not on top of each other. We both ordered drinks and I opened my book again. He hit his beer quickly and after a short time I put down the book and he asked if it was any good. The book just happened to be a poker biography (Doyle Brunson's) and it took me about three sentences to bring up the Matusow book and we were conversational buddies.

Halfway through his second Miller Lite, I took the plunge.

"I noticed that you were less than happy with the acknowledgment those soldiers were given."

The same dark face returned and he took a long drag on his beer. Then it spilled out:

"You remember Vietnam?"

"I do indeed."

"Well I was there. I was there at the end. We knew for months that we were going home, if we managed to stay alive until our orders came through. When I got back home there wasn't any of that baby-killer crap or being spit on or nothing like that. I think most of those stories are urban myths anyway."

He took another tug on the long-neck.

"I just hate it that those young fellows get some applause in an airport but we don't give them the training or equipment to be safe where we are sending them. Hell, I don't even know if I'm for or against these wars; if I try to read about them at all it takes me back to a place I just don't want to go."

Just then, as in all these airport vignettes, his flight got a PA boarding call.

"Damn, they said another hour, I gotta run."

As he shuffled for money with no bartender in sight I offered:

"Let me get that one, you gotta plane to catch."

"Thanks" he said. A couple a paces away he turned back and asked: "You weren't there, were you?"

"No, I was one of the long-hairs back here trying to stop it."

He thought for a moment and said: "Thanks for that too."

What an amazing difference forty years can make.

Support the Troops

What pushed me to finally post my anti-war sentiments last time were a series of recent incidents. Here in the second part of my thoughts on war and America I want to walk you through one such situation.

I have to go back a little over a year, right around inauguration time, I was attending a gathering at a friend's house. At one point a gentleman, clearly a democrat, made some comment about Obama as compared to Bush. Being a strong supporter of third parties and a devil's advocate whenever anyone spouts either party line, I pointedly disagreed with him. He responded with something like -- "You can't honestly think Obama would be worse than Bush."

Before I could answer our friend and host stepped in and said -- "No, not you two! I know both of your political positions and --- well, not here." I smiled and bowed to his assessment. The other fellow tried the free speech angle -- "But we were just discussing..." I reiterated that I was going to accept the judgment of our host and the incident was over.

Move to last weekend at a Memorial Day gathering, this time with a discussion about Afghanistan. I made a clear anti-war statement and a fellow responded with something like: "You liberals betray our troops with that pacifist crap." This time I turned to the host for guidance and he responded: "Oh not this time, he deserves everything you are about to give him."

So whether you are a war mongering wing-nut or a thoughtful supporter of the anti-terrorism related foreign policy of the U.S. government; should you be tempted to use such an argument, this is for you:

I would call your argument intellectually weak but that would be conceding that you had a level of intelligence worth engaging. Particularly you tea-party noise makers. Here you are arguing that the people have the right and the duty of speak up and even replace the existing government when "In the course of human events..." Yet you try to silence criticism of war, death, slaughter and carnage by saying someone like me doesn't support our troops. Let me remind you of a lesson learned forty years ago in Vietnam; when mired in ill-conceived militaristic ventures the best way to support the troops is to bring them home. Or do you still think we could have or should have "won" the war in Vietnam?

Do you remember the words of John Kerry? "How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake."

Supporting the troops means not putting them in harm's way for oil reserves or the bottom-line of petroleum/military corporations like Halliburton. You say politicians lie. How is it that only those you oppose are in on this conspiracy? How is it that your foreign policy always means young Americans die?

And one last thing, if you are so supportive of the troops, what have you done for wounded veterans recently? Visited them in the hospital? Wrote a letter to Congress demanding better benefits? Supporting the troops means giving young men and women the opportunity for a full life with all of their limbs and without the life-long post-traumatic disorders that arise when old, rich, business interests win out over compassion and common sense.

I linked to the words of the Declaration of Independence above, try reading it, all of it and then talk to me about supporting those who serve.

One Interpretation or Another

I was reminded today of a story I heard back in the mid-70s when I was in grad school studying for a degree in psychological counseling. One of my instructors back then was a fifty-something woman, who had been practicing clinical therapy for over twenty years. That meant that she was a psychologist back in the mid-50s when most of America though psychology was either witchcraft or outright fraud. Her main thesis in teaching therapeutic technique was to continually remind us that there were many sources of psychological dis-ease and just as many interpretations of the what, when, why and how of a client's issues. Our task, she would remind us, was first to uncover the actual problem and then to assist the client in discovering tools to ease their pain and anxiety.

Here is her story that I was reminded of today.

As a young therapist she was interested in dream interpretation and used a dictionary of dream images to interpret any dreams a client might bring up in a session. At some point she had a 50-something business man coming in for counseling. After a few sessions she asked about his dreams and over the next several weeks, he told her of two what he called dream vignettes.

In the first, he was on a camping trip that he and his now wife had taken while they were dating. The scene was precisely the campground where they had been in Michigan's upper peninsula. In the dream, he was sitting out by the dying campfire, his wife-to-be was already in the tent but he was having trouble with the stem on his air mattress. The mattress was not fully inflated but he could not pull the stem out to add more air. His fingers were not nimble enough to grasp the retracted stem valve.

In a second dream, he was playing basketball with his intramural team from college. Again the scene was just as it had been in real life except that in the dream there was a small group of co-eds in the stands watching the game and the basketball was under-inflated so it was difficult to dribble the ball.

Our young therapist consulted her dream interpretation dictionary and found this entry:

Air:
1. If the air is clear and sunny, success lies ahead.
2. If the air is cloudy, foggy, misty or stormy, then you're not in a clear frame of mind. Perhaps you should postpone making important decisions for a few days.
3. Pumping air into a tire or air mattress implies that your support system (family, friends, colleagues) is weak and needs to be strengthened.

She offered the third interpretation to her client as an clinical intervention. The following day, she was informed by her supervisor that the client had requested another therapist. In particular, he had asked for someone male and more experienced. Being that her supervisor was the only older male in the practice, he offered to take over the client and also to share with her any insights he gained through the therapy about her work with the client.

Several weeks later, while discussing cases, her supervisor asked if she had taken note of the women in her patients dreams. The girlfriend in the tent in the first dream and the co-eds watching the intramural game in the second. She acknowledged that she had made the link with the "air" aspect in both dreams but had not gone any further.

It was then that our young therapist heard for the first time a diagnosis we are all familiar with today and one that you may have already made yourself -- erectile dysfunction.

The point of today's story is simply that there are generally many possible interpretations for images and symbols that substitute in our psyches for the actual cause of our fears and anxieties. Remaining open to possible explanations that lie beyond your own experience is a revealing practice that will potentially tell you more about yourself than you may already know.

What's in a Word?

Since I began referring to my current status as undomiciled, I have received suggestions that there were perhaps other ways to describe my status. Two of my commentators have used the term - peripatetic. One said: "you appear to be peripatetic once again".

Strictly speaking, peripatetic means walking from place to place. It has come to imply the act of traveling about in some kind of itinerant manner. In that respect the word does seem fitting to my current endeavours. But it was further pointed out that the word also refers to followers of Aristotle, who it is believed were given his teachings whilst they walked with him about the Lyceum in Athens. And while I am not in a particularly Aristotlean frame of mind, I am pondering a few philosophical avenues that appear to be influencing my life these days.

Another reader wondered if this wander might be some sort of "automobilized walkabout". Interesting thought that. I think the major difference is that a true aboriginal walkabout is meant to be taken on foot in order for the individual to be close to the land. I am seeking most of my wisdom from people and the highway travel allows me to seek them out over some far scattered distances. But the element of seeking or searching is certainly foregrounded in my current journeys.

The final vocabulary selection for today is mine - panoptic. By definition, panoptic refers to everything that is visible in one view. Often it usage leans towards a totality of view, that which one might have from on high, like in an aerial view. I am seeking some perspective on my current place in a transitory world. So I am looking at my recent past and asking myself how the last few years will inform and influence my near future. What I am discovering thus far is that I may indeed be going back to the future. Here come the nineties all over again.

Another geographical shift appears imminent. 

Right for You, Wrong for Me

[Content Disclosure: Morals, Ponderings, Life and 1/2% Poker]

‘Reinhold Neibuhr said, “You make a moral choice, you act, and then you ask for forgiveness.” You make the choice, because you can’t sit around hemming and hawing forever. You ask forgiveness, because, to quote Paul, “We look through a glass darkly.” What appears moral and good in our eyes may not appear good and moral in the eyes of others, even our friends. No act is absolutely moral or good, because we don’t live in a utopia where we have those absolutes.’ -- Chris Hedges

Some of my very dearest friends are passing through some tremulous periods in their lives right now. Seems like these things come in threes or sixes, depending I guess on how many really close friends you share your life deeply with. What strikes me is how many big decisions are made based on unreflected assumptions about life and for lack of any better word -- reality. Assessing reality in order to make choices about our path is made infinitely more difficult if we hold shifting beliefs about what actually constitutes ordinary reality. Therefore giving advice and counsel to others is more and less difficult based on just how much of consensual reality you share with the other person.

Obviously my friends personal struggles are not blog fodder but during my conversations over the past week, I told two personal stories as examples. In both cases I was told that I should share those stories more widely, so under the category of 'life in stories', take what you will from these.

Last year, I was leaving a Las Vegas casino either very late at night or very early in the morning, I was with my old friend Jon, we have been friends from times well before the 'poker phase' of my life. We were on a seemingly deserted floor of a big parking structure when we came around a massive concrete abutment to first hear and then see a scuffle. A women was down on the floor by a car with a man straddling her and pulling at her purse. My first thought was not "what do I do?" No, my thought was "who am I with." Jon was on my left and already moving away, widening the distance between us. "Hey!" I shouted at the guy and he turned with a knife in his hand and swung wildly. He was too far away and too drunk or drugged to be an actual threat but I still stepped back, so his knife was missed me by eight feet or more and his lunge awkwardly landed him on all fours. I stepped to the right as he tried to regain his balance and once he looked up I moved just one big step towards him. He was completely focused on the very large man moving in on him, just as I knew he would be. Never for a moment did he consider Jon nor see him and the hard sided briefcase that smacked with a loud thump on the side of his head.

I checked that our knife-wielding menace was out cold, while Jon made sure that the lady was not on the far side of a domestic dispute and about to show her love to the unconscious jackass by attacking us. But no, this was a straight robbery attempt. The lady was not interested in a police report, as she felt the authorities would be all too willing to book her too, based on some past 'evening encounters' she may have had. So we got her into her car and Jon pulled my vehicle around the front of the casino while I walked back inside to tell a security guard that someone might want to check section 4B of the parking garage for a cold cocked mugger and no, I did not wish to make a formal statement.

The moral? Well, I am happy to let you draw your own existential conclusions. I would only add that dealing with the 'reality' of this moment was clearly a function of knowing Jon and having shared certain physical insights about the nature of reality and the darkside of the same. I often leave casinos alone late at night and at those times reality can be very different.

Story #2 -- will wait until tomorrow.