It has become a popular word of our time, empowerment. It connotes the bestowing of power upon those who lack it.
Yet the use of the word, from the beginning, has made my tummy do strange, unwelcome things. There’s something about the way it’s used that doesn’t feel right.
I guess it’s like the strange world of affirmations. Used for decades in counseling and self-help, these critters are designed to make one feel better about oneself. I’ve nothing against believing good things about oneself and wish that more people would, but there rarely seems to be a distinction between merely reciting the affirmation and living it. In its mistaken use, it seems to be counted on as a magical chant, that if you say it then it will be true. There is something to ‘fake it ‘til you make it’, but the blind recitation without supporting work to cement its foundation makes it a hopeless effort.
Can you really give power? I suppose it’s possible; imagine handing a child a gun, or a teenager a driver’s license. But this exposes a dire need: you have to be trained to use it, and committed to the proper amount of responsibility that its rightful use carries. Lethal power in the hands of the untrained and irresponsible is a frightening thought.
Yet this thought doesn’t satisfy. It refers to external power. What about inner power? Strength of character? Intellect? Satyagraha? Can inner power be given?
Floating in this existential stream, it seems that internal power can’t be given. Power (which in my definition is the ability to effect change, and only results from the transfer and consolidation of existing energy from one source to another, all the way from the atomic level to the intellectual, spiritual, and political domains) can’t be created ex nihilo unless one is a god. I can tell corn that it has permission to grow, but without cultivation the results will be haphazard at best. Besides, the power to grow is not something I give the kernels at all, but an inherent quality they are endowed with. My permission for the corn to grow is rather insignificant. Silly, even. All I can do is work the conditions in which the corn grows in order to encourage the greatest yield.
Are humans like this? Do they have inherent power that for whatever reason is unrecognized and uncultivated? Or, perhaps very likely, is prohibited and the person comes to accept it as a given? Don’t get too big for your britches. A woman’s place is in the home. Black people should marry their own kind. America, love it or leave it. Who do you think you are? You’re just an employee, I’m the boss. Who died and made you God? Moslems are all terrorists and anti-American.
If this is so, then it must also be true that no matter how much one rationalizes and accepts one’s impotence there is also a part that will not believe it. For throughout history we have had repressed and oppressed people striving against the oppressors, from married couples to entire nations. Something in the underlings just will not accept defeat.
So maybe this is the rightful use of empowerment: to awaken, educate, and cultivate the inherent power that is contained within. It’s a lot harder and takes a lot longer than merely reciting hopeful platitudes, but the results are infinitely better. It makes parenting and teaching a very serious and responsible duty.
And my tummy can abide that.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Thomas III
Thomas stood on the mountain peak and turned toward the west. Before him lay all governments of the earth, from poor districts to great principalities, the domes of great capitol buildings rising above the smaller state houses and city halls. Within, Thomas could see diets and congresses, politburos and assemblies, parliaments and dictatorships, and the incredible amount of activity generated by the business of governing. And while there were great differences in style from one state to another, Thomas could see that there was a mundane consistency in the execution of the duties of state. Had there been one language and a single style of dress, he would not have been able to tell one from another.
‘The need for governing,’ Thomas meditated, ‘is that people have to live together in community, and governing regulates behaviors to prevent people from coming to harm.’
Looking over the governments of the earth Thomas saw that this need was not met, and in fact the governments had become the perpetrators of harm just as much as unprincipled individuals and corporate bodies. It only made sense: because people are imperfect they cannot run a perfect system of governing. A corporate body may have the pathologies that any individual can have, and thus there are governments that are paranoid, that are amotivationally depressed, that are sick with power.
“You see clearly,” said the Voice.
“To dwell on it is a cause of useless pain,” Thomas muttered half to himself. “There is little I can do.”
“Do not fail to see,” the Voice reminded him, “that there are many people of good heart and sound principles laboring in government, and but for them all the peoples of the earth would be subjected to the tyranny of corruption unending.”
Thomas was grateful at this.
“Yet why,” Thomas asked, “do corrupt people rise to the top? Why is it that some of the deepest, ageless philosophy comes from China yet they have too often been ruled by despotism? Why is it that communism, which should make all things economically fair between the people, ends up ruled by dictators who belie every principle of communism in their policies and actions? How does a democracy end up ruled by corporations, by the wealthy, by special interest groups rather than the will of the people?”
“Why is a dangerous question,” the Voice gently chided, “when a mind which is limited in knowledge fills empty places with assumption – and every human mind is limited -- yet for this time I will tell you. With minds capable of abstraction people choose to chase the seemingly ungraspable winds of control either within themselves or without. In the complexity of time, provinciality, individuality, and society there is ever a new generation thrust into the responsibility of governing. Those of sound principle only occasionally become the highest leaders, and it is their stability of purpose and effect which bring them there.”
“Yet you said that people either ‘control themselves within or without’,” Thomas mused. “Is it that those who do not work on controlling themselves become the most zealous controllers of others?”
“It is so, and those who at once fear their own impotence and cannot allow themselves to see it. In the act of governing other lives they hope to foster the illusion that they are in control of themselves; in the accumulation of power they breed the illusion that they are potent. Yet setting one's sights on others does nothing to address that which is within; no amount of controlling others, my child, will satisfy the desparate thirst for inner power. Their greatest weakness is the unquenchable fear of being discovered for the inadequacy that is masked.”
Thomas thought for a moment. “It would seem, then,” he said quietly, “that if every person governed themselves adequately there would be no need for a state government.”
“It is so.”
“And ‘no religion, too’.”
“Quite.” Thomas could hear the smile in the Voice.
“You believe there is little you can do,” the Voice suggested. “Yet we have already spoken to your belief. It is a very hard task, Thomas, for you to come to control yourself. It will occupy you for the rest of your life. And it is as a virus: infect others with the will to do the same and you will be serving me. Do not hate those who fear their impotence, rather see them with eyes of pity and loving, and both a will to instruct them and to guard against them until they are capable of controlling themselves. Approach them with invitation, not anger. And should they refuse to address their own fears you must quietly and diligently work with others of good principle to remove them from positions of power and influence, lest they harm others in their unending thirst for power. You do not know what you are capable of. Twenty years ago you did not know how a rabbet plane worked, yet it is now second nature.”
(To be continued)
‘The need for governing,’ Thomas meditated, ‘is that people have to live together in community, and governing regulates behaviors to prevent people from coming to harm.’
Looking over the governments of the earth Thomas saw that this need was not met, and in fact the governments had become the perpetrators of harm just as much as unprincipled individuals and corporate bodies. It only made sense: because people are imperfect they cannot run a perfect system of governing. A corporate body may have the pathologies that any individual can have, and thus there are governments that are paranoid, that are amotivationally depressed, that are sick with power.
“You see clearly,” said the Voice.
“To dwell on it is a cause of useless pain,” Thomas muttered half to himself. “There is little I can do.”
“Do not fail to see,” the Voice reminded him, “that there are many people of good heart and sound principles laboring in government, and but for them all the peoples of the earth would be subjected to the tyranny of corruption unending.”
Thomas was grateful at this.
“Yet why,” Thomas asked, “do corrupt people rise to the top? Why is it that some of the deepest, ageless philosophy comes from China yet they have too often been ruled by despotism? Why is it that communism, which should make all things economically fair between the people, ends up ruled by dictators who belie every principle of communism in their policies and actions? How does a democracy end up ruled by corporations, by the wealthy, by special interest groups rather than the will of the people?”
“Why is a dangerous question,” the Voice gently chided, “when a mind which is limited in knowledge fills empty places with assumption – and every human mind is limited -- yet for this time I will tell you. With minds capable of abstraction people choose to chase the seemingly ungraspable winds of control either within themselves or without. In the complexity of time, provinciality, individuality, and society there is ever a new generation thrust into the responsibility of governing. Those of sound principle only occasionally become the highest leaders, and it is their stability of purpose and effect which bring them there.”
“Yet you said that people either ‘control themselves within or without’,” Thomas mused. “Is it that those who do not work on controlling themselves become the most zealous controllers of others?”
“It is so, and those who at once fear their own impotence and cannot allow themselves to see it. In the act of governing other lives they hope to foster the illusion that they are in control of themselves; in the accumulation of power they breed the illusion that they are potent. Yet setting one's sights on others does nothing to address that which is within; no amount of controlling others, my child, will satisfy the desparate thirst for inner power. Their greatest weakness is the unquenchable fear of being discovered for the inadequacy that is masked.”
Thomas thought for a moment. “It would seem, then,” he said quietly, “that if every person governed themselves adequately there would be no need for a state government.”
“It is so.”
“And ‘no religion, too’.”
“Quite.” Thomas could hear the smile in the Voice.
“You believe there is little you can do,” the Voice suggested. “Yet we have already spoken to your belief. It is a very hard task, Thomas, for you to come to control yourself. It will occupy you for the rest of your life. And it is as a virus: infect others with the will to do the same and you will be serving me. Do not hate those who fear their impotence, rather see them with eyes of pity and loving, and both a will to instruct them and to guard against them until they are capable of controlling themselves. Approach them with invitation, not anger. And should they refuse to address their own fears you must quietly and diligently work with others of good principle to remove them from positions of power and influence, lest they harm others in their unending thirst for power. You do not know what you are capable of. Twenty years ago you did not know how a rabbet plane worked, yet it is now second nature.”
(To be continued)
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Magic
It is fascinating that some people get weirded out about magic for religious reasons. Yes, the references are in the Bible to avoid magicians, but is it possible that a misunderstanding happens? These people won’t let their children read or watch Harry Potter. The Lord of the Rings is shot through with magic. By not letting them read these stories, though, the children miss illustrations of the chronic struggle between good and evil or the virtue of smallness and innocence, and I defy any parent to realistically think a child can pick up a stick (or, God help us, buy one in a wand shop that’s been in business since 823 B.C.), chant the incantation Avada Kedavra, and expect the person in front of them to die in a flash of green light.
But what of the Narnia Chronicles? C.S. Lewis, the author, was one of the Twentieth Century’s greatest Christian apologists. Yet he wrote a series of books that is underscored by Deep Magic.
There are two ways to raise children as far as this goes: to shield them from anything undesirable, or to teach them about undesirable things and to make good decisions in the face of them. It is critical that the child’s age be taken into account, of course; there is no call to teach a four-year-old about sexuality, and it is arguably irresponsible to not teach a fourteen-year-old about the changes his or her body and mind are going through. Shielding them is an immediate solution that puts parents at ease, but in the long run it turns out that children grow up, leave home, and then are confronted with realities that the parents never let them learn about, and now the parents aren’t there to shield them anymore. They aren’t prepared to deal with some things in life, increasing the chance of making poor decisions.
And by the way, seeing sexuality as undesirable is a matter of perception. In the right amount, context, and for the right purpose, sexuality can be one of the most meaningful and beautiful things in life.
Getting back to magic, what are we talking about anyway? When we are young sleight of hand amazes us; we don’t understand how something happens and so we call it magic. How many things do adults not understand? Is it that magic is inherently evil, or is much explained by the fact that we are just ignorant of cleverness? In The Lord of the Rings, the wizard Saruman’s greatest and most dangerous ability is his smooth tongue. How many non-wizards live amongst us who have the same ability? Do we call it magic? If we were able to rid ourselves of every bit of human cleverness, would there remain anything that could be called ‘magic’?
The best antidote to being taken by cleverness is knowledge. The Bible speaks rather highly of knowledge.
Is magic inherently evil? Does the biblical translation of the word carry the same essence as our modern American understanding of ‘sorcery’? We may have a mistaken idea of what was written about. It wouldn’t be the first time. Are there forms of ‘magic’ that can be considered good? (We have always had ideas of black magic and white magic; perhaps a Wiccan reader can enlighten me on what this means to them). If a slick tongue can be considered magic, is it possible that such can be used for the good? Undoubtedly.
It probably is just a matter of perception and unreasonable fears. After all, how many of the weirded out Christians would take a vacation to Disney’s Magic Kingdom?
But what of the Narnia Chronicles? C.S. Lewis, the author, was one of the Twentieth Century’s greatest Christian apologists. Yet he wrote a series of books that is underscored by Deep Magic.
There are two ways to raise children as far as this goes: to shield them from anything undesirable, or to teach them about undesirable things and to make good decisions in the face of them. It is critical that the child’s age be taken into account, of course; there is no call to teach a four-year-old about sexuality, and it is arguably irresponsible to not teach a fourteen-year-old about the changes his or her body and mind are going through. Shielding them is an immediate solution that puts parents at ease, but in the long run it turns out that children grow up, leave home, and then are confronted with realities that the parents never let them learn about, and now the parents aren’t there to shield them anymore. They aren’t prepared to deal with some things in life, increasing the chance of making poor decisions.
And by the way, seeing sexuality as undesirable is a matter of perception. In the right amount, context, and for the right purpose, sexuality can be one of the most meaningful and beautiful things in life.
Getting back to magic, what are we talking about anyway? When we are young sleight of hand amazes us; we don’t understand how something happens and so we call it magic. How many things do adults not understand? Is it that magic is inherently evil, or is much explained by the fact that we are just ignorant of cleverness? In The Lord of the Rings, the wizard Saruman’s greatest and most dangerous ability is his smooth tongue. How many non-wizards live amongst us who have the same ability? Do we call it magic? If we were able to rid ourselves of every bit of human cleverness, would there remain anything that could be called ‘magic’?
The best antidote to being taken by cleverness is knowledge. The Bible speaks rather highly of knowledge.
Is magic inherently evil? Does the biblical translation of the word carry the same essence as our modern American understanding of ‘sorcery’? We may have a mistaken idea of what was written about. It wouldn’t be the first time. Are there forms of ‘magic’ that can be considered good? (We have always had ideas of black magic and white magic; perhaps a Wiccan reader can enlighten me on what this means to them). If a slick tongue can be considered magic, is it possible that such can be used for the good? Undoubtedly.
It probably is just a matter of perception and unreasonable fears. After all, how many of the weirded out Christians would take a vacation to Disney’s Magic Kingdom?
Monday, July 23, 2007
An Honest Truth
“It’s been a problem in past relationships,” I was telling a coworker last week, “but I won’t tell a woman I love her if I’m not feeling it at the time.”
“You’re kidding,” he said.
“No,” I replied, “it feels dishonest for me to say I’m feeling something when I’m not.”
My coworker shook his head and smiled. “You’ve gotta lie,” he said. He’s married and has a small child. He’s also got a Master’s degree in psychology. And he’s telling me I’ve got to lie.
At one time in life I was able to lie like that. But through a lot of work I’ve gotten to where I prefer to be emotionally honest. So what do I do? Do I let myself lie? Or do I hold my standards?
Either one presents problems. If I start lying it’s relaxing my standards. It’s backsliding. Why should I let go of so much work on myself? What type of relationship do I have if I settle for less than what I’ve progressed to? And the really hard one: how much do I let myself lie? What amount is okay? Is it a slippery slope that I could end up riding the mud all the way to hell on?
But if I hold my standards I severely limit the type of woman I can be with. If someone with a Master’s in psychology thinks it’s okay to lie, what percentage of midline women think so, too? How many people are honest on the level I’m on? There’s no way to know. Experience says that such a woman, single, is rare. I’ve run across lots of women who were married and able to tolerate emotional honesty. It’s probably why they’re still married.
By the way, I’ve been put into the trap before where a woman treats me badly, I don’t feel especially charitable toward her for it, and then she gets after me for not saying, “I love you”. I’ve no patience for such selfish and pitiful games anymore.
Maybe it’s fortunate that I’m past the age where I think I have to have a woman at my side. I don’t feel the need to produce any more children. My life is fulfilling without needing another person to complete it. Someone at my side, then, would be to complement what I’ve already got. Someone to share some mundane and some pretty awesome stuff called life. I could be happy with that.
No matter how much I question it, really, I refuse to start lying in an area I’ve learned to be honest about. If it keeps me single for the rest of my life, so be it.
“You’re kidding,” he said.
“No,” I replied, “it feels dishonest for me to say I’m feeling something when I’m not.”
My coworker shook his head and smiled. “You’ve gotta lie,” he said. He’s married and has a small child. He’s also got a Master’s degree in psychology. And he’s telling me I’ve got to lie.
At one time in life I was able to lie like that. But through a lot of work I’ve gotten to where I prefer to be emotionally honest. So what do I do? Do I let myself lie? Or do I hold my standards?
Either one presents problems. If I start lying it’s relaxing my standards. It’s backsliding. Why should I let go of so much work on myself? What type of relationship do I have if I settle for less than what I’ve progressed to? And the really hard one: how much do I let myself lie? What amount is okay? Is it a slippery slope that I could end up riding the mud all the way to hell on?
But if I hold my standards I severely limit the type of woman I can be with. If someone with a Master’s in psychology thinks it’s okay to lie, what percentage of midline women think so, too? How many people are honest on the level I’m on? There’s no way to know. Experience says that such a woman, single, is rare. I’ve run across lots of women who were married and able to tolerate emotional honesty. It’s probably why they’re still married.
By the way, I’ve been put into the trap before where a woman treats me badly, I don’t feel especially charitable toward her for it, and then she gets after me for not saying, “I love you”. I’ve no patience for such selfish and pitiful games anymore.
Maybe it’s fortunate that I’m past the age where I think I have to have a woman at my side. I don’t feel the need to produce any more children. My life is fulfilling without needing another person to complete it. Someone at my side, then, would be to complement what I’ve already got. Someone to share some mundane and some pretty awesome stuff called life. I could be happy with that.
No matter how much I question it, really, I refuse to start lying in an area I’ve learned to be honest about. If it keeps me single for the rest of my life, so be it.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Thomas II
As Thomas stood at the mountain’s peak, in the warmth of sunshine he was yet confronted with a cold breeze that sharpened his eyes and his mind. Looking out over the vast range he was filled at once with an expansive joy of power, looking down on lesser mountains, and with a nearly overwhelming sense of humility, knowing that two human feet had brought him to such a place of awe.
As he stood contemplating these seemingly competing feelings that somehow wove together in a seamless whole, Thomas was occupied by a Voice. It was a curious Voice: it filled the universe but was as quiet as the hills’ roots, it did not come from without but existed within yet he knew that it was not his own, it was curiously neither male nor female though he could never describe it any more accurately than this. It was richer than uncut humus, sweeter than mead, more lyrical than the greatest bard, and at once the most serious and the most lightly intentioned tone he had yet known. It was the most profound infinity that Thomas had ever experienced.
“Before you stands all the earth and its inhabitants,” the Voice began, and in inviting command bade him, “look upon it pure.”
Thomas looked out, beyond the mountains into the valleys and across the plains, and he saw all of his countrymen, indeed, all peoples of all nations, as though they stood just before him. He was gratified to see so many people gracefully treating others well; conversely he saw all manner of people treating others poorly.
“It saddens me,” he said silently in communion with the Voice, and feeling the regret more keenly than ever, “that we are such lowly creatures to treat each other so. I feel the weight of all meanness, of all misunderstanding and mistreatment, with which we conduct our daily lives. Why were we created such loathsome creatures?”
“It had to be so,” spake the Voice, “to give unto humankind the ability and will to choose, else no man or woman could come to love me but that it would be artificial.”
“And in the choosing,” Thomas meditated, “one could choose to deny You. In failing to know You one would not come to know the vast gravity and freedom of loving, and could not treat others in loving ways because they were unknown.”
“It is so.”
Thomas was enveloped in the depth of loving with which this quality was given, the amazing sense of warmth that was contained in its realization, the amazing pain brought about by its denial. He doubted that any human could love so completely, to freely give others the choice to believe in himself.
“And we are able,” Thomas continued in realization, “to forget, to ignore, to choose another path of strength which is less substantial, which is only an image of strength. Selfishness and meanness make us less than we are always able.”
“It is so.”
“What am I to do?” Thomas asked, feeling more humble than he knew possible.
“Do not forget,” the Voice bade him kindly, “all those who know how to love. They are companions to your journey, your salvation. See the error of humankind but do not dwell in it more than it exists. Hear me, and act in all ways pleasing to me, not as a zealot given to command but as a lover given to invitation. Those who do not know me will not hear your words; you must instead show them what you have here learned.”
The commission was serious but not grave and, without knowing how, the only right thing to do which would send continuous ripples into humanity that could not be predicted. A cold breath of wind chuffing up the mountainside ruffled Thomas’ hair, and he felt a sense of aliveness that he had not known before.
(To be continued)
As he stood contemplating these seemingly competing feelings that somehow wove together in a seamless whole, Thomas was occupied by a Voice. It was a curious Voice: it filled the universe but was as quiet as the hills’ roots, it did not come from without but existed within yet he knew that it was not his own, it was curiously neither male nor female though he could never describe it any more accurately than this. It was richer than uncut humus, sweeter than mead, more lyrical than the greatest bard, and at once the most serious and the most lightly intentioned tone he had yet known. It was the most profound infinity that Thomas had ever experienced.
“Before you stands all the earth and its inhabitants,” the Voice began, and in inviting command bade him, “look upon it pure.”
Thomas looked out, beyond the mountains into the valleys and across the plains, and he saw all of his countrymen, indeed, all peoples of all nations, as though they stood just before him. He was gratified to see so many people gracefully treating others well; conversely he saw all manner of people treating others poorly.
“It saddens me,” he said silently in communion with the Voice, and feeling the regret more keenly than ever, “that we are such lowly creatures to treat each other so. I feel the weight of all meanness, of all misunderstanding and mistreatment, with which we conduct our daily lives. Why were we created such loathsome creatures?”
“It had to be so,” spake the Voice, “to give unto humankind the ability and will to choose, else no man or woman could come to love me but that it would be artificial.”
“And in the choosing,” Thomas meditated, “one could choose to deny You. In failing to know You one would not come to know the vast gravity and freedom of loving, and could not treat others in loving ways because they were unknown.”
“It is so.”
Thomas was enveloped in the depth of loving with which this quality was given, the amazing sense of warmth that was contained in its realization, the amazing pain brought about by its denial. He doubted that any human could love so completely, to freely give others the choice to believe in himself.
“And we are able,” Thomas continued in realization, “to forget, to ignore, to choose another path of strength which is less substantial, which is only an image of strength. Selfishness and meanness make us less than we are always able.”
“It is so.”
“What am I to do?” Thomas asked, feeling more humble than he knew possible.
“Do not forget,” the Voice bade him kindly, “all those who know how to love. They are companions to your journey, your salvation. See the error of humankind but do not dwell in it more than it exists. Hear me, and act in all ways pleasing to me, not as a zealot given to command but as a lover given to invitation. Those who do not know me will not hear your words; you must instead show them what you have here learned.”
The commission was serious but not grave and, without knowing how, the only right thing to do which would send continuous ripples into humanity that could not be predicted. A cold breath of wind chuffing up the mountainside ruffled Thomas’ hair, and he felt a sense of aliveness that he had not known before.
(To be continued)
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Scared Stupid
The headlines today follow last week's illogical claim by the Director of Homeland Insecurity: he had a gut feeling that there would be a terrorist attack this summer.
Point in logic: if not based in intelligence reports, what business does he have making such a statement? For what reason does one make such a claim without offering solid evidence? Even further, if the government is capable of gleaning such intelligence, what business do they have informing the public before they have thwarted the threat?
And today's headline is that al Qaeda is now planning an attack on American soil.
Again, for what purpose do they inform the public? Why don't they just rush to the source, outfox the 'enemy' since they claim to have intelligence in the first place, and eliminate the threat before informing us that it was there?
Both instances are designed to accomplish one thing: keep the people scared. If you've got 'em scared then you can do anything you want in the name of patriotism and freedom. I wonder which civil liberties they're after this time? Are the Democratic candidates for President getting too much press, giving too much hope, eclipsing the thunder of the Republican candidates?
All this while I've been meditating on the difference between punishment and rehabilitation, the great dividing line in how the government treats law offenders. Conservative rulers lean toward punishment, liberals toward rehab. What with felons never being able to get student loans and sex offenders (and you should see what offenses they include in this category!) are monitored for the rest of their lives, it is getting to the point that any conviction results in a sentence for life. One cannot pay one's debt to society and be reinstated as a citizen.
What does punishment accomplish? To a degree, we know from psychological research, aversive rewards for behavior tend to diminish the behavior. However, there is a line that can be crossed to where the punishment is larger than the crime, the attitude toward the offender is so closed-mindedly absolute, and rebellion replaces diminished illegal behavior. From that point the punishers can elect to either realize they're being too harsh ("When governers rule too closely the people will rebel") and back off on punishment, or they will redouble their efforts to punish even more severely. Seeing as the United States incarcerates a larger proportion of its population than any other post-industrial nation it seems that we have the latter.
If punishment doesn't diminish illegal behavior then it must benefit the punishers. It must satisfy some animal lust deep within. These are people, remember, who argue for the right to torture 'enemy combatants', which is a loose definition in the first place. Yet it doesn't provide the social control it is intended to. To put it bluntly, they've gotten too tight-assed, and with increasing lack of cooperation they don't know what else to do but more of the same. Not a good system. If they insist on tightening a nut that's already too tight they'll shear the bolt. There will be rebellion on a large scale. Let's hope it's limited to the voting booth.
A related thought, or maybe just an unanswered question: are those who tend to punish rather than rehabilitate also those who are oriented to competition rather than cooperation? Competition can be overdone, too. In its furthest reaches it starts looking like paranoia. And as I've claimed for years, paranoia is poor public policy.
Point in logic: if not based in intelligence reports, what business does he have making such a statement? For what reason does one make such a claim without offering solid evidence? Even further, if the government is capable of gleaning such intelligence, what business do they have informing the public before they have thwarted the threat?
And today's headline is that al Qaeda is now planning an attack on American soil.
Again, for what purpose do they inform the public? Why don't they just rush to the source, outfox the 'enemy' since they claim to have intelligence in the first place, and eliminate the threat before informing us that it was there?
Both instances are designed to accomplish one thing: keep the people scared. If you've got 'em scared then you can do anything you want in the name of patriotism and freedom. I wonder which civil liberties they're after this time? Are the Democratic candidates for President getting too much press, giving too much hope, eclipsing the thunder of the Republican candidates?
All this while I've been meditating on the difference between punishment and rehabilitation, the great dividing line in how the government treats law offenders. Conservative rulers lean toward punishment, liberals toward rehab. What with felons never being able to get student loans and sex offenders (and you should see what offenses they include in this category!) are monitored for the rest of their lives, it is getting to the point that any conviction results in a sentence for life. One cannot pay one's debt to society and be reinstated as a citizen.
What does punishment accomplish? To a degree, we know from psychological research, aversive rewards for behavior tend to diminish the behavior. However, there is a line that can be crossed to where the punishment is larger than the crime, the attitude toward the offender is so closed-mindedly absolute, and rebellion replaces diminished illegal behavior. From that point the punishers can elect to either realize they're being too harsh ("When governers rule too closely the people will rebel") and back off on punishment, or they will redouble their efforts to punish even more severely. Seeing as the United States incarcerates a larger proportion of its population than any other post-industrial nation it seems that we have the latter.
If punishment doesn't diminish illegal behavior then it must benefit the punishers. It must satisfy some animal lust deep within. These are people, remember, who argue for the right to torture 'enemy combatants', which is a loose definition in the first place. Yet it doesn't provide the social control it is intended to. To put it bluntly, they've gotten too tight-assed, and with increasing lack of cooperation they don't know what else to do but more of the same. Not a good system. If they insist on tightening a nut that's already too tight they'll shear the bolt. There will be rebellion on a large scale. Let's hope it's limited to the voting booth.
A related thought, or maybe just an unanswered question: are those who tend to punish rather than rehabilitate also those who are oriented to competition rather than cooperation? Competition can be overdone, too. In its furthest reaches it starts looking like paranoia. And as I've claimed for years, paranoia is poor public policy.
Monday, July 16, 2007
The Peace Drones
So we are to now send a fleet of drones to enemy territory, this time not only armed with cameras to scout positions and features, but armed with missles. A technological breakthrough, this: with no risk to our own troops we can kill by remote. The operators of the drones will be on another continent, guiding the prop jet planes by joystick. For a generation that grew up on computer games of shooting up the bad guy it only seems natural. They're practiced, and now they're specially trained. And commanded.
The only difference, perhaps, is that real people will die. As much as Donald Rumsfeld tried to convince us that 'smart' bombs are humane, the record shows that more than two thirds of the victims are innocent.
Wasn't there once a code of honor that said you had to face your enemy? Under such a code it was cowardly to send someone or something to do your killing for you. But then, I suppose that was a time of kings and kingdoms, and kings were willing to die for the causes they decided to fight for. Under what newer code has it been decided that rulers are now too important to so risk? For they, like every ruler in history -- even the greatest and most enduring -- are expendable. Their legacies are limited. They are more important in their own minds than history will give them a sentence in a book.
Military dominance will bring peace. That's the idea we're given. We'll force the bastards into peace.
Only, what is peace?
My friends, peace is not the absence of conflict. Worse, it can't be something that we make people do by threat. Such is merely enforcement, and underneath boils fear and resentment. Hardly peaceful. No, peace is instead a cultivated condition where the least violence is used to ensure social order. Cultivation takes a long time to accomplish. Since violence isn't used to enforce compliance, peace must be based on something else. And that, much as we hate to admit it, can only be love.
Reading the greatest minds in history, and most all religious texts, we find that love is the greatest power, the greatest goal, the most worthy effort of all in the universe. It is the most highly-developed skill to be able to move everything in a forward direction, in a direction of growth and creativity and beauty, in the better interest of all peoples, all life, the entire planet we are granted stewardship of. Love is no fuzzy, drug-soaked hippie ideal: it is the most serious responsibility given us by our Creator.
If love is constructive, my friends, then what is destructive must be its opposite. Armed drones are not what we were intended to rely on. Chaos was not our charge. Those who insist on the need for, the development of , and the use of destruction as a solution are no followers of God, no matter how much they might invoke His name as substantiation.
The only difference, perhaps, is that real people will die. As much as Donald Rumsfeld tried to convince us that 'smart' bombs are humane, the record shows that more than two thirds of the victims are innocent.
Wasn't there once a code of honor that said you had to face your enemy? Under such a code it was cowardly to send someone or something to do your killing for you. But then, I suppose that was a time of kings and kingdoms, and kings were willing to die for the causes they decided to fight for. Under what newer code has it been decided that rulers are now too important to so risk? For they, like every ruler in history -- even the greatest and most enduring -- are expendable. Their legacies are limited. They are more important in their own minds than history will give them a sentence in a book.
Military dominance will bring peace. That's the idea we're given. We'll force the bastards into peace.
Only, what is peace?
My friends, peace is not the absence of conflict. Worse, it can't be something that we make people do by threat. Such is merely enforcement, and underneath boils fear and resentment. Hardly peaceful. No, peace is instead a cultivated condition where the least violence is used to ensure social order. Cultivation takes a long time to accomplish. Since violence isn't used to enforce compliance, peace must be based on something else. And that, much as we hate to admit it, can only be love.
Reading the greatest minds in history, and most all religious texts, we find that love is the greatest power, the greatest goal, the most worthy effort of all in the universe. It is the most highly-developed skill to be able to move everything in a forward direction, in a direction of growth and creativity and beauty, in the better interest of all peoples, all life, the entire planet we are granted stewardship of. Love is no fuzzy, drug-soaked hippie ideal: it is the most serious responsibility given us by our Creator.
If love is constructive, my friends, then what is destructive must be its opposite. Armed drones are not what we were intended to rely on. Chaos was not our charge. Those who insist on the need for, the development of , and the use of destruction as a solution are no followers of God, no matter how much they might invoke His name as substantiation.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Thomas I
Thomas was a rather unassuming man, working quietly in the wood shop. He was bright and observant, and couldn't remember the last time he had had a bad day. There were disappointments, of course, but he accepted them as part of the progression of life. There were pleasing days and not so pleasing days, yet even the less pleasant days could not be called bad.
Working with wood was a seductive pursuit; on the one hand countless men had done so, yet Thomas realized that there was a deeper quality than grain and superficial appearance. There was the nature of wood, its softeness or hardness, its character, its hidden soul. Before a single cut was made there was a need to spend time quietly looking at the wood, touching it, teasing out its essence before deciding how best to use it. In this way he became a master craftsman, much sought after, though he was embarassed to admit so.
One night, laying in his single bed in the simple rooms he called home, Thomas had a vision. He was never able to recall whether he had fallen asleep or whether the images had come to him in another way. He was at the base of a mountain, knowing that it was his task to attain the summit. From his vantage point Thomas could not see the peak, and only knew that the path before him led in that direction. He knew not how long the path was, nor what he would encounter along the way. In his youth he had climbed a few mountains, and knew that there were natural rules to abide by, lest one succumb to elimination by ignorance of nature.
Thus Thomas set out, knowing only to appreciate the distance he could see before him and trust the ultimate attainment of the summit . At this low range he knew to carry a water bottle and a supply of food enough to get him up and back, and looked among the rocks for the cheerful rodents that chirped as he approached. There would be either streams or alpine ponds to refresh his water, he trusted.
It was an idyllic land, with flora of which he knew some and marvelled at others. There were defiant Indian paint brushes that brought red splashes to break the green monotony, and delicate columbines to please the aesthestic appreciation of what he had never asked for. Numerous other blossoms, unnamed in his awareness, variously combined to form a sweet blanket over the foot of the hill.
Beautiful though it was, climbing a mountain was a hard venture. In rarified air Thomas had to pause from time to time merely to catch a sufficient breath. Continually walking steeply uphill never is easy, and Thomas' calves and thighs began to hurt. In practiced fashion he moved steadily forward, not knowing how far he had to go and only focusing on what he could see of the path ahead. Every hour he would sit on a fallen tree for a small bite to eat and to rest. He paused at streams to refill his water, and let the sounds of birds near and far combine with the trickling or rushing water ease his mind and body.
Mountains have false summits, those points one can see from the path that look like the final goal but turn out to only be a rise far below more mountain ahead. They breed hope the closer one comes to attaining them, and Thomas had learned to merely smile when it turned out to be a premature end.
There were points where the path was so steep that it was only possible to place one foot inches in front of the other and lift the body one more time as breath was difficult and muscles complained. At these times it was not a good idea to look upward trying to gauge how much further one had to go; it was sufficient to merely look at the feet and congratulate them on another step.
At length Thomas left the range of trees and entered the land of rocks and lichen. From here on the rock was crumbly and treacherous; the established path was the only sure way to the top. Straying from the path was occasionally tempting but dangerous. Even if it was late summer there were patches of snow here and there; from below they had looked like tiny swatches, but up close they strayed hundreds of yards across. Perspective, Thomas knew from previous treks, was critical to understanding.
Step by step the summit grew closer. In the vision Thomas made his way slowly upward, every step knowing that he was nearly there. Nearing the summit an excitement occupied him; he knew by feeling that a secret was to be revealed. The mundane steps, one after another, were still necessary until he stood at the top, but the closer he came the more distance he could see to the foot from whence he had started and out to the entire range of mountains, and the more excited he became. Weariness was a fact but achievement drove him. Finally he was within range of the very top, the summit, and no amount of fatigue could have stopped him. Thomas climbed toward the verge of reverie.
(To be continued).
Working with wood was a seductive pursuit; on the one hand countless men had done so, yet Thomas realized that there was a deeper quality than grain and superficial appearance. There was the nature of wood, its softeness or hardness, its character, its hidden soul. Before a single cut was made there was a need to spend time quietly looking at the wood, touching it, teasing out its essence before deciding how best to use it. In this way he became a master craftsman, much sought after, though he was embarassed to admit so.
One night, laying in his single bed in the simple rooms he called home, Thomas had a vision. He was never able to recall whether he had fallen asleep or whether the images had come to him in another way. He was at the base of a mountain, knowing that it was his task to attain the summit. From his vantage point Thomas could not see the peak, and only knew that the path before him led in that direction. He knew not how long the path was, nor what he would encounter along the way. In his youth he had climbed a few mountains, and knew that there were natural rules to abide by, lest one succumb to elimination by ignorance of nature.
Thus Thomas set out, knowing only to appreciate the distance he could see before him and trust the ultimate attainment of the summit . At this low range he knew to carry a water bottle and a supply of food enough to get him up and back, and looked among the rocks for the cheerful rodents that chirped as he approached. There would be either streams or alpine ponds to refresh his water, he trusted.
It was an idyllic land, with flora of which he knew some and marvelled at others. There were defiant Indian paint brushes that brought red splashes to break the green monotony, and delicate columbines to please the aesthestic appreciation of what he had never asked for. Numerous other blossoms, unnamed in his awareness, variously combined to form a sweet blanket over the foot of the hill.
Beautiful though it was, climbing a mountain was a hard venture. In rarified air Thomas had to pause from time to time merely to catch a sufficient breath. Continually walking steeply uphill never is easy, and Thomas' calves and thighs began to hurt. In practiced fashion he moved steadily forward, not knowing how far he had to go and only focusing on what he could see of the path ahead. Every hour he would sit on a fallen tree for a small bite to eat and to rest. He paused at streams to refill his water, and let the sounds of birds near and far combine with the trickling or rushing water ease his mind and body.
Mountains have false summits, those points one can see from the path that look like the final goal but turn out to only be a rise far below more mountain ahead. They breed hope the closer one comes to attaining them, and Thomas had learned to merely smile when it turned out to be a premature end.
There were points where the path was so steep that it was only possible to place one foot inches in front of the other and lift the body one more time as breath was difficult and muscles complained. At these times it was not a good idea to look upward trying to gauge how much further one had to go; it was sufficient to merely look at the feet and congratulate them on another step.
At length Thomas left the range of trees and entered the land of rocks and lichen. From here on the rock was crumbly and treacherous; the established path was the only sure way to the top. Straying from the path was occasionally tempting but dangerous. Even if it was late summer there were patches of snow here and there; from below they had looked like tiny swatches, but up close they strayed hundreds of yards across. Perspective, Thomas knew from previous treks, was critical to understanding.
Step by step the summit grew closer. In the vision Thomas made his way slowly upward, every step knowing that he was nearly there. Nearing the summit an excitement occupied him; he knew by feeling that a secret was to be revealed. The mundane steps, one after another, were still necessary until he stood at the top, but the closer he came the more distance he could see to the foot from whence he had started and out to the entire range of mountains, and the more excited he became. Weariness was a fact but achievement drove him. Finally he was within range of the very top, the summit, and no amount of fatigue could have stopped him. Thomas climbed toward the verge of reverie.
(To be continued).
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Flotsam and Jetsam
While waiting for the cat to come home tonight I notice that a fruit fly has met its Maker in my cabernet savignon. Ah, that I could die so happily!
A man I know who owns one of those adult tricycles also has a round slate tabletop, about three feet across. His mind is occupied with the idea of making it into a flywheel for the trike so that he can ride for hours. He would certainly get a reputation around town, but I hope all the crackpot inventers in the world keep up efforts like these. One day oil and coal won't be there for our energy needs. He also has the idea to hook up every TV to a stationary bicycle, convert the current from DC to AC, and make you work for your viewing. No more couch potatos.
The indie radio station is playing free form jazz. I like jazz, but this style grates on me after five or ten minutes. Turning to the local classical station they have opera. Sigh. I actually went to an opera last Saturday night. Being a covert Rent head, I took a friend to see La Boheme. My impression: Mimi sang awfully well for someone dying of tuberculosis. It took her a full twenty minutes to die onstage (thankfully; I was on call and got paged near the beginning of the fourth act, and got back in time to watch her demise). Oh, that everyone could die so beautifully!
It seems that the United States Congress will never effect any substantial change so long as money is considered more powerful than the ideals of the nation. The oil, pharmaceutical, and insurance lobbies are very strong; so long as they are making insane profits, and so long as politicos bow to the bottom line, we'll be stuck with The Way Things Are. Hm. Gandhi got the British out of India by making salt and spinning his own thread for making cloth.
I changed the course of how work went today. A coworker was walking through the office, processing a lot of stress in her head. I stopped her and gently said, "Smile." She gave a huge, fake smile, so I shook my head 'No' and she fell into the most beautiful genuine smile. It all took maybe five seconds. Not a bad investment of time.
Been studying Scientology online for a few days. It looks to me like a combination of ancient Eastern philosophy and modern psychotherapy (a cross between Rogerian and biofeedback) and invented its own terminology and rationalization to be called a religion. There's nothing about discipline or humility, just communication and one's own reality (a rather dangerous idea; remember Jim Jones and his ilk?) with the promise of happiness that even Buddha couldn't attain. There's not even any codified belief that the church wants adherents to take on, nor an idea of who and what God is beyond an amorphous Infinity. My critique is likely the same as many people have already voiced. Too many modern holy men have proven that the power of suggestion is alive and well.
I'd love to sell everything I own, buy a good laptop and a professional digital camera, pack the backpack, and take off across America, Europe, and anywhere that my feet and ingenuity could take me. Surely I could get a magazine to follow me. A good friend tried to shoot down the idea, saying it's been done before. Try telling that to J.K. Rowling. But the part of me that wants to be steady and dependable says that my daughter has to get through college first. I suppose I can take pictures and write without wandering away from her, outside of business hours.
Have a great weekend, my friends.
A man I know who owns one of those adult tricycles also has a round slate tabletop, about three feet across. His mind is occupied with the idea of making it into a flywheel for the trike so that he can ride for hours. He would certainly get a reputation around town, but I hope all the crackpot inventers in the world keep up efforts like these. One day oil and coal won't be there for our energy needs. He also has the idea to hook up every TV to a stationary bicycle, convert the current from DC to AC, and make you work for your viewing. No more couch potatos.
The indie radio station is playing free form jazz. I like jazz, but this style grates on me after five or ten minutes. Turning to the local classical station they have opera. Sigh. I actually went to an opera last Saturday night. Being a covert Rent head, I took a friend to see La Boheme. My impression: Mimi sang awfully well for someone dying of tuberculosis. It took her a full twenty minutes to die onstage (thankfully; I was on call and got paged near the beginning of the fourth act, and got back in time to watch her demise). Oh, that everyone could die so beautifully!
It seems that the United States Congress will never effect any substantial change so long as money is considered more powerful than the ideals of the nation. The oil, pharmaceutical, and insurance lobbies are very strong; so long as they are making insane profits, and so long as politicos bow to the bottom line, we'll be stuck with The Way Things Are. Hm. Gandhi got the British out of India by making salt and spinning his own thread for making cloth.
I changed the course of how work went today. A coworker was walking through the office, processing a lot of stress in her head. I stopped her and gently said, "Smile." She gave a huge, fake smile, so I shook my head 'No' and she fell into the most beautiful genuine smile. It all took maybe five seconds. Not a bad investment of time.
Been studying Scientology online for a few days. It looks to me like a combination of ancient Eastern philosophy and modern psychotherapy (a cross between Rogerian and biofeedback) and invented its own terminology and rationalization to be called a religion. There's nothing about discipline or humility, just communication and one's own reality (a rather dangerous idea; remember Jim Jones and his ilk?) with the promise of happiness that even Buddha couldn't attain. There's not even any codified belief that the church wants adherents to take on, nor an idea of who and what God is beyond an amorphous Infinity. My critique is likely the same as many people have already voiced. Too many modern holy men have proven that the power of suggestion is alive and well.
I'd love to sell everything I own, buy a good laptop and a professional digital camera, pack the backpack, and take off across America, Europe, and anywhere that my feet and ingenuity could take me. Surely I could get a magazine to follow me. A good friend tried to shoot down the idea, saying it's been done before. Try telling that to J.K. Rowling. But the part of me that wants to be steady and dependable says that my daughter has to get through college first. I suppose I can take pictures and write without wandering away from her, outside of business hours.
Have a great weekend, my friends.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Vinny Barbarino on Meds
John Travolta, like Tom Cruise, is a devotee of Scientology, the system of Dianetics developed by L. Ron Hubbard. Mr. Travolta doesn’t believe that psychiatric medications are useful or warranted. In a recent article he said, “The problem with Columbine wasn’t gun control. It was psychotropic medications”.
I agree with Mr. Travolta that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and he has a right to his. However, there is a difference between an informed and an uninformed opinion.
I work directly with people who are persistently mentally ill. My education and experience include working with psychiatric medications. While I am not a doctor with prescribing privileges, I have to monitor medication intake, effects, and relay symptoms to doctors to help them properly diagnose and prescribe medications.
I wish Mr. Travolta could see some of my clients with and without medications. Without them, a good number would not be able to live independently and would require hospitalization at taxpayer expense, often for a lifetime. With medications I have clients who are continuing with college and graduate school, working jobs, paying taxes, and generally being ‘productive members of society’. One of my clients has a Master’s degree, another is working on hers, a former client is now a clinical social worker, one is working on a degree in engineering, another has been holding down the same job for two and a half years while going to school…on and on, the medications along with psychotherapy and case management help these people to lead much more stable lives.
An issue that Mr. Travolta alludes to is that of the abuse of diagnosis and prescription. A good example of this is the diagnosis of ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) with an accompanying prescription for an amphetamine-like medication such as Ritalin. In youth with ADHD such medications have what is called a paradoxical effect; that is, in ‘normal’ people the medication would speed up their bodies and brains, but with ADHD it has the opposite effect, slowing things down. This helps youth with ADHD to focus better.
In theory only one to two percent of all children would be diagnosed with ADHD. For many years, in practice upwards of twelve percent of children in certain school districts have been on Ritalin. This means that the diagnosis was overused and Ritalin prescribed unnecessarily. In fact, it is fair to say that the medication was used to curb the active behavior of children, and it is natural for children to be more active than adults. The overuse of Ritalin is akin to what they call ‘chemical restraint’ in psychiatric hospitals, the use of medications to dope a patient up so that he or she doesn’t cause problems. This is an abuse of medication (note: there is a proper legal, medical and psychiatric level of chemical restraint that is used appropriately. It, like Ritalin, can be abused).
The issue is further complicated by the fact that pharmaceutical companies have a strong lobby. As it stands, American children take four times more psychiatric medications than all the rest of the children in the world combined. Further, it was stated by pharmaceutical companies (who naturally ‘wrote’ the legislation concerning their regulation) that it is their goal within thirty years to have fifty percent of children on psychiatric meds. With brains that aren’t finished developing until age 26 on average, if you get youth started on psychiatric meds their brains will not develop fully and thus a lifelong dependence on meds is created, guaranteeing income for the pharmaceuticals. Negatively altering human physiology in order to guarantee profits should be a prosecuted as a criminal goal and act.
L. Ron Hubbard developed Scientology fifty to seventy years ago, when we didn’t know near as much about brain and body chemistry. Scientologists take medications for physical problems; perhaps they should come up to date on psychiatric meds.
The events of Columbine are regrettable for our society, and there are any number of theories as to what really happened. But even if adults used medications to chemically curb adolescent behavior that is pretty normal, that whole situation would fit into the ‘abuse’ column of psychiatric meds. For Mr. Travolta to judge all psychiatric meds on the basis of this aberrance is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a legitimate use for psychotropics, and more families than any reader realizes is thankful that their sons and daughters are able to function more normally because of them.
I agree with Mr. Travolta that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and he has a right to his. However, there is a difference between an informed and an uninformed opinion.
I work directly with people who are persistently mentally ill. My education and experience include working with psychiatric medications. While I am not a doctor with prescribing privileges, I have to monitor medication intake, effects, and relay symptoms to doctors to help them properly diagnose and prescribe medications.
I wish Mr. Travolta could see some of my clients with and without medications. Without them, a good number would not be able to live independently and would require hospitalization at taxpayer expense, often for a lifetime. With medications I have clients who are continuing with college and graduate school, working jobs, paying taxes, and generally being ‘productive members of society’. One of my clients has a Master’s degree, another is working on hers, a former client is now a clinical social worker, one is working on a degree in engineering, another has been holding down the same job for two and a half years while going to school…on and on, the medications along with psychotherapy and case management help these people to lead much more stable lives.
An issue that Mr. Travolta alludes to is that of the abuse of diagnosis and prescription. A good example of this is the diagnosis of ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) with an accompanying prescription for an amphetamine-like medication such as Ritalin. In youth with ADHD such medications have what is called a paradoxical effect; that is, in ‘normal’ people the medication would speed up their bodies and brains, but with ADHD it has the opposite effect, slowing things down. This helps youth with ADHD to focus better.
In theory only one to two percent of all children would be diagnosed with ADHD. For many years, in practice upwards of twelve percent of children in certain school districts have been on Ritalin. This means that the diagnosis was overused and Ritalin prescribed unnecessarily. In fact, it is fair to say that the medication was used to curb the active behavior of children, and it is natural for children to be more active than adults. The overuse of Ritalin is akin to what they call ‘chemical restraint’ in psychiatric hospitals, the use of medications to dope a patient up so that he or she doesn’t cause problems. This is an abuse of medication (note: there is a proper legal, medical and psychiatric level of chemical restraint that is used appropriately. It, like Ritalin, can be abused).
The issue is further complicated by the fact that pharmaceutical companies have a strong lobby. As it stands, American children take four times more psychiatric medications than all the rest of the children in the world combined. Further, it was stated by pharmaceutical companies (who naturally ‘wrote’ the legislation concerning their regulation) that it is their goal within thirty years to have fifty percent of children on psychiatric meds. With brains that aren’t finished developing until age 26 on average, if you get youth started on psychiatric meds their brains will not develop fully and thus a lifelong dependence on meds is created, guaranteeing income for the pharmaceuticals. Negatively altering human physiology in order to guarantee profits should be a prosecuted as a criminal goal and act.
L. Ron Hubbard developed Scientology fifty to seventy years ago, when we didn’t know near as much about brain and body chemistry. Scientologists take medications for physical problems; perhaps they should come up to date on psychiatric meds.
The events of Columbine are regrettable for our society, and there are any number of theories as to what really happened. But even if adults used medications to chemically curb adolescent behavior that is pretty normal, that whole situation would fit into the ‘abuse’ column of psychiatric meds. For Mr. Travolta to judge all psychiatric meds on the basis of this aberrance is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a legitimate use for psychotropics, and more families than any reader realizes is thankful that their sons and daughters are able to function more normally because of them.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
A Variety of Religious Experience
It’s a nervous thing telling people that, after forty years of attending a Christian church, I’m now more a practitioner of Taoism. There are lots of understanding people out there, and those too polite to offer any criticism, but what is being risked is running across someone who thinks of Taoism as a religion and assumes I’ve abandoned my Christian beliefs. Then I’m subject to their judgment.
Such an assumption on their part would miss the fact that I still hold my Christian beliefs, and that I take Taoism as philosophy and not religion. It’s a great supplement and complement to Christian beliefs. It has taken many years of study, observation, and deep internal delving to get where I’m at. And it’s not that I’ve become relativistic; indeed, the more one delves into doubt the more one finds that some things remain constant, and in the process you can parse out the things that don’t stand up to critical analysis. Education and experience with psychology help weed out the dysfunctional human stuff that gets tied to religion. But a suggestion of anything not Christian is threatening to some, and in fear their judgment can be a great force that I will not change. It’s hard to deal with them quietly and compassionately.
Such people are not hypocrites. They’re uneducated. It’s like someone who has never traveled outside the country and has never gotten to know a foreigner well, and who holds America as the greatest country that ever existed. How do they know? What’s their reference point? What experience can they compare it to? There are Christians who have never darkened the door of a temple or mosque, who have never cracked a book on world religions, who shut out any reference to other religions and cling to Jesus as the only way to God, so that any who don’t believe in Jesus are lost. It’s tidy and predictable, but I wonder how they would answer whether they thought Gandhi was in heaven.
Gandhi in heaven…it would present a paradox to an uneducated Christian, but it would foul things up totally to remind him that Hindus believe in reincarnation. Reincarnation doesn’t fit into the Trinity.
There was a German mathematician named Kurt Gödel. He came up with a theorem that claims “every axiomatic formulation of number theory contains undecidable propositions”. In lay terms this means that nothing can be proved to the Nth degree. We all accept that 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 1+3=4, and believe that the pattern follows into infinity. However, Gödel’s theorem says it is possible that at some point the pattern will break down and no longer be true, and in our inevitable limited understanding, to say nothing of nobody having the time to prove something into infinity, we have to admit that it just isn’t possible to say anything is absolute.
Gödel’s theorem destroyed Principiae Mathmatica, up until then the authoritative text of conclusive principles of mathematics.
Apply this to religion. Very little can be proven absolutely. Some things, like practicing the Golden Rule, over time and culture seem to bring about the goodness and aims of all religion. While it’s not absolute, it can be taken as pretty solid. It’s also pretty simple to understand, by the way, but has proven to be very difficult to actually practice. In fact, it’s conceivable that if the majority of humankind were to practice the Golden Rule on a consistent basis there would be no need for religion or – gasp! – government.
It’s not my place to demand that people understand things as I do, or to expect a great deal of social and religious change. It seems to be the lot of humans to struggle with internal and external control. So I guess I’ll just go on practicing Taoism quietly, letting people be at their stages of spiritual development, and work on being charitable with them no matter how they see me or treat me. It would be an accomplishment for me to be able to tell them what I believe without preparing a defense in case they don’t take it so well, and even further to be able to absorb any slings and arrows without being wounded. I’ve got a lot of growing to do yet.
Such an assumption on their part would miss the fact that I still hold my Christian beliefs, and that I take Taoism as philosophy and not religion. It’s a great supplement and complement to Christian beliefs. It has taken many years of study, observation, and deep internal delving to get where I’m at. And it’s not that I’ve become relativistic; indeed, the more one delves into doubt the more one finds that some things remain constant, and in the process you can parse out the things that don’t stand up to critical analysis. Education and experience with psychology help weed out the dysfunctional human stuff that gets tied to religion. But a suggestion of anything not Christian is threatening to some, and in fear their judgment can be a great force that I will not change. It’s hard to deal with them quietly and compassionately.
Such people are not hypocrites. They’re uneducated. It’s like someone who has never traveled outside the country and has never gotten to know a foreigner well, and who holds America as the greatest country that ever existed. How do they know? What’s their reference point? What experience can they compare it to? There are Christians who have never darkened the door of a temple or mosque, who have never cracked a book on world religions, who shut out any reference to other religions and cling to Jesus as the only way to God, so that any who don’t believe in Jesus are lost. It’s tidy and predictable, but I wonder how they would answer whether they thought Gandhi was in heaven.
Gandhi in heaven…it would present a paradox to an uneducated Christian, but it would foul things up totally to remind him that Hindus believe in reincarnation. Reincarnation doesn’t fit into the Trinity.
There was a German mathematician named Kurt Gödel. He came up with a theorem that claims “every axiomatic formulation of number theory contains undecidable propositions”. In lay terms this means that nothing can be proved to the Nth degree. We all accept that 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 1+3=4, and believe that the pattern follows into infinity. However, Gödel’s theorem says it is possible that at some point the pattern will break down and no longer be true, and in our inevitable limited understanding, to say nothing of nobody having the time to prove something into infinity, we have to admit that it just isn’t possible to say anything is absolute.
Gödel’s theorem destroyed Principiae Mathmatica, up until then the authoritative text of conclusive principles of mathematics.
Apply this to religion. Very little can be proven absolutely. Some things, like practicing the Golden Rule, over time and culture seem to bring about the goodness and aims of all religion. While it’s not absolute, it can be taken as pretty solid. It’s also pretty simple to understand, by the way, but has proven to be very difficult to actually practice. In fact, it’s conceivable that if the majority of humankind were to practice the Golden Rule on a consistent basis there would be no need for religion or – gasp! – government.
It’s not my place to demand that people understand things as I do, or to expect a great deal of social and religious change. It seems to be the lot of humans to struggle with internal and external control. So I guess I’ll just go on practicing Taoism quietly, letting people be at their stages of spiritual development, and work on being charitable with them no matter how they see me or treat me. It would be an accomplishment for me to be able to tell them what I believe without preparing a defense in case they don’t take it so well, and even further to be able to absorb any slings and arrows without being wounded. I’ve got a lot of growing to do yet.
A Mormon Visit
Had a visit today from two young Mormon elders doing their mission work after graduating from high school and before getting married.
Having grown up Methodist, to me an elder is one who has graduated from divinity school after completing college and is ordained into the ministry. An 18-year-old with the title of Elder throws me for a loop.
Maybe it’s just me, but I wish when the Mormons trained elders they would include something that most salesmen know: you’ve gotta qualify your customer. Find out what he knows and wants before starting into your pitch. When two youngsters knock on my door assuming that I’m a spiritual neophyte they’ve already lost my business.
But I’m not nasty to people. I decided to just play with them for a while.
“I grew up Christian,” I said, “but now I practice Taoism.”
“What’s that?” the blond one asked.
“Ancient Chinese.”
He asked for details, and when I explained that it had to do with balance, flow, essential nature, potential, virtue, and learning to not work against The Way Things Work in God’s creation, he gave a response I wasn’t expecting:
“That sounds like what we believe.”
The other elder, the one with dark hair, didn’t know what to do with the conversation and so resorted to his script.
“Do you have a Book of Mormon?” he asked. I think I surprised him with my answer.
“Yes. I also read the Koran. Do you know, all those people who try to make Islam look evil to us never mention that there’s a chapter in the Koran, Mary, that tells of the virgin birth of a child named Jesus?”
The blond kid looked interested. The dark-haired one looked lost.
“Those who tell us so much about Islamic extremists,” I went on, “don’t ever tell us how dangerous Christian extremists are.”
The blond kid started asking more questions about Tao. We talked a bit, and for a fleeting moment it occurred to me that I might convert him. But he regained his composure and started talking about the Mormon church again.
“Uhm,” I told him, “my great-grandfather, who is buried in the same cemetery as Joseph Smith, Jr., was secretary to the president of the Mormon church early last century.” I didn’t tell him that Grandfather Will was excommunicated from the LDS for thinking a little too freely.
“Have you been to Liberty yet?” I asked. This small town on the northeast corner of Kansas City was where Joseph Smith was imprisoned and had his vision of the Golden Tablets, from whence he journeyed to Utah and founded his church.
“Not yet,” said the blond kid with a smile.
“It’s my hometown,” I told him.
“Whoa!” he said softly. “You grew up around…”
“Yep.”
The blond kid Got It. The other was still clueless. As they were walking away the dark-haired kid turned, looked at me, and asked, “Is there anything we can do for you?”
I thought, ‘I’m thirty years older than you. I’ve been through stuff you’ve never dreamed of. You don’t even understand that I’ve done a lot of study about religion.’
“Thank you,” I said to him, “I’m doing fine.”
Having grown up Methodist, to me an elder is one who has graduated from divinity school after completing college and is ordained into the ministry. An 18-year-old with the title of Elder throws me for a loop.
Maybe it’s just me, but I wish when the Mormons trained elders they would include something that most salesmen know: you’ve gotta qualify your customer. Find out what he knows and wants before starting into your pitch. When two youngsters knock on my door assuming that I’m a spiritual neophyte they’ve already lost my business.
But I’m not nasty to people. I decided to just play with them for a while.
“I grew up Christian,” I said, “but now I practice Taoism.”
“What’s that?” the blond one asked.
“Ancient Chinese.”
He asked for details, and when I explained that it had to do with balance, flow, essential nature, potential, virtue, and learning to not work against The Way Things Work in God’s creation, he gave a response I wasn’t expecting:
“That sounds like what we believe.”
The other elder, the one with dark hair, didn’t know what to do with the conversation and so resorted to his script.
“Do you have a Book of Mormon?” he asked. I think I surprised him with my answer.
“Yes. I also read the Koran. Do you know, all those people who try to make Islam look evil to us never mention that there’s a chapter in the Koran, Mary, that tells of the virgin birth of a child named Jesus?”
The blond kid looked interested. The dark-haired one looked lost.
“Those who tell us so much about Islamic extremists,” I went on, “don’t ever tell us how dangerous Christian extremists are.”
The blond kid started asking more questions about Tao. We talked a bit, and for a fleeting moment it occurred to me that I might convert him. But he regained his composure and started talking about the Mormon church again.
“Uhm,” I told him, “my great-grandfather, who is buried in the same cemetery as Joseph Smith, Jr., was secretary to the president of the Mormon church early last century.” I didn’t tell him that Grandfather Will was excommunicated from the LDS for thinking a little too freely.
“Have you been to Liberty yet?” I asked. This small town on the northeast corner of Kansas City was where Joseph Smith was imprisoned and had his vision of the Golden Tablets, from whence he journeyed to Utah and founded his church.
“Not yet,” said the blond kid with a smile.
“It’s my hometown,” I told him.
“Whoa!” he said softly. “You grew up around…”
“Yep.”
The blond kid Got It. The other was still clueless. As they were walking away the dark-haired kid turned, looked at me, and asked, “Is there anything we can do for you?”
I thought, ‘I’m thirty years older than you. I’ve been through stuff you’ve never dreamed of. You don’t even understand that I’ve done a lot of study about religion.’
“Thank you,” I said to him, “I’m doing fine.”
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Judicial Retreat
I’ve been thinking for a while about the Supreme Court ruling that ended the use of race as a determining factor in school assignment. Its effect weakens the ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education.
On the one hand, since all people are equal under the law, it is logical that schools – or business, if we want to extend it to effective ends – not be able to use race as a qualifier. However, if this is the basis for the Court’s decision then any qualifier, logically, would have to be foregone, and we lose the special protection under law for ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, and so forth.
On the other hand, our nation started out with the written guarantee that all are equal under the law. Yet over our history we have had to legislate specifics because certain classes of people weren’t treated equally despite the law. Affirmative action was enacted just for this purpose, to make things unequal under the law until people would behave more equally. But to end any special provisions before widespread discrimination is eliminated in effect allows us to discriminate again. Legal protections are removed before social protections are common by this Court ruling. The goal wasn’t accomplished before the objectives were abandoned.
I’ve heard the term ‘colorblind’ used often in reporting about this Supreme Court decision. The term is a reference to the Constitution’s lack of any distinction between races, classes, sexes, and so forth. Again, in theory this concept has merit but in practice it doesn’t attain the ideal. Bill Clinton used the word ‘colorblind’ to describe an ideal where the color of skin didn’t matter. However, he used it in a culture where ‘normal’ means ‘white’. After much study in diversity and listening to the experiences of many people of color I realize that most white people – myself included, until I studied it and became aware – have no idea that they hold racist standards. In this context a proclamation of colorblindness means a devaluation of anything other than white standards and practices.
Another difference between theory and reality is that predominantly black schools tend to exist in areas with a lower tax base and therefore have less money for education. Try as we might, and allowing that there will be excellent teachers in any school district despite pay, the average quality of education in lower-income areas is simply less than that in high-income areas. Until we equalize pay on average between blacks and whites, the quality of education will vary between blacks and whites.
So we’ll go back to ‘separate but equal’ until the composition of the Supreme Court changes again. It took fifty years for the conservatives to reverse Brown vs. Board, and it may take another fifty years before we are able to progress back to what we had just a couple of years ago.
It saddens me that some people have to put others at a disadvantage in order to feel like they’re in control. Bullying is rather immature. Putting others down in order to build oneself up is rather insecure. If the United States wants to maintain an image to the rest of the world that we’re ahead of the pack and leading into the future, we should really shoot for more mature actions.
On the one hand, since all people are equal under the law, it is logical that schools – or business, if we want to extend it to effective ends – not be able to use race as a qualifier. However, if this is the basis for the Court’s decision then any qualifier, logically, would have to be foregone, and we lose the special protection under law for ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, and so forth.
On the other hand, our nation started out with the written guarantee that all are equal under the law. Yet over our history we have had to legislate specifics because certain classes of people weren’t treated equally despite the law. Affirmative action was enacted just for this purpose, to make things unequal under the law until people would behave more equally. But to end any special provisions before widespread discrimination is eliminated in effect allows us to discriminate again. Legal protections are removed before social protections are common by this Court ruling. The goal wasn’t accomplished before the objectives were abandoned.
I’ve heard the term ‘colorblind’ used often in reporting about this Supreme Court decision. The term is a reference to the Constitution’s lack of any distinction between races, classes, sexes, and so forth. Again, in theory this concept has merit but in practice it doesn’t attain the ideal. Bill Clinton used the word ‘colorblind’ to describe an ideal where the color of skin didn’t matter. However, he used it in a culture where ‘normal’ means ‘white’. After much study in diversity and listening to the experiences of many people of color I realize that most white people – myself included, until I studied it and became aware – have no idea that they hold racist standards. In this context a proclamation of colorblindness means a devaluation of anything other than white standards and practices.
Another difference between theory and reality is that predominantly black schools tend to exist in areas with a lower tax base and therefore have less money for education. Try as we might, and allowing that there will be excellent teachers in any school district despite pay, the average quality of education in lower-income areas is simply less than that in high-income areas. Until we equalize pay on average between blacks and whites, the quality of education will vary between blacks and whites.
So we’ll go back to ‘separate but equal’ until the composition of the Supreme Court changes again. It took fifty years for the conservatives to reverse Brown vs. Board, and it may take another fifty years before we are able to progress back to what we had just a couple of years ago.
It saddens me that some people have to put others at a disadvantage in order to feel like they’re in control. Bullying is rather immature. Putting others down in order to build oneself up is rather insecure. If the United States wants to maintain an image to the rest of the world that we’re ahead of the pack and leading into the future, we should really shoot for more mature actions.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Virgin post
Hello, friends.
I've blogged on another site for months and find that I have a very limited readership there. Nobody, except for my daughter, ever comments on my blogs even when I ask for feedback. So in the wish for wider exposure and more fun with interaction I've come to Blogger.
You will often find writings about politics from me. I'm a freethinker who has studied logic and critical skills; while it's clear that I am an activist it isn't clear that I am anywhere near radical. In fact, I like to imagine that others have a right to a point of view that differs from mine and we can discuss -- not debate -- issues that are important to all of us. My writing tends to include references to psychology, since that's my education, and spirituality, since that's my passion.
I also blog about music, my daughter, various and sundry observations about the world around me, nature, and whatever catches my interest for the moment. In the interest of creativity I may even summon characters who will illustrate my thoughts. There is no teen IM lingo in my writing; English was always easy for me and I write in full sentences. I beg your forgiveness in advance for an occasional misspelling.
Having been raised Christian in the middle of the country I have drawn away from religion while retaining the unadulerated beliefs, and concentrated on learning further through Taoist literature, a habit of some twenty-five years. My definition of Tao: water flows downhill; when it meets a rock it doesn't try to go through it yet reaches its destination.
There is much for me to learn about this site and about my readers. I look forward to a mutually beneficial exchange of words and passions with you all.
I've blogged on another site for months and find that I have a very limited readership there. Nobody, except for my daughter, ever comments on my blogs even when I ask for feedback. So in the wish for wider exposure and more fun with interaction I've come to Blogger.
You will often find writings about politics from me. I'm a freethinker who has studied logic and critical skills; while it's clear that I am an activist it isn't clear that I am anywhere near radical. In fact, I like to imagine that others have a right to a point of view that differs from mine and we can discuss -- not debate -- issues that are important to all of us. My writing tends to include references to psychology, since that's my education, and spirituality, since that's my passion.
I also blog about music, my daughter, various and sundry observations about the world around me, nature, and whatever catches my interest for the moment. In the interest of creativity I may even summon characters who will illustrate my thoughts. There is no teen IM lingo in my writing; English was always easy for me and I write in full sentences. I beg your forgiveness in advance for an occasional misspelling.
Having been raised Christian in the middle of the country I have drawn away from religion while retaining the unadulerated beliefs, and concentrated on learning further through Taoist literature, a habit of some twenty-five years. My definition of Tao: water flows downhill; when it meets a rock it doesn't try to go through it yet reaches its destination.
There is much for me to learn about this site and about my readers. I look forward to a mutually beneficial exchange of words and passions with you all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)