More on Beliefs

“When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Abraham Maslow.

This is about beliefs too, isn’t it?  If I believe I’m the righteous hammer of God, for example, that I’m doing God’s will and following God’s word when I hammer other people—criticize, attack, and worse, then that’s too bad for those other people, but it’s ‘just the way it is.’   After all, who am I to doubt and challenge God’s will?  Indeed, who am I, and who are you?

What if my mental equivalent—my belief about both myself and God’s will, is wrong?  What if it’s not even ‘wrong,’ but just a mistake?  Who has to correct the mistake, me or God?  What’s my ‘free will’ for, anyhow?  And what is God’s will?

Hard to know because many among us do not believe in one God, but in two, God and the Devil. 

Are we created in God’s image and likeness or the Devil’s?  What is our nature as human beings; is it always ‘bad;’ what’s our default, God or the Devil? What does it mean to be created in God’s image and likeness?  Does it mean God thinks, acts and looks like a human being; and if God is like a human being, why is It male and not female?

To me, ‘image and likeness’ means that we partake of God’s creative power, love and compassion; that there is no ‘Devil’, no power in opposition to God; that seeming ‘evil’ is what we experience when we forget our oneness with spirit, mistaking the ego’s nightmare for reality. 

Reality is our oneness with God, and if this is so, then God’s will is for us to manifest that oneness, Its creative power, love and compassion, realizing that seeming evil is only, ‘seeming’, and manifests when we forget who, and what we are. God’s will for us is to make loving, unique contributions to a world that works for everyone and everything, not righteous hammering.

Opinion v Fact

Everyone has a right to their own opinions.  But not their own facts.  Can’t we at least agree on the facts?  That’s what the sign I carry at demonstrations says.  Facts are neutral, not Democratic or Republican; just facts.  Their neutrality provides the glue that holds society together; the common frame of reference we need to communicate and dialogue.  Without facts communication and dialogue are not possible. Corrupting, twisting, shading or straight forward lying about facts makes communication and dialogue impossible.

That’s why it’s so important to be aware of and question our beliefs.  Beliefs always bend and bias facts.  Beliefs make people selective about facts, make us pay attention to only the facts that support our beliefs and discard the rest.  The more invested in our beliefs we are, the more subjective and less objective we are, and the more impossible it becomes to dialogue and communicate with those whose beliefs differ from ours. 

If dialogue and communication are important, then facts are important.  If one does not wish to dialogue or communicate, but simply wants to impose his beliefs on the world, then facts are unnecessary.

In fact, people who simply want to impose their beliefs on the world, dislike, even hate facts.  Such people give lip service to the importance of facts, but really think facts, Science and critical thinking are dangerous. Such people, groups and organizations seek to corrupt facts, muddy the waters, lie, shade and distort facts.  Such people think ignorance is good.  Just be still and go along.  You don’t know what the President knows.  He has the facts.  Trust him. The way we did with Johnson in Nam and Bush with his WMD. Just watch your sports, play your video games and watch the so-called news that isn’t news but opinion. Do anything but get the facts and think about them!

If dialogue and communication are important, then facts are important.  Facts make communication and dialogue possible, without them communication and dialogue are impossible.

Beliefs

“The moment we begin to fear the opinions of others and hesitate to tell the truth that is in us, and from motives of policy are silent when we should speak, the divine floods of light and life no longer flow into our souls.” Elizabeth Cady Stanton, 1875

“First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.  Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was Protestant.  Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.”  Martin Niemoller, 1945

What do you really believe?  Have you taken the time to check out your beliefs, subjected them to rigorous scrutiny?  Determined how well they contribute to a world that works for everyone and everything?  Do you hold your beliefs because authority figures in your past held them?  Do you own them, or does someone else or some other group or organization own them?  Does what you believe embody both the physical and metaphysical aspects of the one God/no idols concept, and the Ten Commandments?  What do you know, how do you know it, and how well is that working for you, your family, community, the Nation and a world that works for everyone and everything? 

Doubt what you believe! Question it! Check it out!  Have the humility and grace to recognize you don’t know everything and that maybe, just maybe, you can make a change, perhaps only a slight shift, that will enable you to better embody both the physical and metaphysical aspects of the one God/no idols concept, and the Ten Commandments, and make a contribution to a world that works for everyone and everything.

Idol Worshippers?

A few days ago, I posted about the metaphysics of the Ten Commandments; that there are two levels: the literal, legalistic physical level, where the words mean exactly what they say and the deeper, more philosophical metaphysical level where the words suggest concepts deeper and vaguer than the exact, literal meaning of the physical words themselves.  To me, the concept of one God has similar metaphysics.

On the physical, literal and legalistic level, “one God” means only one God and no others, that we do not worship graven images nor idols made of stone and wood.  But are all idols made of stone and wood? Is it possible that many of us, especially so-called conservatives, who believe they are honoring the concept of one God are really worshipping idols?

A less literal and more metaphysical interpretation of the one God/no idols concept is that anything that might come between God and Its people is forbidden; that things we yearn for, worship and sacrifice for like career, winning, success, fame and fortune may be perceived as idols.  Anything without the attributes of God—love, inclusion, compassion and peace, or that causes us to forget the attributes of God, or to sacrifice the attributes of God, is an idol. Idol worship is forbidden.

On a still deeper metaphysical level, the concept of one God, may be perceived as Oneness itself, that God is all there is, that there is no place that God is not. In this interpretation, nothing is ‘forbidden,’ and the ego nightmare becomes a classroom, with all things being lessons God would have us learn.  As Steinbeck said in East of Eden, the real Commandment is Thou mayest, not, thou shalt not. This is the deepest metaphysical interpretation of the one God concept. 

This is not permission to murder, rob, hurt and abuse other people and things; that would be interpreting Thou mayest and the one God concept at the physical, ego level.  Thou mayest, is not at the physical level. Thou mayest is at the deepest metaphysical level, the level at which we perceive that we, you and I, and everything and everyone, are one, created of the same substance and by the same Creator. The metaphysical level is acting as if we knew that our oneness with God was true and therefore whatever we do to someone or something else, we realize that not only do we do it to ourselves, but we do it to God as well.  All things are lessons God would have us learn means there is only one lesson to learn – God is One, God is all there is, so forgive and be kind as It at the metaphysical level, forgives and is kind.

We exist at both the metaphysical and physical levels simultaneously. We can choose to worship the one God at the deepest metaphysical level, manifesting all Its attributes: love, inclusion, creativity, compassion and peace, or we can choose to worship the one God at the most surfacey physical level, believing that because we go to church and no longer worship graven images and idols of stone and wood that we are not idol worshippers, even as we sacrifice God’s attributes in pursuit of career, winning, success, fame and fortune. 

We all fall into idol worship; that is part of the ego nightmare we call reality.  The thing to do is catch ourselves at it and stop, without blame, guilt, or judgment. When I awake and realize I’m worshipping an idol and begin worshipping God at the deepest metaphysical level instead, without guilt, judgment or blame, seeking to manifest all Its attributes: love, inclusion, creativity, compassion and peace, I make it possible for you to do the same. Try it. Wake up. What would the world be like if we all understood the one God/no idols concept at its deepest metaphysical level…?

Hmmm....

“Do not try to find the truth, merely cease to cherish opinions. Tarry not in dualism.” Hubert Benoit  So much for my constant references to inner/outer, good/bad, Republicans and Democrats.  What should I do when these come up?  Forgive myself, not feel guilty or beat myself up; give ‘em over to spirit, get centered, and go from there.

“The only guarantee of our Divinity is in its expression through our humanity.” Science of Mind text.  This means that my default to dualism may be perceived as an opportunity to choose again and express my divinity.

“Make way for love, which you did not create, but which you can extend.  On earth this means forgive your brother [and yourself] that the darkness may be lifted from your mind.  This is the spark that shines within the dream.” Course in Miracles, Text.

Politics and The Ten Commandments

In my experience, both liberals, progressives, and so-called conservatives give lip service to the Ten Commandments. But even though many of the most fervent and dedicated so-called conservatives say they honor the Ten Commandments and try to live by them, they really don’t.  While liberals and progressives who don’t talk much about the Commandments, actually live them a bit more that do the so-called conservatives.

That’s because liberals and progressives have internalized the Ten Commandments more than their vociferous so-called conservative brethren and tend to see the Commandments in both/and terms, as both narrowly and legalistically meant to govern our outer physical behavior, and as guides to both our outer physical behavior and our inner thoughts feelings and behaviors - as guides for getting our bloated nothingness out of the way of the divine circuits. 

For example, the Commandments as guides to both inner and outer: we might not often be inclined to covet other people’s possessions, but do we compare our lives to theirs, sitting in judgment over the differences?  Yes, of course we do; at least I do, constantly. 

Another example:  Killing another person seems abhorrent, even when done in our names by the state, but what about when we have extinguished hope, enthusiasm, or opportunity—which seems to be the point of large chunks of contemporary Republican policies aimed at large segments of the population? 

The Ten Commandments may thus be seen to have both an inner metaphysical meaning and an outer physical meaning.  While the narrow, physical, legalistic interpretation of the Ten Commandments would not seem to be violated by much of contemporary Republican policies and politics, what about the spirit, intent and metaphysics of the Commandments? How well do the policies and politics of contemporary Republicans reflect the spirit, intent and metaphysics of the Commandments?

Using Stoicism

William Irvine in, A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy, asks, “Do you want to worry less and be more tranquil?”  Of course, I say.  Then consider this, and Irvine quotes the great stoic Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius: “Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will and selfishness—all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good and what is evil”—good being, contributing to a world that works for everyone, evil being, making the world more exclusive and exclusionary.

In addition, Irvine and Marcus Aurelius suggest:

Practice negative visualization: Periodically contemplate the bad things that can happen to you.  This makes it easier to bear if such things do happen and it may also help you appreciate the stuff you currently take for granted.

Ascertain what you ‘completely’ control, what you cannot control, and what you somewhat control.  Remind yourself that one thing you can control is your attitude to what is going on in and around you.

Tell yourself that discomfort is not necessarily a bad thing, as dealing with it can help you become courageous.

Do not get bent out of shape over insults.  If the information conveyed is ‘true,’ learn from it.  If the data is ‘false,’ then consider the source and be relieved that you are doing the ‘right’ things.

For Marcus Aurelius, the art of living is more like wrestling than dancing.  To minimize getting thrown and pinned, follow his suggestions.

Paradox 2

This is not to say that some points of view, actions and activities are not ‘better’ than others—with ‘better’ defined as points of view, actions and activities that are scientifically shown to make a greater contribution to a world that works for everyone and everything. 

Some POVs and actions are more effective and efficient than others in this regard.  To me, the world that works for everyone and everything in both the short and long terms is the standard.  Do no harm, or very little; be kind and compassionate while avoiding the: ‘no pain, no gain,’ ‘this hurts me more than it does you’ and the ‘I’m burning your body to save your soul,’ kind of thinking. We want to measure our POV, thinking, feelings and behavior against that standard.

Of course as habitual, non-contributory, ineffective and inefficient thoughts, feelings and behavior give way, there will be some discomfort.  But if there is severe pain, then the standard is not being met and the POV, thoughts, feelings and behaviors have to be reexamined.  The choice is ours; we are responsible; no matter how it seems we are not victims, and blaming someone and something else is not a solution.  Sure there are people and things that seem to be ‘causes,’ but we are nonetheless responsible for dealing with them.  Name calling, finger pointing and blaming are not options.

What I didn’t fully explain in yesterday’s post about light being a wave or a particle is that whether it appears to be a wave or a particle depends upon the experiment.  If one does an experiment to show that light is a particle, it will appear that it is.  If one does an experiment to show that light is a wave, it will appear that it is.  This phenomenon is known as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory and among other things, it shows the awesome power of individual choice in the creation of our experience of the world. 

So, what kind of experiments are we conducting?  Have we had enough blaming, finger pointing and name calling?  Are we ready to take responsibility for the kind of experiments we’re doing?  Are we trying to contribute to a world that works for everyone and everything, or are we trying to prove that the world can’t work but for a few and then only if they do it our way?

Paradox

We live in a paradoxical, ironic world in which physics says light can be both a particle and a wave—both a particle and a wave, not either a particle or a wave.  Linking two apparently contradictory points of view, creates irony and a paradox.  ‘Apparently’ contradictory because like Democrats and Republicans, they are really the yin and yang of US politics, needing each other to be who each is, and together representing most of the electorate.

The first reaction to a paradox is to attempt to disprove one half of it, then make the remaining half the absolute truth.  We do this because we have been taught either/or thinking, instead of both/and thinking, and that what’s true is true and what’s false is false.  This kind of black or white thinking is barely descriptive at the extremes of the continuum, but leaves out the shades of grey in the middle. 

To have a world that works for everybody and everything we have to first recognize that it’ll be a paradoxical, both/and, all inclusive world, filled with ironies; then we’ll have to check our first reaction to the paradoxes within and around us, shift from either/or thinking to both/and thinking and stop seeking to make one side the angels and the other side the devils.

Paradox

We live in a paradoxical, ironic world in which physics says light can be both a particle and a wave—both a particle and a wave, not either a particle or a wave.  Linking two apparently contradictory points of view, creates irony and a paradox.  ‘Apparently’ contradictory because like Democrats and Republicans, they are really the yin and yang of US politics, needing each other to be who each is, and together representing most of the electorate.

The first reaction to a paradox is to attempt to disprove one half of it, then make the remaining half the absolute truth.  We do this because we have been taught either/or thinking, instead of both/and thinking, and that what’s true is true and what’s false is false.  This kind of black or white thinking is barely descriptive at the extremes of the continuum, but leaves out the shades of grey in the middle. 

To have a world that works for everybody and everything we have to first recognize that it’ll be a paradoxical, both/and, all inclusive world, filled with ironies; then we’ll have to check our first reaction to the paradoxes within and around us, shift from either/or thinking to both/and thinking and stop seeking to make one side the angels and the other side the devils.

Original Thinking

Here is an amazing excerpt on writing, thinking and living from Ludwig Borne written in 1823, from the May/June Ode magazine:

“There are people and writings that provide instruction on how to learn Latin, Greek and French in three days, or accounting in just three hours.  However, nobody has yet demonstrated how one can become a good original writer in three days.  And yet it so simple!  You have nothing to learn, just a great deal to unlearn; nothing to experience, but quite a lot to forget.  With the world as it is now, the minds of scholars—and therefore their works—resemble the old manuscripts from which you first have to scrape the boring arguments of a Church father or the blather of monk before getting to a Roman classic.

“Thoughts beautiful and—since the world is re-created with each human—new are innate to each human mind.  But life and education overwrite them with useless stuff.

“You acquire quite an accurate picture of this state of things if you consider the following: an animal, a piece of fruit, a flower, which we recognize from their true shapes.  What they are is what they appear to us.  But would we have a true concept of the nature of a partridge pie, raspberry juice, or rose oil?  So it is with the sciences, with all things we perceive with the mind and not through the senses.  They are put before us prepared and changed, and in their ran and naked shape we do not know them.

“Opinion is the kitchen in which all truths are slaughtered, plucked, chopped, stewed and seasoned.  There is no larger lack than of books without sense/reason/wit; namely which contain things and not opinions.

“Only a small number of original writers exist, and the best differ much less from the less skilled than one would think upon superficial comparison.  One creeps, one runs, one limps, one dances, one drives, one rides to one’s goal.  Yet a destination and way is what they all have in common.  Treat and novel thoughts can be won only in solitude.  But how do you achieve solitude?

“You can flee humankind but then you stand on the noisy market of books; you can throw away the books, but how do you throw from your mind all the common knowledge with which education fills it?  In the art of making oneself ignorant, the true art of self-education is the most necessary, most beautiful art yet the least often and least skillfully exercised.  Just as there are only a thousand thinkers among a million people, there is only one original thinker among a thousand thinkers.

True scientific endeavor is not a journey of discovery like that of Columbus but a voyage like that of Ulysses.  Man is born in strange lands; living means looking for home, and thinking means living.  But the fatherland of thoughts is the hear; he who wants drink afresh must draw from this spring.  The mind is nothing but a stream; thousands have camped along its side and cloud the water by wishing, bathing and performing other dirty tasks in it.

“The mind is the brawn, the heart the will.  You can acquire brawn, you can increase it, train it.  But what good is all that brawn without the will to use it?  A fear of thinking is keeping us back.  More oppressing than the censure of governments is the censure that public opinion exerts over the works of our minds.  He who listens to the voice of his heart instead of to the clamor of the market will always be original.  Sincerity is the source of all genius; man would be more ingenious if he were more moral.

“And here is the promised practical application.  Take some sheets of paper and, for three consecutive days, write down anything that goes through your head without guile or dissimulation.  Write what you think of yourself, of your spouse, of Goethe, of the Last Judgment, of your boss—and, when the three days are over, you will be ecstatic with amazement at the new unheard-of-thoughts you have had.  That is the art of becoming an original writer in three days!”

Identity

The following is a note I sent to a client who is feeling overwhelmed. 

I've been reflecting on our chat about Identity. It's something I've been working with a lot given all my prostate shit and my traditional 'male' identity.  You're right that CS is part of your identity, but not only your ego Identity.  As spirit you're much more than CS and your other endeavors, just as I am much more than my semen and books.  We are BOTH spirit and ego.  BOTH CS, books and something more, much greater. 

That greatness is wanting to express in CS and my books, but because it is of a different character and type altogether than our ego consciousness, we have to be diplomatic and tactful with the ego, to get it out of the way so the creative pieces of our spirit can flow thru us and out.  We can't deal with these pieces of spirit in the same way we deal with the ego.  When we try and think about them as if they were of the ego and not of spirit by setting deadlines, pushing and worrying, we will fail.  Ego methods do not work with spiritual things.

The way to work with spiritual things is spiritually.  The ego will worry and holler and struggle, but fuck it—no, that's where the tact and diplomacy you're so good at comes in. You want to do that with your ego.  As Emerson says, "Get your bloated nothingness out of the way of the divine circuits."  So know who and what you are--spirit and ego; but more spirit than ego.  That is our Identity.  Allow CS to express, if and when it's ready.  No force, no pressure, and most of all, no fear!  It's like gestation; it's more of a female than a male thing.  Spirit is kind of feminine in that way, ego more masculine.  We need both, but perhaps it's time we eased up on the ego and it's methods and shifted more to the spiritual.  What do you think?

The Ego and Elections

Scott Walker has won in Wisconsin.  My ego, the ego in me, has taken a blow.  But I am not the ego. The ego has again shown itself for what it is, once again showing that spirit is the only choice.  But for the winners, the ego seems to have won. The ego in me hasn’t worked, but it seems to have worked for the winners.  The ego, which would rather be right than happy, was right for the winners but wrong for me and the other losers. 

In the ego world there are winners and losers.  In spirit’s world there are only winners.  Now that the ego has failed my ego self, I have no choice but to fall back on my spiritual self.  My self has failed but perhaps if I let that go and don’t take it so seriously, my Self will allow me to see it differently, through Its eyes.  We’ll see.  I hope so.  No, I know so but my self is in pain just now.

It’s very difficult to face the fact that the world the ego has constructed for me, doesn’t work for me; that the ideals, hopes and dreams I hold so dear are not shared, or not shared by enough people to win an election.  The ego in me likes to think that the ideals, hopes and dreams I hold so dear are god-given, the right ones, the ones that are best for everyone, the best way to contribute to a world that works for everyone and everything. But obviously, at least as far as democratic elections are concerned, that is not true; and the other egos in the world disagree.

In the ego world there are winners and losers.  In spirit’s world there are only winners.  Now that the ego has failed my ego self, I have no choice but to fall back on my spiritual self.  My self has failed but perhaps if I let that go and don’t take it so seriously, my Self will allow me to see it differently, through Its eyes.  We’ll see.  I hope so.  No, I know so but my self is in pain just now.

The DOD and Alternative Energy

I received a request to sign a petition to ask Congress to allow the DOD to proceed with its alternative energy and bio-fuel programs.  The DOD has been working with universities, scientists and entrepreneurs to develop alternative energy sources including a real bio-fuels program from weeds, algae and other substances (like Brazil has had for years), not ethanol from more expensive and environmentally destructive corn grown in politically potent Iowa.

The DOD is pursuing and alternative fuels program, not because it’s suddenly gone green and gotten an ‘environmental conscious,’ but because most of US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are associated with fuel convoys!  The DOD wants alternatives to gas and oil to save soldiers’ lives!  Secondarily, it wants to reduce US dependence on foreign oil and the need to fight to ‘protect’ it, and also to reduce its budget by using alternatives to the more expensive oil products.

Three excellent, rational reasons for DOD to proceed with its alternative energy and bio-fuel programs.  So what gives with Congress?  How corrupt and broken is our political system when our elected, so-called leaders fight the DOD and want to keep killing soldiers, depend on foreign oil, and drive up the deficit?  Who are the voters who keep electing these people?  When will these voters start paying attention and start voting for people who are not ideological radicals but really care about building a world that works for everyone and everything?  We are drifting lower and lower.  How low will we go?  Must the nation be destroyed and many more lives ruined before people vote differently?

Bread and Circuses

This is an older post, but worth sharing again.  I am not a big pro sports fan.  I’m not even a little pro sports fan.  In fact, I think the time, energy and money invested in professional sports is criminal.  Sports in school, even college, can be very valuable.  I think it has a place and should be nurtured there.  The trouble is, that love of sports in school, seems to mature into addiction to pro sports later in life, and schools are used as feeders for the pros.  I’m aware that following sports is a way to unwind, relax, channel and release aggression.  But following sports also has a dark shadow side that too often goes unnoticed and un-remarked, except by the power brokers and so-called leaders in politics and business.

The dark side can be summed up as bread and circuses, the phenomena that contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire.  Bread and circuses.  As the Roman Republic, became an Empire, Roman citizens stopped acting like citizens – stopped taking an interest in their community, stopped being actively involved in politics and in many cases even stopped working. 

To divert the mass of the population and keep the public’s mind off the collapse of the Republic and its values and ideals of Justice, the concentration of wealth and power and the abuses of power – the leaders of Rome gave the population bread and circuses.  Bread to feed them, circuses to amuse and divert them.  Arenas were built in every large town, and wheat was imported from Egypt.  Once hooked, the public’s appetite for free food and entertainment grew and grew until circuses weren’t enough and bloody battles between gladiators and feeding Christians to the lions were required.  As long as the elite rulers provided bread and circuses, they could do whatever they wanted.  That was bread and circuses.

I thought about bread and circuses as I watched the faces of the World Cup winners and losers on the so-called news last night.  Did you see the faces?  The faces of the Germans whose team lost – the grief, deep sadness and actual mourning?  It reminded me of the pictures of the faces in the crowds when Jack Kennedy died.  Hey! I shouted at the TV screen, it’s only a game!  And the winners in Madrid?  Thousands and thousands of people jammed together yelling and screaming, actual tears of joy running down their cheeks?  And I thought, too bad just a little of that energy and enthusiasm can’t go into saving the planet, and seizing the opportunities masquerading as the problems of poverty and injustice.  Instead, all that energy is bread and circuses.

The usual response is, hey, give us a break!  Those people needed something to celebrate and it also gave them a moment of national pride and unity.  Oh, yeah?  And what about the Germans? And all the other teams that have lost, and have you noticed the way the sports system is designed there’s always more losers than winners, that’s real healthy isn’t it - where’s the national pride and unity there?  And even for the so-called winners, how long will the pride and unity last?  Will it carry over into their everyday lives?  Will their everyday lives be better for the ‘victory’?

It’s all a momentary diversion, bread and circuses. But, its not just ‘momentary’ any more, pro sports is a year round, heavily marketed, designed to be addictive, trillion dollar business, a constant diet of bread and circuses.  And everybody’s in on it, from the President to your next door neighbor. 

But think about it, what if only a small part of that energy and enthusiasm could be channeled to dealing with the real life threats and opportunities surrounding us?  Only a small part; pro sports wouldn’t have to go away – much as I’d like it to, I realize that’s impossible.  It’s not an either/or, zero/sum, winner-take-all thing (as the sports metaphor would have us believe), but a both/and, win/win thing.  Couldn’t we do both, have sports and seize the opportunities in our seeming problems?  Aren’t we capable and competent enough to do that – to figure out a way to channel a small part of all the energy and enthusiasm that goes into pro sports to dealing with the real life threats and opportunities surrounding us? 

Science as Referee

A partial explanation for all the craziness we’ve been experiencing, the lack of a referee and the irrationality, is people’s loss of faith in Science. 

Science used to be the neutral referee, the generally objective test for public policy and the guide for individual choice.  But as big bucks have corrupted it (think of the ‘scientists’ that work for the oil companies) and a few high profile cases of scientists fudging their data have been revealed, certain politicians have accentuated these to discredit all of Science—very much like Reagan did with the welfare cheats and Willy Horton.  The public, media-fed resurgence of archaic religious dogma, even as more and more people say they are drifting away from organized religion, and again the media-fed political polarization, have also contributed to Science’s loss of influence.

In spite of all this, Science itself, despite a few bad apples, has not changed and remains our best hope for an honest, objective referee and alternative to irrationality and prejudice.  Talking about Mark Henderson’s new book, “The Geek Manifesto”, the Christian Science Monitor’s May 28^th issue says: “We now have a strong argument for smart people to get involved in the grubby world of politics, standing up for good public policies that are based on facts rather than gut feelings and prejudice.”

“What is required, writes Angela Saini in a recent New Scientist magazine, is for those citizens who value science to rise up and force it onto the mainstream political agenda.”  Good idea!  Isn’t it time we got angry about the lack of Science in policy-making, and took action to return its influence?

Aliens and Corporate Governance

Too often lately, as I read the paper, watch and listen to the news, and talk to certain people, I feel like an alien, like I’m from a different world, a different planet altogether.  Perhaps you’ve had that feeling, too?  It’s very strange.  People speak English, dress normally, even talk about things and ideas I think I recognize, but in reality they’re speaking gibberish and what they’re talking about is so twisted as to be unrecognizable.  Perhaps you’ve experienced this, too?

For example, we have some men talking about their sisters, wives, daughters and other female friends, relatives and acquaintances who they supposedly love and care about, as if these women were stupid, incompetent sluts incapable of making decisions about their own bodies. It’s strange, since these men claim to be Republicans but in reality, they are Taliban Ayatollahs.  They claim to be for freedom, justice and equality for all, yet they would deny certain people the protection of our laws, justice and equality.

Another example, and there are too, many to include here, is Corporate Governance.  Corporations are allegedly governed by their share-holders at annual meetings.  This semblance of democracy is one of the justifications for allowing corporations all the power and leeway they have.  Here is the strangeness and unreality: we say it’s one share, one vote, but in actuality, it’s blocks of shares equal control; one share is meaningless.  Like so many aspects of our so-called democracy, corporate governance is rigged in favor of the large shareholders. Who are these ‘large shareholders’? 

Whoever they are, the large shareholders at Exxon Mobil just voted to boost their Chairman and CEO’s compensation package by 17% from its current $25.2 million a year—a year, one person $25.2 million a year, up by 17%!  (Of course the Chairman will be giving most of his increase to good causes like the Sierra Club, Common Cause and Planned Parenthood.  Not!)  Who are the people who voted for this?  What planet are they from?  Or, are they from this planet and I, the alien?

A paradox of this situation is that the pension funds of teachers, firefighters, police, unions and corporate retirees are usually the biggest share holders.  Do these folks really think one person should have $25.2 million +17% (I’m too lazy to do the math)? What planet are they from?  Or, are they from this planet and I, the alien?

I get that this is complex, but really, it isn’t that difficult to see that this is not right; is it?  The shareholders need to get real.  It has to start somewhere. I’m going to check into who’s administering my pension fund and let them know what I think.  Perhaps you will, too.  It will feel as if we’re aliens at first, but maybe, eventually, we’ll make them the aliens.

A Car Elevator in His Home

A car elevator in one of his six homes.  A multi-millionaire. A man who will not condemn crazy talk about secession and moon colonies from his fellow party leaders. A man who thinks that managing a financial arbitrage business – a business that manufactures and produces nothing, qualifies him to manage the US government.  Is this the kind of man that represents the average voter?  Is this man qualified to be President of the USA? 

If he were not white and the President not black, wouldn’t those things – especially the car elevator in his house, instantly eliminate him from consideration by most voters, especially the white males who favor him over the President 62%-38%?  Is there anything but racism, fear and prejudice at work in those numbers? 

And why is that fact, the nearly naked racism, not being spoken of in the media?  Why does the media pretend that racism is not present?  Why does the media bother to talk about other “issues” while ignoring the real issue? How is it that the facts about the President’s policy successes are rarely spoken of by the media or the “man in the street”?  Why do the polls show a “tight race”?  Are people really that crazy, out of touch and prejudiced?  Apparently, if the polls are to be believed. 

If they weren’t that crazy, out of touch and prejudiced, wouldn’t they be turned off by a man with a car elevator in one of his six homes, a multi-millionaire, a man who will not condemn crazy talk about secession and moon colonies from his fellow party leaders; a man who thinks that managing a financial arbitrage business – a business that manufactures and produces nothing, qualifies him to manage the US government?  Wouldn’t all of that turn-off the “average” voter, make them wonder how such a man could represent them, their lives, families and ideals?  Has the political game so changed?  Apparently it has.

Sports Fans and Referees

Perhaps you’ve noticed as I have that a lot of people deep into sports, knowing all about the players, statistics, history and standings, are less into issues and problems in society such as corruption, abuse, environmental degradation, addiction and poverty.  They tend to poo poo those social things as pesky perpetual annoyances that will always be there and that no one can do anything about anyway.  As if all the energy and passion they pour into sports can affect the outcome of the game.

Of course it’s possible to be a sports fan and still contribute to dealing with the issues and problems in society.  It doesn’t have to be either sports or society; it can be both sports and society.  It’s just that it tends not to be both sports and society. It tends to be either sports or society for a large majority of white males and for white women too, as equality spreads, to them [They are now equal opportunity drunks as well].

What if all that energy and passion people pour into sports was devoted to building community, helping one another and addressing the issues and problems in society?  Would we find ways to convert the issues and problems in society to opportunities for growth, cooperation and community?  I think we would.  What if only a quarter, 25%,  all that energy and passion people pour into sports was devoted to building community, helping one another and addressing the issues and problems in society?  We’d still find new ways to convert the issues and problems in society to opportunities for growth, cooperation and community, wouldn’t we?  Again, it’s not about either sports or community, but both sports and community.

Also, many sports fans tend to be laissez fare or against government.  They’re with Reagan that government is the problem, that government at all levels is too, big, and we’d be better off without government.  OK, consider this, sports fans, what would your favorite game be like without a referee…?  Or with a corrupt ref, or with a ref who favored one side, or a ref who was a ref but didn’t believe refers were really necessary?  What would happen to the game then?

If nothing else, government has the role of ref in society.  But since Reagan and as we move toward the TParty view, we have refs—people running government, who don’t believe in refs and don’t think refs are really necessary.  So, what’s happening to the game without refs?  Look around you: craziness, absurdity, irrationality. The game is falling apart.  The extreme fans are on the field, breaking all the rules.  No refs, no game.

Statist Language

Another choice most of us are aware of when we stop to think about it (but rarely do we stop and think) is our choice of words.  The language we use, the choice of words, sets up our expectations and other people’s reactions to us.  Duh! You say.  I know that.  Yes.  But we don’t, won’t or can’t be constantly aware of our language.  However, we can be more aware though, if we want to and work at it a little.  The pay-offs make the extra effort worthwhile.

Take what Brian Martin calls “Statist Language” in his eponymous article in the October, 2009,  ETC: A Review of General Semantics.  “It is a long-standing convention that the name of a country refers to its government or some action by sections of that government.  For example, ‘Iraq invades Kuwait’ means that Iraqi military forces—under the control of the government of Iraq, in particular Saddam Hussein—invaded the territory known as Kuwait.

“The trouble with this formulation is that ‘Iraq’ suggests that the entire country is a unified whole—in particular, that the government and the people are united.  Such statement can be seriously misleading.  The linguistic shorthand of ‘Iraq invaded Kuwait’ hides political differences within Iraq, especially omitting the existence of opposition to the government.”  Apply this to the US.  “Americans to stay in Afghanistan for Ten More Years.”  Really?  That’s not what I want, nor what you want.  So the use of the statist language “Americans” is seriously misleading.

“The use of country names for government actions can be called ‘statist language’: it linguistically attributes the actions of the state—the government and, especially, the leading figures in the government—to the people, to an entire society.  It makes it awkward to talk about internal tensions or dissent.”  “Awkward” Martin says.  That’s polite.  It makes it almost impossible not only to talk about internal tensions and dissent, but to even think about them. 

The effect of “statist” language/thinking applies to everything, not just states.  Use the term: “Republican” or “Democrat” or “Unions” or “Gays”.  What happens?  All Republicans, Democrats, Unions and Gays are lumped together; no shades of grey nor ranges of opinion, nor space for people to be different.  Everyone lumped together and not a very effective nor efficient way to think and talk about human beings.

The way to deal with this ineffective and inefficient phenomena of “statist language” and “lumping” is to be aware we’re doing it, chose not to do it, and use alternatives.  Once again, this takes self awareness and a desire to change but the pay-off in terms of less blaming, polarization and stress, and more community, consensus and actual problem solving, makes the effort worthwhile.  Instead of saying “Republicans,” and lumping all so-called Republicans into the same heap, try saying things like: “TParty Republicans,” or “the RNC,” or “wealthy Republicans,” or “older, Jewish Republicans.” 

Adjectives help avoid the lumping, clarify our thinking and make communication and action more effective and efficient, reducing polarization, blaming and stress.  Try it.  Not only will you feel better about the Republicans, but you’ll be doing God’s work.  After all, that’s why God invented adjectives, to help us think more clearly and work together better.  God loves adjectives.  She’s not happy with “statist language” and “lumping.”

Beyon the Melting Pot

But, just because American society is beyond the melting pot, and people want to express their unique backgrounds and aspirations [which is a good thing, fine and healthy], doesn’t mean we have to have political polarization, exclusion, lack of consensus and compromise, demonization of those who disagree or are different, and rampant incivility. 

It is quite possible for us to get along, agree on the important things like mutual respect, inclusion, civility, consensus, compromise and dialogue and be very, even extremely different from one another.  In fact, all of America’s most cherished ideals are about that very thing—epluribus unum—out of many, one. 

We have a choice about which goal and which set of behaviors we support: inclusion or exclusion, mutual respect or demonizing, civility or incivility, dialogue or stone-walling. First and foremost, it is an individual choice.

The changes in communication technology Marlow described and noted in yesterday’s post, are not discrete, that is, the circular oral norms, have not been completely erased by the linear, writing norms, nor have either of them been erased by the electronic norms.  All three co-exist and we use all three in different situations.  Here too, we have a choice about using the technology that is most supportive of our goals: inclusion or exclusion, mutual respect or demonizing, civility or incivility, dialogue or stone-walling. This choice too, is first and foremost, an individual choice.

Choice: we can be passive victims of technological evolution and nasty political mishigas - which pretty much originates with one side, or we can be proactive decision makers and choose, no matter what the seeming conditions, behaviors that support a world that works for everyone and everything.

Society is a collection of individuals and groups.  It can change from the top-down, or the bottom-up.  In democracies, even a so-called democracy like ours, society usually begins to change from the bottom-up, then the ‘up’ catches wise and rides the horse in the direction it’s going.

My choice and your choice matter.

Gridlock in DC and Evolving Patterns of Communication

I came across an interesting explanation of the USA’s present polarization and inability to communicate in the October, 2009 edition of ETC: A Review of General Semantics.

Eugene Marlow in an article, “Beyond Electronics: A Speculation on a New Media Age,” says: “…every phase of our communications evolution has resulted in a particular shape that defines the characteristics of that society.  For example, early man, relying primarily on body language and orality to communicate, evolved a round-shaped, circular society [because that made communication easier and more effective].  Those in the circle were part of the tribe; those outside, were not. Much of their architecture was round [consider Stonehenge and the yurt].  Much in their environment was round: the sun, the moon, the eyes, the mouth, a woman’s breasts, a pregnant woman’s belly.  It is nature overall—there are not straight lines in nature.

“Early writing societies evolved a hierarchical, pyramidal shape, with those at the top in charge and everyone else beholden to the elite who could read and write.  Writing dissolved the relative equanimity of tribal life and the rule of nature by creating the possibility of dictatorships and the rule of man.  Writing created the dominance of the straight line found in many aspects of human life [but not in Nature].

“The [present] electronic age and the acceleration of information dissemination to close to the speed of light usher in a re-shaping of the hierarchical structure.  The edges of societies’ structure are more malleable, and the direction of information flows in many directions, not merely from top to bottom.  The desire for ‘cultural specialness’ and the desire to express in as many ways as possible that specialness—essentially the antithesis of the ‘melting pot’ concept of the early twentieth century—has become even more present in the second half of the twentieth” and in our own time.

To me, Marlow’s ideas suggest that we are participating in the dissolution of old shapes and patterns of social organization and their recombination in new ways such as what Marlow calls “360 – 24/7” that return us to some of the ‘worse,’ exclusionary aspects of tribal culture—360 degrees, 24 hours, 7 days a week.  The fringes, what Marlow called the “malleable edges” of society are more active, more visible and their “desire for ‘cultural specialness’ and the desire to express in as many ways as possible that specialness—essentially the antithesis of the ‘melting pot’ concept of the early twentieth century [which gave cohesion, discipline and cooperation to American society]—has become even more present.”  Thus the USA’s present polarization and inability to communicate.

What is the Body? 14

The following series of posts, begun on May first, are taken from Ken Wapnick’s, Journey Through the Workbook of a Course in Miracles, Vol. Seven, pages 69-72.  They represent a radical alternative to our ‘normal’, everyday view of the human body and our traditional views of spirituality.  This view is both horrifying and exhilarating.  See what you think.   It’s best not to swallow these ideas whole, nor reject them out of hand.  What’s best is to chew them over, mull them and reflect upon the rare occasions when the ideas seem to explain your experience.  The Course itself is believed to be channeled by Jesus as a correction to what’s been done with his ideas.

“’Your safety lies in truth, and not in lies.’  This is the principle of the Atonement. We, however, told the Holy Spirit that we do not believe Him, for our safety lies not There but in our separated self—the ego and its cherished body. ‘Love is your safety.  Fear does not exist. Identify with love, and you are safe.  Identify with love and you are home. Identify with love, and find your Self.’

“On a practical basis this means identifying with love by reflecting it throughout the day: recognizing that you and I do not have separate and conflicting purposes.  Thus does forgiveness establish the awareness of our shared goal: finding the ‘ark of safety’ in which is found the fulfillment of God’s promise to His Son.  We close with the following passage on this newly chosen purpose for the body:

“’Your home is built upon your brother’s health, upon his happiness, his sinlessness, and everything his Father promised him.  No secret promise you have made instead has shaken the Foundation of his home.  The winds will blow upon it and the rain will beat against it, but with no effect. The world will wash away and yet this house will stand forever, for its strength lies not within itself alone.

“’ It is the ark of safety, resting on God’s promise that His Son is safe forever in Himself.  What gap can interpose itself between the safety of this shelter and its Source?  From here the body can be seen as what it is, and neither less nor more in worth than the extent to which it can be used to liberate God’s Son unto his home.  And with this holy purpose is it made a home of holiness a little while, because it shares your Father’s Will with you.’”

What is the Body? 13

The following series of posts, begun on May first, are taken from Ken Wapnick’s, Journey Through the Workbook of a Course in Miracles, Vol. Seven, pages 69-72.  They represent a radical alternative to our ‘normal’, everyday view of the human body and our traditional views of spirituality.  This view is both horrifying and exhilarating.  See what you think.   It’s best not to swallow these ideas whole, nor reject them out of hand.  What’s best is to chew them over, mull them and reflect upon the rare occasions when the ideas seem to explain your experience.  The Course itself is believed to be channeled by Jesus as a correction to what’s been done with his ideas.

“’Then let us wait an instant and be still, forgetting everything we thought we heard; remembering how much we do not know.  This brother neither leads nor follows us, but walks beside us on the selfsame road.  He is like us, near or far away from what we want as we will let him be.  We make no gains he does not make with us, and we fall back if he does not advance.  Take not his hand in anger but in love, for in his progress do you count your own.  And we go separately along the way unless you keep him safely by side.’

The body is not holy in itself, as attested to by Jesus’ many references to it as mere dust, but is made holy because of the purpose given it by the right mind.  “You will identify with what you think will make you safe.  Whatever it may be, you will believe that it is one with you.’  We believed our individual self was safe with the ego, and, again, at that moment we no longer had chose the ego thought system of preparation, we became it.

“‘The concrete part [of the mind] believes in the ego, because the ego depends on the concrete.  The ego is the part of the mind that believes your existence is defined by separation.’ On the other hand, when we realize the ego has lied and cannot make us happy, we gratefully choose Jesus as our teacher and his love as our identity—the choice for real safety.  As we continue our journey, we learn to accept that identity and none other.”

What is the Body? 12

The following series of posts, begun on May first, are taken from Ken Wapnick’s, Journey Through the Workbook of a Course in Miracles, Vol. Seven, pages 69-72.  They represent a radical alternative to our ‘normal’, everyday view of the human body and our traditional views of spirituality.  This view is both horrifying and exhilarating.  See what you think.   It’s best not to swallow these ideas whole, nor reject them out of hand.  What’s best is to chew them over, mull them and reflect upon the rare occasions when the ideas seem to explain your experience.  The Course itself is believed to be channeled by Jesus as a correction to what’s been done with his ideas.

“’ The Son of God extends his hand to reach his brother, and to help him walk along the road with him.  Now is the body holy.  Now it serves to heal the mind that it was made to kill.’  It is not difficult to see that the body’s purpose is to perpetuate the principle of one or the other; my body exists at the expense of yours; I do not walk to Heaven with you, but on top of you—I put you down so I become superior.

“The body was specifically made so we could project our guilt and sin onto others, making them the ones God will ultimately punish, not ourselves who have become the innocent victims.  Thus the ego uses the body to attack with; pushing others into the sludge of sin, so we can ascend to Heaven on the wings of innocence.

“When we turn to Jesus, however, he helps us realize we cannot return home, nor remember God’s Love if we hold a grievance against anyone.  To do so makes real the thought system of sin, but seen in others, not ourselves.  We thus exchange the principle of one or the other for together or not at all.”

What is the Body? 11

The following series of posts, begun on May first, are taken from Ken Wapnick’s, Journey Through the Workbook of a Course in Miracles, Vol. Seven, pages 69-72.  They represent a radical alternative to our ‘normal’, everyday view of the human body and our traditional views of spirituality.  This view is both horrifying and exhilarating.  See what you think.   It’s best not to swallow these ideas whole, nor reject them out of hand.  What’s best is to chew them over, mull them and reflect upon the rare occasions when the ideas seem to explain your experience.  The Course itself is believed to be channeled by Jesus as a correction to what’s been done with his ideas.

“’The body is the means by which God’s Son returns to sanity.’  The body is the means because it is the only thing we know, being unaware of the mind.  Jesus helps us understand, however, that what we feel and perceive with our bodies are projections of the mind’s thoughts. 

“Even more to the point, they are projections of a wish that we be proven right and God wrong—the ego’s ultimate purpose for the body.  Indeed that is the purpose of the body’s death—to allow us to say to God: ‘Eternal life is a lie.  You are wrong again.’  Yet can the body’s purpose be changed—the goal of these lessons—as we read again:

“’Though it was made to fence him into hell without escape, yet has the goal of Heaven been exchanged for the pursuit of hell.’  The body does not change; the mind’s purpose has changed because we have changed its teacher.”

What is the Body? 10

The following series of posts, begun on May first, are taken from Ken Wapnick’s, Journey Through the Workbook of a Course in Miracles, Vol. Seven, pages 69-72.  They represent a radical alternative to our ‘normal’, everyday view of the human body and our traditional views of spirituality.  This view is both horrifying and exhilarating.  See what you think.   It’s best not to swallow these ideas whole, nor reject them out of hand.  What’s best is to chew them over, mull them and reflect upon the rare occasions when the ideas seem to explain your experience.  The Course itself is believed to be channeled by Jesus as a correction to what’s been done with his ideas.

“’Made to be fearful, must the body serve the purpose given it.’  Everything in the world is a projection of thought, and since ideas leave not their source, and the key thought in our minds is fear---coming from sin and guilt---the body embodies fear.  Indeed, we all live in fear, potential or actual.  If we do not get enough oxygen, for example, the terror rises in our hearts; when our specialness needs are not met, fear of loss is inevitable.

“’But we can change the purpose that the body will obey by changing what we think, that it is for.’ The all-important theme of purpose returns.  Once again, Jesus is not asking us to deny our bodies, but simply to choose him as our teacher.  Thus will we learn the proper use of the body—a classroom to help us question the ego’s purpose and change our minds.

“This is the question [What for?] that you must learn to ask in connection with everything.  What is the purpose?  Whatever it is, it will direct your efforts automatically.  When you make a decision of purpose, then, you have made a decision that will remain in effect unless you change your mind.”

What is the Body? 9

The following series of posts, begun on May first, are taken from Ken Wapnick’s, Journey Through the Workbook of a Course in Miracles, Vol. Seven, pages 69-72.  They represent a radical alternative to our ‘normal’, everyday view of the human body and our traditional views of spirituality.  This view is both horrifying and exhilarating.  See what you think.   It’s best not to swallow these ideas whole, nor reject them out of hand.  What’s best is to chew them over, mull them and reflect upon the rare occasions when the ideas seem to explain your experience.  The Course itself is believed to be channeled by Jesus as a correction to what’s been done with his ideas.

“’The body is a dream.  Like other dreams it sometimes seems to picture happiness, but can quite suddenly revert to fear, where every dream is born.  For only love creates in truth, and truth can never fear.’

“We experience happiness when our special love objects work well for us, but we have learned that every dream is born of fear, including the cosmic dream of the physical universe.  When we choose to be in a state of love, however, fear is impossible, for ‘perfect love casts out fear.’  The opening of ‘The Gifts of God’ clearly articulates the dream’s fearful origin, and its undoing through acceptance of God’s gift of love.

“’Fear is the one emotion of the world.  Its forms are many…but it is one in content.  Never far, even in form, from what its purpose is, never with power to escape its cause, and never but a counterfeit of joy, it rests uncertainly upon a bed of lies.  Here it was born and sheltered by its seeming comfort.  Here it will remain where it was born, and where its end will come….  If you were certain…fear would be laid aside as easily as joy and peace unite on love’s behalf.  But first there must be certainty that there can be no love where fear exists, and that the world will never give a gift which is not made of fear, concealed perhaps, but which is truly present somewhere in the gift.  Accept it not, and you will understand a gift far greater has been given you.’”

What is the Body? 8

The following series of posts, begun on May first, are taken from Ken Wapnick’s, Journey Through the Workbook of a Course in Miracles, Vol. Seven, pages 69-72.  They represent a radical alternative to our ‘normal’, everyday view of the human body and our traditional views of spirituality.  This view is both horrifying and exhilarating.  See what you think.   It’s best not to swallow these ideas whole, nor reject them out of hand.  What’s best is to chew them over, mull them and reflect upon the rare occasions when the ideas seem to explain your experience.  The Course itself is believed to be channeled by Jesus as a correction to what’s been done with his ideas.

“To review – on the one hand the ego says the body will protect us, and on the other it says the body will die, as will we.  However, I –the ego—will live on.

“Therefore, the ego has us believe, as this paragraph states, if oneness were the case we would no exist.  Once this is established in our minds as a pattern, we relive it over and over as bodies.  We continually victimize others, above all by having it appear as if they are victimizing us.  As paradoxical as it may seem, the greatest victimizers are the innocent victims, because they are the ones the world never suspects.

“Yet are we all victimizers and victims to each other, because we are split-off parts of the same victimizing and victimized thought.  Again, Jesus shows us the ego’s strategy for what it is.  If we could ever look at it, we would realize its absolute insanity.  Not only is the ego vicious, un-kind, and merciless to us and everyone else, it is insane—part of its plot to have us believe that what is true does not exist, and what does not exist is true.”