"You Say You Want a Revolution..." The Beatles

In the last several weeks, I started to hear rumblings of a “revolution.” Because I don’t watch TV, I mostly hear them in my daily interactions with people or from the Internet. Facebook, for one, is full of incitements for some kind of a “revolutionary” action. Some of my 20-something friends are quite passionate about the “Occupy (Your Choice of Locale)” movement and I don’t blame them.

I witnessed firsthand and lived through the products of a revolution. Every time I hear that word in a political context, it makes me think of the people from whose lips that word so easily rolled off. Are they aware that almost every “successful” revolution in history destroyed what existed without having anything to put in its place? That those revolutions “succeeded” at hurting or killing more people than the prior establishment did? That the ensuing “new establishment” was usually more oppressive than the one it replaced and that it took many decades before a livable environment was again created? (I have to add here that the American Revolution was one notable exception, but it can be argued that it did not take place in a well-established country, but a colony.)

To get some answers, I decided to talk to one of my younger friends and ask him those questions directly. Tylen’s name, according to Google, means “brave lion.” His maternal grandparents were born right after the Great War, were Flower Children and met during the Summer of Love in 1967. His mother is a teacher and his father is an architect. Tylen holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Fine Arts and paints murals, such as one would see on the walls of supermarkets. He supports “Occupy Wall Street” and he wants a revolution.

“Tylen,” I said. “Let me ask you something. How many hours have you spent studying and thinking about revolutions?” After a bit of pondering, he replied, “Ummm… Not that many; a few, here and there. We covered the French Revolution in the History of the Western Civilization class.”

“Of the countries that have experienced revolutions in the last 100 or so years, how many have you traveled to?” I asked. “Well, none. I don’t have any money to travel,” he was quick to respond.

I felt that I could ask one more question: “On the list of you intellectual accomplishments, what are the top three?” “I paint, I work with my right brain.” Tylen stammered after a short while.

I was quiet for a minute or two, thinking about how to present my final statement. “Tylen, you are a friend of mine, so don’t take offense when I say this. If I were interviewing you for a job of a “revolutionary”, I wouldn’t hire you. How could I expect people to follow a person with no historical knowledge, with demonstrated limited introspective capacity and with no record of creative accomplishment in that area?”

The look on his face reflected that he was both angry and crestfallen. I didn’t want to say anything more. I could tell him that people who follow him into the revolutionary fray without asking hard questions would be much like him: with no experience, no real knowledge and with a perception that they have “nothing to lose but their chains.” I could tell him that revolutionaries are just people and they are really good at pointing fingers at others but not so skilled at turning that index finger towards themselves. I could further ask him what makes him think that his wish for change is any more valid that another person’s desire for status quo.

I would be happy to explain to Tylen that “revolution” implies a sudden, often radical, and complete change in something; that it means an overthrow and thorough replacement of what currently exists. I would be happy to ask him how many radical and complete changes he was able to institute within himself. I could tell him that without firsthand experience with at least a personal, internal revolution, he has no credibility with me or any other thinking person. But what would be the point? His mind is made up and I really don’t need to bother him with the facts.

I am not against change. I agree with the cliché that “the only permanent thing in the world is change.” But to change doesn’t mean to needlessly destroy. We can make changes within ourselves by progressively becoming more aware of what is in and around us. The changes that stem from greater awareness are slow, non-violent and tend to be permanent.

When it comes to changing the world, ask yourself this: if you don’t like the house you live in, do you prefer to burn it to the ground and then live under the bridge while the replacement is built? Or do you prefer a more elegant way to go about it? I thought so… Nothing wrong with being elegant.

More on Emotions

I wrote about “self-regulation of emotionality” in the blog entry that addressed differentiation. It is an important piece and I want to talk about it more to answer some questions that came up. What I write here may appear over-simplified as far as the brain science is concerned. For that, I apologize. There are many books written on the subject, should you find the need for in-depth information.

A friend of mine spent some good time trying to explain to me that feelings and emotions are synonymous, and that it was an exercise in semantics to make a distinction between the two. My response was that it may be true for everyday English, but, from the standpoint of physiology, they are not quite the same.

Let’s just say that most of us experience the environment through our five senses and, perhaps, that impalpable “sixth” sense of intuition or “deeper knowing.” This is what we “feel” physiologically. Whatever we sense via our vision, hearing, taste, smell and touch comes into the brain and gets processed by the limbic system, whose job it is to color that sensory input with emotions. After a hot drink is spilled on your arm, you may feel the pain first, and then the emotions of anger or fear will follow as you become angry with the person who spilled the coffee and start being concerned about the possible damage to your skin.

Interestingly, the limbic system (also known as the “reptilian brain”) of our brains never “grows up” and that is why we may react to a situation in a childish way even as we are well into our middle age. The reaction of the limbic system is automatic. It is our thinking brain that enables us to purposely select a response to a sensory input. We are “feeling creatures that think”, not “thinking creatures that feel.”

Self-regulation of emotionality is essentially using our thinking brain to choose an appropriate response to a sensory stream of information. The trouble stems from the fact that our thinking brain is composed of innumerable and complex networks of neurons that were created by the sum total of our past experiences, which, of course, include our upbringing and education. This is what I call “programming” and it is largely responsible for how we deal with our emotions.

To be able to regulate how we experience our emotions, we need additional programming. We can acquire that new programming by learning to see the raw sensory data even as our limbic systems assign emotions to them. Seeing that original information, untainted by affects, is seeing “what is” on a mental level. Once we become aware of the stimuli that caused the emotion, we can choose the required action to maintain our sense of self and not get lost in the situation.

Accomplishing this takes a bit of practice. We need to learn to slow down even as we want to react to an emotion. We need to take some fraction of a second and become aware of what we sensed and then pick a response that is appropriate to the situation and the one that will help us go in the direction we desire. At first, it seems like a complicated, lengthy and cumbersome process. In time, it becomes so quick that no one will ever notice the slightest pause.

Well worth the work…

Forgive the Good and Bad - Part 2

Over the last several days, I realized that promising to continue this brief chat about forgiveness was not such a great idea. I cannot explain what I feel about forgiveness with any kind of cogency without first bringing in the heavy weaponry of Kant’s Moral Imperative, Joseph Campbell’s ideas on the many myths of humanity and the modern notion of universal morality of Derek Parfit. But, promise is a promise...

The perception of right and wrong is, inarguably, relative. Historically, it seems that definitions of what is wrong and what is right are first developed by a small group consensus. They are further implanted into a larger group, tribe or a population with the help of some duress, punishment, and positive or negative reinforcement. In a very short time, they become values by which that population lives.

Even so, not all members of the group recognize the absolutes of those values. Some begin to act on their own perceptions of what is and what is not OK to do and attract the wrath of the majority. Next, follow the laws and the prescribed punishments for their infraction.

Just by looking at the Google News headlines, it is obvious that whatever you and I may consider right, someone in the world will consider wrong. While most of us will agree that beheading journalists with a knife is morally abhorrent, the radical Islamists consider it a high accomplishment.

What in the world does this have to do with forgiveness? I’ll get to that in a minute. But, first, I want to exclude certain items from requiring forgiveness. That would be unintentional actions like stepping on someone’s foot, spilling the coffee or breaking a nice vase. We only apologize for those to reinstate the fact that we didn’t do it on purpose.

Then, the forgiveness is only needed for purposefully hurtful acts that were carried out for a reason. But, since all rights and wrongs are relative, forgiveness is but a statement of disagreement with the other person’s ideas of right and wrong; or good and bad. Does it follow then, that forgiveness is nothing more than a simple judgment of Good and Evil as prescribed by whatever belief system we may find ourselves in?

And, does it further follow that, if we are able to release ourselves from the confines of those rigid belief systems, we would find that we have to forgive less and less? What would it be like to never have to forgive anyone for anything? What would it feel like to be unafraid of being “wronged”?

That would really be getting it “right”, won’t it?

Forgive the Good and Bad - Part 1

Just watched a movie that had a story in it. That narrative got me thinking about forgiveness, what it is and where it comes from.

The story goes something like this. Two Coonhounds grew up together. They came out of the same litter, lived in the same household for twelve years and were inseparable best pals; as tight as any two dogs can get. After a Thanksgiving dinner, one of the guests throws down a turkey leg and it falls squarely between the two dogs. A bitter fight ensues. Tooth and nail. It’s like they never saw each other before. Finally, one dog prevails and things fall quiet. A half-hour later, both dogs were sleeping comfortably, curled up together on their cedar bed, one’s dog’s head resting on the other’s leg.

The short tale made me remember an episode from my own life. A much smarter man than I once told me that forgiveness is nothing more than relieving oneself of the necessity of taking revenge. It hit me like a mile-long freight train and I just sat there, unable to say anything. I contemplated a response for a few minutes. “But, but… I think it’s more like stopping to feel angry at the other person. Like, no longer hating him for doing something…” He didn’t hesitate, “What is anger and hate but the fear of being wronged?”

If there were no humans on the planet, there would be no need for forgiveness. Animals don’t seem to feel anger. They feel aggression and they act on it. But, afterwards, there is no hatred or anger, no scheming for revenge, no hidden resentment. In nature all things are good, right and just. But, in the eyes of man some things are right and others are wrong.

As I ruminate on this now, I feel that without getting into the concept of right and wrong, the notion of forgiveness makes little sense. Would there be a need to forgive someone if there were no right and wrong, or good and bad? And, what path lead us to hold those polar opposites in such high esteem?

I looked at many sources and there seems to be a point where they all converge on the reason for the delineation between Good and Evil. Ben Fountain deftly puts it: “The Force of Good always refers to something beyond ourselves - we negate ourselves to serve this higher thing. But Evil is pure, evil serves only the self of ego, you are limited only by your imagination.” We hold the concept of Good as a higher place to go to. The Evil is where we dwell, the Good is where we aspire to rise.

(To be continued...)

Terms that Defy Defining - Part 2: Compassion

“Compassion” is another word that has been greatly endeared by the folks “out there.” It is used in all sorts of context, by the “left” and by the “right”, even to anthropomorphize inanimate objects. The New Age hails it as one of the highest currencies to have in one’s personal possession. It is used metaphorically and allegorically in the popular literature and on the web.

I asked a few men and women to define “compassion.” Some reasonably complete answers followed, most of which centered on feeling sorry for someone and, commonly, trying to immediately lessen that person’s pain.

That seemed close to the popular culture interpretation. To confirm, I looked it up in the dictionary and discovered that the word “compassion” has its root in the Latin “compati”, which means “to suffer with.” Reading further, I found that in modern American English it describes a “sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.”

When I read this definition, I felt uneasy. Ever since I was a child, I learned that pitying a man is a form of belittlement or disparagement. It is saying that the person is powerless. It is implying that he has no part in the creative process of his own life as it happens. I learned that pity has little to do with clarity. But, it has a lot to do with a fear of how you may feel if the same thing were to happen to you.

As for concern, it is virtually meaningless today. Organizations are “concerned” about the environment. The government is “concerned” about the wellbeing of its country. People are “concerned” about being overweight. How much action comes from “being concerned”?

For the sake of what I write, I use the term “compassion” to describe something different. It is feeling all that there is to be felt and doing exactly what is needed. No less and, definitely, no more. More is not better.

Of course, we need the ability to feel and to see clearly in order to practice compassion. It would be quite a task to apply this kind of compassion from inside of a “box of myths.” It may be possible, but I have never tried.

In my view, compassion has to be imbued with awareness and understanding: awareness of what is and understanding of the potential outcomes of the taken action. “Shooting from the hip” of raw pity is a poor tactic to accomplish what is truly needed.

I spent a significant amount of time training to handle various emergencies. In virtually all situations of that kind, the first thing I’d do is to slow down and count to ten. That count allows me to feel what is happening, regulate my emotionality and to see a clear course of action. The action itself comes next.

Compassion works similarly. Slow down. Feel. Stop projecting your past fears onto the future. See the path you need to take. Do what needs to be done.

Terms that Defy Defining - Part 1: Love

As I keep stacking more words onto my blog pages, I notice that I use words that may have different meanings to different people. Such as “love” and “compassion.” Love for oneself, love for the world, compassion for those next to you.

Admittedly, these terms are in vogue now. So much so, that some “talking heads” elevated them to a “fad” status. You can’t walk by a newsstand or scroll down a portal page without tripping on a “love” of one kind or another, or a “compassion” for these or those. But, I haven’t seen a single footnote with a definition of either.

What I’d like to do here is attempt to define these terms for the purposes of what I write. Just so we have “common terms of discussion.” Or, “speak the same language” or “are on the same page.” Whatever cliché pleases you the most.

If you’re looking for the world’s authority on love and compassion, I urge you to navigate to a different web page, for the simple reason that I am not. This caveat taken care of, read with caution.

I remember my first girlfriend, at a fragile age of fourteen. I was in love, then I loved her, then I loved her quietly after the Atlantic separated us a year later. The feeling went from a burning excitement of her proximity, to a level blue flame of a maturing relationship to yellowish embers that could have only been seen in the dark of a night’s dream. I used the word “love” to describe all of those feelings. Was it, really?

Fast-forward to 1982 and the book by M. Scott Peck. I read “The Road Less Travelled” two years before it made it to the best-seller list. Even though at first Peck said that love was too great and too deep a concept to grapple with, he relented a bit further down the same page and offered a definition. I remember reading there that love is a genuine caring or concern for another’s personal growth. It is where you extend yourself in order to help another person grow. If I apply this definition to my first girlfriend, I didn’t love her at all. I did not extend myself in any conscious way to help her grow as a person. What was it that I felt for her?

A friend of mine was visiting recently and asked me what I thought it meant to love yourself. Whoa! This is getting complicated. How do you extend yourself to help yourself grow? I didn’t know what to say…

Perhaps, Dr. Peck’s definition isn't going to work for me all that well. Undaunted, I kept searching and searching. Webster’s, Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, Pablo Neruda, Dalai Lama, Rinpoche Trungpa, Thich Nhat Hanh and, even, the Bible. Pointless. Everyone has his own take on love. No one seems to want to converge on a single definition. Instead, they keep making the concept more and more grand, deeper and deeper, unwinding the ball of yarn out into the great spiral of the Universe. What to do?

I like to make things simple. Mainly, because I feel that it's easier to build a castle with a thousand simple blocks than to carve it out of one block of granite. So, how do I make love simple? I can’t. It's just too big to simplify. All I can do is explain what I feel.

When I say “love” in this blog, I mean a certain, identifiable feeling inside that makes us care. And, care deeply. Regardless of the fact that we may be intellectually aware of how unimportant the object of our caring is in Universal or, even, global terms. “Love” here is some form of regard for ourselves and others that allows us to do the best we can without holding back. Even if the castle that we build will blow away with the morning breeze.

Whatever you do, don’t let me stop you from choosing and using your own definition of love. If you come up short, don’t worry. No one REALLY knows what love is, anyway. Go with what you feel rather than what you think.

Making a Statement or Taking a Stand?

What does it take to read a passage out of the Bible? Out loud. Or, a quote from Bernard Shaw or Martin Luther King? Or a paragraph from Mein Kampf? A basic ability to read and speak, no more. It doesn't require any understanding, insight or reason.

What does it take to dress up in Goth, get a tattoo, pierce a tongue and eyebrows and die the hair neon green? A basic navigational skill to find a tattoo artist or a head shop and some "jingle" in the pocket.

I hear and see it several times a day. People making statements with others' words or with the borrowed looks. Is it bad? I don't think so. I think that they are exercising their basic right of expression and it is something I would fight for myself.

What I want to look at is the notion of making a statement versus taking a stand. And, I don't find it easy to write this page. So much goes into taking a stand.

What is a "stand"? For me, fundamentally, it is when I am completely in the “now” and am fully occupying my space. What that means is that I leave no empty holes for other people’s energy to enter and to take me over. It is when I know what I want in that precise moment and move confidently through it.

Making a statement is not the same as taking a stand. Anyone can get a bumper sticker or a baseball cap and make some statement with that. Anyone can quote some political figure du jour. But taking a stand is different. It is choosing yourself over all others. It is expressing your love for yourself above all else. It is respecting yourself and trusting yourself. It is saying, “My spirit is not for sale at any price!”

Most people never take a stand. They simply act according to their rigid belief systems. Those systems were forced into them during their upbringing by their society, culture, or “tribe.” (We may recall here that if people confine themselves within the belief system and follow its rules, the "tribe" will extend its protection over them. So, the belief systems are not entirely useless.)

These people are unable to imagine that there is another way to be, act, think or see the world. The cannot conceive of the idea that what they think is “the truth” is nothing but a “myth.” They work really hard at trying to convince others that their view is the only right view. The think that they "know."

If we are to take a stand for ourselves, we must have a clear vision of what is happening around us. We must open our eyes. We must move our fear into our "back pocket" and see the things we don’t want to see. Ignoring “what is” may work for a while, but it is a poor strategy for growth.

We must understand that something inside us makes us want to shut our eyes and pretend that things are not as they are. We must understand that something inside us wants to bargain or rationalize away the clarity and engage in make-believe. We must see the strong programming that runs inside and decide for ourselves whether we want to allow it to keep running.

Once we decide to open our eyes, it will be both frightening and inspiring. The scary part is the fact that we'll see so many things that we didn’t know existed. We will see things for what they really are. The "box of myths" will be sent to the closet to gather dust. But, without myths in the way, the trees no longer block the view of the forest and navigating through through life is easy. It will be kind of like eating salad without any dressing. The flavors will not be hidden by oil and vinegar. We can taste individual ingredients and eat only the ones we want.

So, back to taking a stand. Learn to see what is. Decide what you like in the moment. Allow others to do the same. Maintain your space. And, finally, speaking of quotes, remember this one. "If you find yourself arguing with an idiot, who is the bigger idiot?"

Unconventional in a Conventional World Part 4: Control

For the most part, conventional people live within a structure that has been imposed on them. It is very rare that a person will consciously choose to live within a rigid belief system unless that system has already been installed in him/her at some previous time.

Because they live in an imposed world, they are rarely differentiated and rarely have a sense of themselves. They are rarely aware of their own energy. But, everyone needs energy. So, even if you don’t know how to release or generate your own energy, you still need to get it somewhere, right? The easiest way is to get it from other people.

That is the essence of control from the energetic perspective. If you control another person, you take his energy. The more energy you take, the more powerful you feel. Most of this happens unconsciously, done by a “program” that was installed early in life. Almost all people seek control of others, and it takes conscious, disciplined training to do otherwise.

As you work on your differentiation, you will need to start to recognize when people are attempting to control you. I will describe four basic control tactics that will likely cover 80% of the cases. Two of them are aggressive and two of them are passive.

The most aggressive tactic is the “intimidation.” It works on the basis of creating a fear for safety, either emotional or physical. Because the words are just as powerful as the fists, most intimidation happens without any physical contact or harm. Once the person is afraid, he gives up his energy to the intimidator.

The next tactic is the “interrogation.” This is a tactic of asking a question in order to criticize the answer. Criticizing makes the person feel small, insignificant, stupid, or unworthy. Once a person feels that way, his energy goes to the interrogator.

The third tactic is “withdrawal.” This is where a person distances himself and waits for the other to make the first move. The person who reaches into the “withdrawal” gives up his energy. This is a passive tactic, but is very effective and is very commonly used.

The fourth method is the “victim.” The person will play the victim role and appeal to the mercy of another, or will use the “guilt trip” in order to gain the energy. ("Guilt trip" is when you make the other person feel guilty for what they have done or are doing.)

In order to recognize when others want to control you, you need to see how you try to control others. What do you think your tactic is?

Unconventional in a Conventional World Part 3: Differentiation

So, if you’ve figured out how to have discipline in your life and how to look forward to your practice, you’re ready for this. What do you practice to gain the ability to function in the world of closed-mindedness? Differentiation is a fundamental currency to have in your personal “wallet.”

What is “differentiation”? Again, it is not easy to fully explain on one page, because there is so much to it. But, on a simplistic level, it is where you can fully know that you are your own individual self who is different from any other person. It is where you feel wholly as yourself, not requiring anyone else or anyone else's opinion of you to feel complete.

There are four basic elements of differentiation.

First one is the ability to maintain the sense of separateness in close proximity to another. This means that even as you are fully connected to another person, you feel that you are separate and different. Non-differentiated people cannot maintain the sense of themselves and get lost in others. Two non-differentiated people may both lose the sense of themselves and become some “third” blended entity with unclear borders. If one person is more differentiated than the other, the less differentiated person may become lost while the more differentiated person will have the controlling advantage.

The second element is the non-reactivity to other people’s reactivity. If it’s a case of another person’s reaction to you, it is sort of like playing a bad game of ping-pong. You serve, the person on the other side returns it, and you let the ball drop. If it’s a case of another person’s reaction to someone or something else, you would simply observe his reaction without reacting to it yourself. Again, if you get caught in the reaction-to-reaction endless loop, you will lose yourself and be drained of your energy.

Third comes the ability to self-regulate your emotionality so that you can use your mental processes of judgment and reason. To clarify, “emotionality” isn’t the same as “emotions.” Simplistically, emotions are what you feel. In a more complex way, emotion is a feeling state that is created without conscious effort; it happens without your control. Emotionality is how you experience your emotions, which, in turn, determines your behavior in response to those emotions.

Unregulated emotionality kills judgment and reason. It is impossible to see clearly when the emotionality is "running the show." Emotionality will use fear and imagination to create pictures of the future in a person’s mind. At that moment, the sense of self disappears.

To self-regulate your emotionality you have to observe and feel your emotions and then make conscious decisions about how you want to experience them by using your mental awareness. This allows you to see “what is” and to maintain your sense of separateness.

The fourth and last thing is the ability to tolerate pain in order to achieve growth. It doesn’t require much explanation. However, there is an interesting twist to pain. Our minds don’t allow exact recollection of past pain. What we do recall is only a general mental description of that pain, primarily that is was something to avoid in the future. Regardless of any positive outcomes of past pain, we tend to want to avoid more pain. The lesson here is to remind yourself to accept that growth requires pain.

Well-differentiated people can participate in any system, no matter how rigid, without being captured by it. They maintain their individual emotional, mental and spiritual freedoms and are never controlled by the external pressures.

Well-differentiated people can tolerate and enjoy both intimacy and aloneness. Intimacy isn’t possible without the ability to self-disclose. Differentiation makes that possible. Loneliness anxiety results from a fundamental breach between what one is and what one pretends to be. Differentiation allows a person to know and feel exactly what he/she is and makes pretending unnecessary. (In this case, when I say "pretending" it means "unconscious pretending." Pretending consciously would be called "acting" or "camouflaging.")

Have fun with this one!

Unconventional in a Conventional World Part 2: Discipline

How to do it? It’s taken me many years of asking this question to gain some understanding of what it takes to be full of color in a world that demands us to be black-and-white. I must say, however, that, even after a lifetime of looking at this, I still continue to get new bits and pieces of information on how to do it better. Keep in mind that what I write here is still a work-in-progress and is subject to revision.

I think I want to start with discipline. It is an element that’s required for any kind of “practice.” Whether it's athletics, college studies or baking bread, you need to practice it to gain a deeper understanding. As the old saying goes, “You don’t really know what it is unless you get at least to the middle of it.”

As long as we’re talking about conventionality, the conventional people view discipline as a form of self-suppression. It’s where you have to resist and fight your desires in order to get something else done. For example, an overweight person must resist and fight his desire for food in order to lose weight. Or, when a video game junkie makes himself study while he resists his desire for playing games.

Discipline by self-suppression may bring results in the short term, but it never works in the long run. (Of course, as John Keynes said, in the long run, we’re all dead) It doesn’t work for one simple reason. Self-suppression attempts to combat the desires and to keep them as deeply buried and unexpressed as possible. Of course, something that is suppressed must come out sooner or later. Desires tend to come out fairly quickly and you can imagine what then happens to the discipline. Poof…

Personally, I recommend self-discipline that is based on something entirely different than suppressing desires. The first step to this approach is to first identify your higher and lower desires. Again, using an overweight person as an example, his higher desire may be to be fit but his lower desire may be to eat a donut.

Once you are aware of what your higher desires are, you allow them to rule over the lower desires. Not through resistance, but through your loving action grounded in understanding and compassion. Of course, I am talking about love for yourself and compassion being simply when you feel all that there is to be felt and do what needs to be done, no less and no more.

It takes some introspection and asking yourself some difficult questions. Such as, “What do I really want?” And, “How does what I am about to do help me get what I want?” At first, it may not be easy to get a clear reply from yourself, but if you keep asking questions, the answers will always come.

And, with the answers comes the ease of discipline. You will stop looking at practicing as a “necessary evil” and will begin to see your practice as a way of love and compassion towards yourself.

Unconventional in a Conventional World

For the last year or so, I have been asking people this question: "If you split the world into two parts, one being "Conventional" and the other - "Unconventional", in which part would you belong?"

Of the responses I have gotten, 99% were, "Ummm, unconventional... Of course." It seems that being unconventional is hip and cool and most people prefer to be different, unique and "unconventional." Why, then, does the society seek conformity? If unconventional people comprise the society, why does society thrive on convention, uniformity and homogeneity?

I think the truth is that we are all, on some levels, conventional. Perhaps, some folks more than others. As we grow up with myths that are pounded into us day in and day out during our upbringing, we begin to identify with them. We become integral parts of the myths and assist in propagating them. That's the convention. The big "convention" is nothing more that a conglomerate of myths that covers up "what is."

So, if a person wants be unconventional, the first step is to begin to see the myths for what they are.

It's not so easy as it sounds. I will write a few entries here that will hopefully assist one on this path.

The Prism of Pragmatism

I wish a had a better recall with time. I can't remember how long ago it was that I found myself explaining to my class what a prism does. And, surely, I can't remember how that subject even came up. But, I do remember what I told them. Thank God for small miracles.

It was very simple to say "It's this pyramid-shaped glass thing that takes the white light and makes colors out of it." Why complicate things? The important part is that they got the idea. Something that is commonplace, ordinary and whole can be separated into many beautiful colors. All you need is a piece of glass to aim it through.

Inevitably, someone asked an unforeseen question. "Can you shine a rainbow through the prism and get the white light on the other side?" What could I say except the truth? "I've never tried." And, a few seconds later, I added, "Besides, of what use would that be?"

Pragmatically speaking, it wouldn't be useful at all. Plain light is in great abundance while rainbows are rare. There is not much sense in taking rarities and turning them into everyday things. It's like doing reverse alchemy. Making lead out of gold.

I wish I had better recall with all things. Being pragmatic implies knowing something about pragmatism. As I remember, the pragmatic maxim alludes to the notion that our conception of the effects of something is the whole of our conception of that something. Then, my conception of the prism is my conception of the effects it has on me.

What interests me here is my mind's ability to conceive of both the object and its effects. Since nearly everything is known in relation to other things, my mind can only form concepts based on the information and experiences that it has already acquired. Which is what is loosely known as "intellect." My intellect is sadly finite. The Universe, at least according to Stephen Hawking, is infinite. There really is no chance for me to conceive of any object with complete accuracy.

Is it possible that the prism integrates the many colors of the rainbow as the white light? Then, it is only my perception that it's the other way around.

Bowl of Alphabet Soup

Nothing like a bowl of JC's 酸辣湯 Chinese soup! Especially, around the Chinese New year. Even more special, when it's the year of the Rabbit. My year.

I ate my soup too quickly. When there was only a sip or two remaining at the bottom, I lifted the bowl to my mouth and slurped in what was left. This was a good moment to be grateful for this being Chinese soup and not Korean. Koreans insist that the bowl stays on the table while you're eating. I would have been in trouble.

I put the empty bowl on the table and looked at it for a minute or two. If I call it a bowl, does it know? Does something change if I change its name? What if I called it a vessel or, with a tip of a hat in the general direction of England, a porringer? Would it change its usefulness?

I observed my bowl for a bit longer. It seems that its usefulness lies in the space that it surrounds. It is not the bowl that I wanted, it is the soup that it contained. The utility of something is in what it isn't. Another paradox. Seemingly.

As the words flow onto this blog, it is the space between them that defines them. If I were to read them out loud, it would be the silences that define the sounds. And, if I timed the sounds and the silences, the silences far prevail over the sounds.

If there were neither words nor spaces between them, this would be an uninterrupted chunk of colored space. Green, for now. The words break up the wholeness of this green page and it is no longer seen as a page at all. It fades out of the consciousness.

I wonder if the words have a similar effect on us in general. The language allows us to communicate with each other in a fairly precise manner. But, as we define objects with words, we break what is whole into parts. If I talk about somebody's arm, during that conversation the arm is mentally segregated from the rest of the body.

Language is a powerful tool. Perhaps, its power lies in its ability to segregate big things into little parts.

Discipline, anyone?

If I knew what drives me to reach for the pen, I would try to get more of it. I write when I write. Doesn't everyone?

I have heard about a discipline in writing that some subscribe to. You're supposed to make time in your day, every day, to write a certain number of words. Or pages, or paragraphs, or verses.

It just never worked for me. Not for the lack of trying. I gave it the good ole "college try." But when I wrote that way, the writing came out strained. To this day it feels as if a certain hue of predetermination spoils the white of the paper.

Lao Tsu wrote that the Tao does nothing, yet leaves nothing undone. If I want to be like the Tao, I will write nothing, yet leave nothing unwritten. It is sure to be a best-seller...

How do I pursue a discipline without pursuing it? Perhaps, something is lost in translation. After all, even the experts of the Chinese language can't agree on what the ancient characters mean.

Really, it is much simpler than the paradox implies. When I lived in Idaho, I have gone out deer hunting a few times. Getting a deer isn't a sure bet. But you definitely have no hope of getting one if you fail to get your behind off the couch.

A discipline is something we must engage in. Without going hunting, we can never get a deer. However, even if we go, we may still come home with nothing.

Resurrection of the Blog

Today, I resurrected my Blog. Read it if you like. Leave if you have other things to do. It is perfect either way.

Sometimes I feel that the falling snowflakes are the ashes of ghosts. Why else would they be so quiet on their way down?

I can see no such thing out the kitchen window today. It is another forest-gray morning in Seattle, good for drinking coffee and fishing for insights.

A large tawny cat saunters down the sidewalk across the street. I call him the Puma Cat. He lives with our neighbors up the block but seems to pledge allegiance to no one in particular. He is friendly to anyone and rushes towards you to rub his cheeks on your shins. Right now, there is no one to rub up against and he just stands there, with the Buddha-like look of neither comprehension nor incomprehension.

I hear people talk about "unconditional love" that pets give them. I wonder if it is just the opposite. It is the "unconditional love" they feel towards their pets. The kind of love they seem unable to feel towards our fellow humans; yet, the kind of love they sorely yearn to feel.