Thoughts and Musings

Myth and Attention

2010-07-07T10:35:00.000-04:00

In a post on a discussion list, someone spoke about the way tradition can blur the meeting of a historical figure with the subsequent myths that arisde around the figure: "...even Buddhism has some blurring when it comes to Siddhartha." I responded with the post below, which brought me some further thoughts on the subject I am still mulling over. I am tucking the words away here for future reference.

Rather say that Buddhism as a formal tradition naturally has some of this "blurring." Myth is a normal part of the formed tradition, which serves egoic understanding - rational thought. When we approach things experientially, doing the practice, we do not need myth. - it serves no purpose and holds no attraction.

When we approach things rationally, thinking about the practice as opposed to doing it, myth can provide a very useful synopsis of what is being taught. It can also reinforce the faith needed to try the experiential approach.

Jesus, Buddha, George Washington, Newton - whatever the myth and the tradition it serves, it is valuable only as a thought-tool, a symbol which can be manipulated by the conscious egoic mind in its endless quest to translate all of reality into a conceptual model. Myth allows us to get a mental handle on the lesson and predict what will happen when we use it. This is the job of the thinking mind and it is quite proper for it to act so.

Of course, being enlightened and awake individuals, we all know that it would be unhealthy for us to confuse this thinking mind with our Selves...:). It is a computer, a handy and effective survival tool which occasionally goes a little out of control and overruns the consciousness it serves and is part of. A facet of the gem, no more or less than any other face.

That doesn't mean we should condemn it, though, any more than we can condemn a saw that fails to produce a straight cut. Carpenter and saw work as a unit to produce the cut, and so the thinking mind is but an aspect of the person. If I blur the historical human being with Siddhartha with a myth of the Awakened One, this is not my Evil Ego but rather simply a normal effect of where my practice is, which facet my attention is focused on. I accept it, then I continue practicing.

Eden, Heaven and Hell

2010-06-23T12:11:00.000-04:00

This evolved from a post on a Christian-Buddhist list discussing the nature of Heaven according to Christian mystics. Finding the common ground of historical messiahs and teachers in the common ground of human nature fascinates me.

You express the concept well. And that is apropos from where I stand as I see the ability to conceive, and communicate the resulting concepts, as both the apple itself and as the result of biting it.

The sparrow lives in Eden and has never left it. It does so by attending to to the needs of the moment according to its nature, the plan you speak of. It does not imagine the future in place of reality. The sparrow feeds its chicks and so enters Heaven.

We are given a mind which can imagine futures and relive versions of the past, which can exaggerate our worst fears and built fantastic model realities around them, which can shut out the glory of what is in favor of the fear of what might be. What more intensive hell could exist than the one we each build around our own secret nightmares?

Likewise, there is heaven in serenity. No need to predict an afterlife - we can live in the moment free of the legacy of the apple and see what death brings when we die. Resisting sensual distraction is an early step - later comes accepting sensual input without becoming engrossed with it. The Kingdom of Heaven is all around us - it is us. The Gift is what is right now - sin is ignoring it in favor of what we arrogantly think should be, what we neurotically fear will be, what we thanklessly insist was better.

We build these Rube Goldberg realities in out minds and then fritter away our entire lives struggling to force reality to fit the molds we have crafted. Hell is realizing that ice cream, sex, romance, cruises, intoxication, status, academia, control and prime time TV are empty pursuits. Grace is discovering they are unnecessary.

In tradition after tradition, the lesson has been to step back from the insanity of living in a world created from conceptual thought. That we do have such a capability is right and normal - it is human. That we become enmeshed to the point that we forget it is just perspective is a downfall of the ability. The traditions are all built around the teachings of someone who saw this clearly and felt impelled to pass that discovery on to others.

To see for yourself, experience what is - like the sparrow.

D

2010-03-18T12:46:00.000-04:00

From a post on a discussion list. I liked the exchange regarding some points that often serve as centers of contention between Christian and Buddhist, yet are really not at all what they first seem. The pursuit of pluralism can find a path through such things.

Hi M,

Yes, there are too many excellent conversations and too few hours for them all! I have enjoyed this one and will keep your comments to review a few times. Thank you for taking the time to write them.

We have obviously been exposed to differing perspectives on Buddhist teachings. For instance, I learned that the Four Noble Truths represent a message of hope rather than of pessimism: if one happens to experience suffering, as is likely in a world of form, then there is a way to free oneself of it. I honestly believe this is the way the message was intended, although I can not of course prove that. As always, interpretation and translation take their toll.

In reading your post, I find that much of what you says seems to echo my own feelings but with differing words. As I review it, I find the difference seems to be centered more around the concept of time rather than any fundamental disagreements.

For instance, you said, "Once this person has died, then these natural sufferings end and they are said to have entered into the second stage...", yet Buddha didn't talk about the afterlife as a subject of teaching. The cultures his words were taught in added from traditions of reincarnation, but Buddha specifically focused on this life. This is my first example of where the element of time comes into our talks: I am not dead now and so any speculation about post-death experiences remains only that. And speculation is entertainment at best, and at worst a sure course to becoming lost in the fog.

Later, you assert "...the past is real, its just in the past. It is not something we made up... it is real. The future will be real..." and I might agree if we change the tenses a bit: "...the past was real, it was not something we made up." At this moment, though, the past is not real. All we have is the effects it has caused. Here is the reality of karma: that the past bequeaths us memories and ripples of effect. If I drive erratically today, for instance, I may wake up in a hospital tomorrow. I will not be able to undo my actions, though, as the reality would be that I was in a bed and no longer in my car. Neither past nor future exist now. Their only representations are in my mind. Even while laying in the hospital bed, my body knows nothing of how it got there - only my mind has any connection to that. My body knows only that it starts this moment injured.

In the next statement, I see a point I have often pondered: "...accepting reality also means accepting your own desires for comfort, ease, love, enjoyment, not snuffing these all
out, as the Buddhist texts tell us..." And I agree: we need to accept pleasure while it is present just as we need to accept pain. I do not read any Buddhist lessons saying I should not do so. What I do read are lessons which tell me not to spend this moment of pleasure anxious about the fact that it will not last forever. And lessons which tell me not to spend this moment agonizing over the likelihood that I will experience pain again before I die. Time. What is happening now is happening now. What might happen next, whether coming pain or ending pleasure, is not happening now.

Next is one I thought struck at the core of our discussion: "I think the real danger in radical acceptance and the ACT movement is the potential of disarming people of their natural abilities to deal with problems." And, as this thread itself represents, the possibility is a real one. Misunderstanding the Buddhist (and Christian) teachings to promote fatalism or nihilism is recorded as an old and repeated problem. Yet it is also an egoic sidetrack based in the fear of ending.

Buddhism does not say we have no self. It does say there is no inherent self because of dependent origination and impermanence, and this is demonstrably true. I am not the same person I was 40 years ago - I am taller, with more scars and much new knowledge, among many differences. I am the sum of my experiences and cells and environment. Yet this does not negate the soul - it simply means that if I have a soul, it is also a changing part of who I am. The resistance to this usually comes from the ego, which wants to exist forever in its present living form. Meditating on the implications of that makes for an interesting and educational experience!

Regarding the pleasure of ice cream on a hot day, if you get in a car and drive for an ice cream, you are not eating the ice cream along the way. If a traffic jam holds you up and you are upset because the treat is delayed, you are experiencing suffering. While you are driving, you are driving, and traffic is part of driving, so all is well. This can only change if you are physically driving but mentally living in the future of eating. Once you get to the ice cream and are eating it, then you can immerse yourself in the experience, and you can feel the pleasure of sweetness and cold. Once the ice cream is done, the experience changes to whatever follows. In each of these, there is no desire or aversion unless your mind becomes preoccupied with past or future.

Finally, note that none of this should infer there is no planning for the future or no learning from the past. A part of our brain is designed to do just this and it makes sense to use it so. The confusion comes in when we mistake this part, the ego, for the whole Self. It is a tool intended to apply past lessons to future possible scenarios for the sake of continuing organism. Part of meditation practice is to learn to step aside from this constant stream-of-consciousness activity and see that it is not me, but simply a part of me doing its job. This is detachment. Like computer projections, the various scenarios come and go nonstop, but they are only imaginary possibilities, not realities within which to get lost.

Thanks for the discussion, M. Perhaps one day our schedules will once again permit us some conversation!

The views on Buddhist thought represented are mine, so expect differing opinions on them. More learned folks will likely find errors. As always, though, my focus is on the teachings of the sages such as Buddha and Christ, rather than on the way those teachings have arrived at today. In this, it makes sense to try and distill meaning from many sources rather than to accept any single scripture as, well, gospel! No offense is ever intended and my material is naturally outdated as soon as I post it! Impermanence affects everything...:).

D

This blog has moved

2010-03-08T12:07:00.001-05:00

This blog is now located at http://darrellspen.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://darrellspen.blogspot.com/atom.xml.

Dissonance and Out-Groups

2010-01-21T13:37:00.002-05:00

A class assignment for a forum post:

Story telling is an invaluable laboratory for learning about ourselves and others. Which of the stories and experiments cited by the authors did you find particularly meaningful? Can you share stories from your personal histories that we would also find informative?

I wrote my essay on this point, which begins around page 55. The concept of prejudice and of reinforcing my own ego through contrast with an outside group is one I've considered important for years.

In my mind, the process is something like this: the creation of a Them creates an Us by default. And an Us necessitates the existence of an I, thereby validating and reinforcing my ego. I enjoyed reading the perspective in Mistakes Were Made because it suggested some further detail about this. In my observation, much of our thinking either reinforces our sense of self, or threatens it. The concept of cognitive dissonance places a label on this thought for me and the explanations help me explore it further.

Travis & Aronson state that "stereotypes flatten out differences within the categories we are looking at and exaggerate the differences between categories" (p. 57). This is an awesome clue to the manipulations of mental functioning. I think it should be pretty obvious that I am not dealing with reality when I begin to group any set of individuals based not on the totality of each, but rather on only those characteristics I consider significant.

On pages 63-64, we read of an experiment where electric shocks were administered to students fitting the parameters of one group by those fitting the parameters of another. I liked this story because it illustrated to me just how superficial the distinctions are. The authors go on to expand upon the list of groups that have responded in similar ways, including those divided by gender, language, sexual preference and ethnicity. From personal experience, I might add sports team affiliation, religion, income level, political affiliation and computer manufacturer. My personal conclusion regarding this phenomenon is that it isn't about the actual topics involved, which are all arbitrary, but rather about the degree to which I internalize a given stance as part of my identity.

I have run into the behavior at work and amongst friends and family, too. Issues like abortion, dress codes, appropriate use of intoxication and even preferred weather seem to work just as well as any to establish in- and out-groups. Intelligent discussion or debate often takes a back seat to egotistical assertion.

The War on Terrorism is an interesting global display of Us vs. Them. In this, a terrorist is a label placed on a human being who commits a certain type of aggression. Although the terrorist may be a person responding to social or religious pressures and may be a family member and otherwise similar in many ways to me, he is labeled by his behaviors and thus fair game for out-grouping. In fact, he can now be subjected to behaviors on my part that mimic his own original transgressions, such as the killing of uninvolved parties as part of an effort to kill him!

Even more shocking is the fact that I can create new groups around him which don't even directly involve him. For instance, I can join a group that says it is not OK to accept collateral damage in pursuit of holding the terrorist accountable for past behaviors, while my friend joins a group that opposes this perspective. Although we both have far more in common than either of us do with the terrorist, we can become very heated in our defense of the two viewpoints, even to the point of doing irreparable harm to our friendship over them. And yet, rationality suggests that the issues are open to reasonable discussion and that such would require each of us opening his mind to the other's perspective. What is it that so commonly blocks such sensible behavior?

Why do I become angry over this issue but accept opponents of another without care? Is it really because one is so much more important than the other by some objective measurement? Or is it perhaps that I have made this issue over here more personal, more attached to me like some growth of my Self? Do I rage at the other group because of fundamental differences? Or because doing so reinforces my own identity? And if the latter, is my anger, my perspective, valid?

I think it is important to think about this concept because of the daily harm committed in the name of allegiance to ideas, membership and causes. And not only the interpersonal damage, but also the intrapersonal as well: whenever I limit my own identity to a concept, I've reduced the breathing reality to fit into a far smaller box than it really can. I am warping and contorting it and I have to live with the result.

Tavris, Carol; Aronson, Elliot. (2007). Mistakes Were Made (but not by me). Orlando, Florida: Harcourt, Inc.

2010-01-01T12:32:00.002-05:00

A post from my Religious Thought in World Perspective class:

I used the word syndrome advisedly with regard to Us vs Them - the human tendency to divisiveness and depersonalization - because it refers to a cluster of behaviors and effects and that is how I see this phenomenon. In some cases, it is a simple and seemingly innocent teaching, as when a child is taught which humans belong to her family. In others, such as with religious fundamentalist activism, it can have more violent consequences. This is not a judgment on either of these scenarios, but a statement that it seems to me they represent the same drive.
Regarding your "local Hasidic Jewish community and their endless mission to separate and extricate themselves from the rest of us", I suspect it is indeed the same thing. When I identify with a given structure, physical or conceptual, I invest a bit of myself in it - it becomes a reinforcement for my existence. Thus, protecting it becomes self-defense. In my mind, again, this is the only way I can account for the desperate, sometimes homicidal fervor with which people will defend so many things from personal morality to religious systems to football teams.
It is a sad thought for me that I participate in these behaviors as well. To exclude someone, to create a Them for that excluded person to belong to, requires that I reduce him to a symbol, a nonhuman idea that I can push away. A person discovered in my living room at two in the morning becomes a "home invader", a man targeted in my rifle sights on the battlefield becomes "an enemy", a person who gossips about me is "a troublemaker", a person as seen from my jury box becomes "the accused." The people who yell at my dog are "those sons of biskets" and the people in front of me on my way to work are "Sunday drivers." The world's air is polluted by "careless self-serving corporate rapists" and the people responsible for the abused pets in that horrifying television commercial are simply "monsters."
It's easy to dehumanize someone in order to support judging, excluding and hurting her. It is more difficult to consider that there is a history of influences stretching back in time that led up to the current behavior, which is itself performed by a living human being just like me who is attempting to make sense of life. While this view doesn't invalidate the concept of personal responsibility as applied her, it does cause me to consider it more deeply in relation to my own actions. If I shoot the guy in the living room, for instance, I am not shooting some conceptual target labeled "home invader", but rather I am killing a human being because I have chosen my own safety over his.
I wonder how such a perspective affects the human ability to wage war?

Emptiness is Form

2009-12-06T12:01:00.005-05:00

That line is from The Heart Sutra, and old essay on the nature of reality. It presents a paradox around how we view reality that has sparked many discussions. It describes my recent quandary at work.

Here, Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.*

What I came up with:

Since entering the healthcare profession as an EMT, I've seen many people who appear to value the bureaucracy over the patient care. And I've seen a lot of tension around it. It has occurred to me (perhaps fertilized by many comments around the subject!) that many of these people started out more idealistically but then surrendered to the stresses of competing priorities - and resented that mindset.
Since entering Nursing, especially, I have been presented with numerous priorities that appeared to be in conflict. I have repeatedly framed them into two conflicting roles: idealistic caretaker and embittered burnout. Duality.
When presented with what I framed as related mistakes at work, I (my ego) regenerated the scenario of conflicting roles from memory and created anxiety around it.

Most of that is pretty obvious, I'd imagine. However, it is the nature of such anxiety structures that they are more obvious from the outside than from in here! I knew my intuitive mind would sort things out given a chance to work, so I slept on it.

The roles described above, and the conflict around them, do not exist, of course. I know people who have mingled the various parts (that I assembled into those roles) in a way that fits neither preconception. The roles seem real to people who buy into them, but they are concepts - mental creations, illusions. Take a few selected pieces of the Whole, bind them together with emotion and rationalizing, then set them up as Real. In this, we have the recipe for human misery.

Cars are not real. They are collections of parts temporarily connecting in certain ways. We call this collection "car" and think of car as a real thing, separate and distinct from all around it. We create form out of emptiness by making a concept called car. In out own inner Reality Model, car is real.

In the same way, I collect various tasks and anxieties together, create a form called "Charge Nurse" and make it real (to me.) I nourish my aversion to this role, which causes me increased anxiety when I see myself associating with it. Charge Nurse will rob me of my compassion, my human contact with my patients! It will slowly seep into my bones and transform me into embittered burnout!

Hogwash!! As many have proven with their own approaches to it, it is possible to arrange things so the paperwork waits in line behind the people we care for. But, being human, I gloss over these examples when faced with my fear of Charge Nurse - an imaginary form which represents to my fearful ego, entrapment onto the path to embittered burnout.

Therefore, Sariputra, in emptiness there is no form, nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness; No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables or objects of mind; No sight-organ element, and so forth, until we come to: No mind-consciousness element; There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, and so forth, until we come to: there is no decay and death, no extinction of decay and death. There is no suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path. There is no cognition, no attainment and non-attainment.

Therefore, Sariputra, it is because of his non-attainment that a Bodhisattva, through having relied on the Perfection of Wisdom, dwells without thought-coverings. In the absence of thought-coverings he has not been made to tremble, he has overcome what can upset, and in the end he attains to Nirvana.*

There are no embittered burnouts, there are no charge nurses, there are no paths to doom. There is only this moment and the choices I make right now. All else is emptiness: forms I have created in my head to give structure to Reality so my ego can do its work. These forms are valid tools for the ego, but I must never forget they are not real. To suffer over a mental construct is to imagine one's own way into distress. Not very smart!

Love your enemies whether they are people or illusion, for they represent priceless opportunities for growth.

D

* Thanks to http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html for the Heart Sutra quotes!

Emptiness

2009-12-05T13:43:00.002-05:00

For anyone lost in the unfamiliar verbiage, the general idea of Emptiness is that reality is a constantly shifting, evolving process in which everything influences everything else. The key point is that our minds, because of the way they are formed and the way they work, sort out conceptual structures for things and label those structures. Thus, I am seen as an animated body and labeled "man" even though this barely scratches the surface of what I am.

The usefulness of this is determined by what the observer considers as significant in the observation. There is, for instance, no practical reason to consider the dead cells lysing in my body, or the new cells forming, when trying to project my next move in heavy commuting traffic.

Emptiness, in the sense used here, can be considered to refer to the utterly conceptual nature of the structure created to represent me. I exist as a constantly changing process of physiological activities, mental processes, environmental influences and so on, but your mental image of me, which is the reality you interact with, is simply a snapshot of me from your point of view.

As children, we all saw things as bright and new and fascinating. Over time, we reduce our world to these mental snapshots and see things as repeated or bland or worn-out in a familiar kind of way. Yet the realities, upon which we based out models, continue to churn and evolve and grow, this way and that, depending upon the influences exerted on them. The reality changes, the snapshot model often does not keep up. Many traditions suggest it is beneficial to relearn to see the reality through the illusory models.

In a recent discussion on the way we see certain locations as sacred or special, the significance is that we do so because we build models of them that represent them so. The question I asked was whether all reality is sacred and we are the ones which build models that make some of it seem profane or ordinary. This captured my feelings of relativity around this subject.

My own thoughts are that sacredness and other labels are relative. Not insubstantial or without worth, but simply relative to individual perspective. Someone once said he could see the whole world in a grain of rice. Everything is sacred, of "ultimate importance", as James Livingston put it in Anatomy of the Sacred.

In the book The Peaceful Warrior by Dan Millman, the lead character expresses an epiphany on this subject with the revelation that "there are no ordinary moments!" I've always liked that thought...:).

There are indeed no ordinary moments, nor any ordinary objects, places or happenings. Unless, of course, we choose to filter and label them so!

2009-11-24T11:14:00.006-05:00

From a post I made in a class about religion:

An interesting thought that caught my attention was that the focus on afterlife seems to serve as a motivater for attempts to live this life more fully and properly. Thus, it seems the reward must be external to the process in many cases. Some religions, though, use the process of this life itself as the carrot. Examples of the former include Heaven as a reward for a moral life vs. simple serenity as a reward for a mindful life as an instance of the latter.
I am wondering if the reward is the same in both cases, perhaps some effect in the area of diminished anxiety? And that if anxiety is a direct effect of a focus on future possibilities or rumination over past mishaps, then perhaps there is a clue as to why religion is human-centric? We have the brain that produces the survival tool labeled "ego" and thus we have the anxieties that require management.
Carried further, this train of thought leads back to mindfulness and similar present-moment skills as direct management of anxiety by turning attention away from dwelling on memories and scenarios. Could so much of neurosis be simply the effect of a commonly experienced dysregulation of our natural ability to consciously remember and predict?

It seems to me that this may be a case of Occam's razor.

Change

2009-11-23T12:28:00.001-05:00

I think the confidence can come from accepting that we are always changing. Every moment of our lives, something changes. New air in, old air out; cells die and others divide; neuroplasticity results in changed brain function; opinions are formed, morph or are abandoned; people come, people go; we age a fraction more; we gain or lose height; we add one memory and lose contact with another.

I remember way, way back in time feeling that if I didn't continuously reinforce or cling to a certain attitude, belief or moral, I would risk becoming "somebody else." In retrospect, I find this phrasing humorous. I remind myself, however, of Erickson's theory and especially of the adolescent and young adult preoccupation with the search for identity. This brings another chuckle as it suggests the reason I am less worried about change nowadays might be related to the developmental psychological changes I've gone through as I've aged...:).

In any event, the result is that I accept that I will always be me even if I change. Erickson aside, some of this comes from a new perspective gained through meditation wherein I do not consider the chattering stream-of-consciousness to be me. I am the effect of all that has gone into me throughout my life and, like any tree or cloud or star or idea or creature, I change continuously.

Change is not scary - it is life. Stasis is scary...:).

Temporary Me

2009-10-28T12:35:00.002-04:00

From a post around the concept of the self as more of a process than a concrete thing:

It would be absurd of me to deny that there is continuity of self throughout my life. And I see no adverse impacts on health stemming from that realization. It is only when I try to imagine an unchanging core or to freeze a representative moment of time and label it Me that I begin to have issues. Reality continues to change, but my imaginary snapshot doesn't. It would seem sensible to alter the model when this becomes noticeable, but, pathologically, it seems we often try to ignore or explain away the changes instead.

I have traits I can trace back to childhood in addition to things that arose only recently. My arachnophobia history, for instance, includes incidents at an early childhood home as well as more recent conditioning reinforcement aimed at change. So, I could blithely say that it is an unchanging part of me that was added early in life. Yet the quality of the condition has passed through many phases, the reinforcement has been increased or decreased according to my developing knowledge of psychology, the effect have varied according to situation, the social implications have changed as my own social development has evolved. So, what appears on the surface to be a constant becomes with closer inspection more of an ongoing story.

I remember reading a short interview of myself in a small local paper. It was done while I was on leave after completing boot camp, I believe. I was described as intense, poised in my seat for action - something like that. Yet I would have characterized myself as completely relaxed at that time. Nowadays, in similar situations, I have been described as calm. My self-view throughout was of calmness, but apparently my presentation has changed. Certainly my inner peace has grown - I no longer am subjected to dysregulated anger at intervals or to intense social anxiety. In a process lasting a lifetime, I have adapted, changed and evolved.

I may have mentioned before a kind of childhood epiphany I once had. Frequent drive-ins movies had enamored me of Hollywood cowboys. In play with my sisters, I remember a sense of frustration or longing around the fact that I could only play at cowboy, not jump on a real horse and ride away. Then I had this flash of insight: who says I am not a cowboy? Maybe I don't have a horse yet, but if I am really a cowboy, I will have one someday! In this memory, I see the early stirrings of the realization that my self-view was the biggest limiting factor in my reality model and goal-setting. Too bad I lost that temporarily during my early adult years!

Jump to high school and a student teacher is talking with me briefly during a class break. She mentions that her current hobby is (paraphrased) looking into the concept that happiness is a choice of state of mind rather than being controlled by external factors. Again, a small thing, but one I remember when so much else is lost - it made am impression on me and likely contributed to my ongoing development.

Both these events seem to indicate an internal focus or awareness that allowed me to see my mind as malleable and important. This fundamental perspective is an important factor in the epiphany that led me away from my street life twenty years ago. Yet I see it not as a static and concrete personality trait that saved me all by itself, but rather as a potential for a tendency, perhaps genetic or an random configuration of biology, that was nurtured by other factors such as the moments described above. Things came together just so that they fell within the range of effect necessary for the potential.

So there is the long version: a continuity exists. It could have developed along many paths - it did develop along the one that led me to this post. The combined effects of potential and choice and circumstance. All that is existent today resulted from the accumulated effects of its causes, including you and I. We label and catalog and conceptualize so the rational mind can work with things, but then we forget that all that conceptual work was applied by us to a reality which isn't dependent upon our model for its actions.

Remembering this - realizing this - can be a Big Deal for someone who has labeled a set of effects as distressing. Perhaps the situation has activated nocireceptors or removed something I have mentally identified as "mine" and thus caused me pain. This happens. I should be careful how I frame it, though, because it has no objective requirement that I turn it into torment. The direction my shifting, malleable self flows in next is up to me.

D

2009-10-10T13:39:00.002-04:00

An interesting and well-worn question around the implications of moral action. From a discussion list post...

C, I agree with the principle of honesty in reflecting a person's action as I see them. I tend to keep in mind that evil is a subjective label, though, and so I will not mindlessly frame, say, a person from another culture with my own values. I think it is somewhere in this are that we are a bit at odds as I simply can not see my own morals as absolute and applying to all.

In truth, though, I will intervene when I see harm coming down the pipes and I will attempt to show someone the nature of my concern. If the situation is predatory, then I may help the victim by directly removing him from harm or by blocking or diverting the harm. I think we are alike on this point.

Yet I realize I may be interfering with the shark's dinner or otherwise forcing my own perspective onto the situation. In saving a child from a sexual predator, I am making a decision that the predator will suffer while the child will be protected. Many would say this is justified and obviously I would as well since I did it, but I also must carry the responsibility for my actions. Is the molester a low-IQ victim of his own history of abuse? Could I have removed the present victim in such a way as to have pointed the molester at a healthier lifestyle? Did I really handle the situation as skillfully as possible? Did I really apply compassion to all concerned? If I beat him and loudly and piously berate him, am I serving the victim or Good or my own ego? What would Jesus do?

Endless questions. Yet, as you, C, and others have intimated, at times action is indicated and not all the answers may be available. At least one value of discussions like this is that we might be better equipped to make more skillful decisions because of what we learn here!

Perhaps life was easier when I could subscribe to the delusion of absolute good and evil. But, I guess 'easy' isn't the point of life...:).

Where Am I?

2009-08-22T09:04:00.003-04:00

Someone mentioned he was grappling with the notion of self vs. selflessness. The following thought occurred to me:

LOL. Is a car without its doors still the same car? What if the body is removed? And the frame? The tires and wheels? When I am done pulling off parts, I should be left with just the "car"', right?

I wonder how many of my parts need be removed before I am not exactly what I was before it happened? A finger? My head? An atom? Dependent arising has been a life-changing lesson for me.

Modeling Change

2009-07-18T09:29:00.034-04:00

Joe lives on a nice street in a relatively safe neighborhood, but he has a concern about the way people leave their lawn chairs and toys and other belongings around the yards and sidewalks when they aren't using them. He has seen this type of behavior in other areas and the lack of concern for appearance seems to match the progress of neighborhood decay. He is worried that it is an early sign of a downhill trend.

Pete shares Joe's concerns. He gets very angry when they discuss it. He can not afford to move and he fears neighborhood decay.

Joe and Pete both approve of Betty. She is considered a quiet woman, but seems neat in her habits - her yard is always picked up. When asked, she simply says she respects her responsibility to her neighbors and her space.

Joe tries to make the others on the street see the problem by setting an example. He has neat locations for his garbage receptacles, his outdoor chairs and the few tools he uses in his tiny garden. He always puts things away when he is done and sweeps the sidewalk in front of his house regularly. He is trying to show the neighbors by example how doable it is to maintain a standard of appearance. He does this often.

Pete is more outgoing. He exhorts neighbors to pick up when done. He will take toys from the sidewalk and place them in the yards of the owners. When he joins conversations around the neighborhood, the talk will almost certainly gravitate back to that of neighborhood decay. He feels he is leading the fight against it.

People like Joe, but they think he worries too much. They notice his concern by things like the almost compulsive way he dramatically picks up his chair and puts it away as soon as he stands up. Nonverbals say loudly for him what he refrains from sharing outright. He seems to think they must take responsibility for calming his anxieties.

Pete stirs up fear and anxiety in his wake. People interpret his behavior as aggression, his efforts to clean up another's property as controlling and intrusive. Resentment is a common emotion expressed when people talk about Pete: the feeling is that he is intent on organizing the world according to his beliefs without caring about theirs.

The locals like Betty. Even the sloppiest amongst them like the appearance of her yard. She is referred to as "a nice, neat lady" and "quiet but friendly." People see what she does and they associate it with the attitudes induced by her nonthreatening manners. She seems to be calmly happy with the way the world is, a trait many would like to share.

Betty walks the talk rather than preaching it. She believes in her way, but she understands that others have different priorities and beliefs. Her mannerisms and action proclaim her serenity.

People may resist change when it is thrust at them, but they may also seek it when they perceive rewards.

As with Joe's subtle cues or Pete's overt intrusion, anxiety can be felt when change seems to be forced on someone. If I feel there is a message I want another to hear, I may close his ears by needing him to hear it. If the message is so important, it may be best for me to model it. If it is supposed to improve his life, then maybe it should be something I am willing to adopt myself.

By removing the anxiety for change, I am accepting what is and who is as they are. I move from threatening others to working on myself. If I do a good job, the results may interest others.

You must be the change you want to see in the world - Mahatma Gandhi

Simplify It

2009-07-09T09:37:00.000-04:00

It is interesting to note that there were no Christians when Jesus was teaching. After some reading, I get the impression that various teachers from then till now assert that wisdom is not found in complexity. Material attachment, resisting transience, filtered versions of reality - all these are human perspectives that deserve a clear view. That learning process is not improved by material wealth or religious complexity.

Meditation (sometimes labeled prayer as well) seems to be a common element across many spiritual traditions. Some moral behaviors, such as the Golden Rule, also seem commonly represented. It is my contention that the original message of Jesus, Buddha and many other teachers can be deduced from our personal experience of our own natures and by looking at the elements that are common across enduring traditions.

Complex dogma was not present when they were teaching and, in fact, is universally rejected by the teachers themselves. They all extended their teachings to cover even humans considered socially worthless in their time, they all taught wherever they landed with a crowd, they all died before their words were codified into ponderous rule sets that were somehow intended to replace the vitality of living self-examination.

Spirituality - the relationship to life that these people taught others to explore - is not a set of behaviors. It is an introspective process.

The Real Axe?

2009-07-01T09:35:00.008-04:00

In discussion with some friends, this was presented:

"This is the axe of my father..."

Same principle applies. Is it still the same axe, even after the original head and handle have been replaced? If I replace the handle of the axe of my father, from my perspective, it is still the handle of the axe of my father. The identity of the object has become a concept separate from the item itself. "The axe of my father" is now a different thing than the axe in my hand.

Such things are among my favorite topics, so I had to respond:

It seems obvious that the label is being applied to a different set of physical components. That is the source of the fascinating flexibility of labels, though: they are really being applied to concepts that represent objects.

The label Dad's axe is stuck onto a mental model I created to represent my father's axe. The model is also composed a physical axehead and the handle. New handles and heads over Dad's lifetime are simply absorbed as components of the model - the concept is considered unchanged. Even more interesting is that if the axe is bequeathed to me when I grow up, it can still be represented by the same model: this is Dad's axe. In fact, even my concept of the axe can change as I attach emotional memories of my father chopping wood or as I grow from being unable to lift it to swinging it with one hand.

To me, it seems important to understand that neither the concept nor the label is the external reality they model. To remember that in all things I address my mental representations of reality. When I feel hatred for the enemy, it is an emotion directed at my construct of that concept. Not considering this, if the enemy reforms or is proved innocent, I might tragically not update my construct correctly and so continue to condemn the man inappropriately. This type of mistake can be carried to many situaitons in the average day.

I think many would be comfortable with the idea of evaluating their own understandings of reality - sometimes it is the wording of all this that gets in the way. From that phrase, it is only a small step to the view that each of our "realities" is made from its components - the things we put together to make the snapshot. In practical terms, the axe is a concept and it would behoove us to remember that a new handle may change the balance. Or that from one chop to the next, the axe may develop a hidden defect, with painful repercussions.

So with all reality. We freeze our concepts, or models, as snapshots of reality. But the environment does not freeze along with them. It continues to express its transient nature in each moment. To react skillfully to phenomena, it seems sensible that we would need to see clearly what is now rather than what was when we took the snapshot.

D

Is It Real?

2009-06-29T09:45:00.003-04:00

I posted this on a list in response to a discussion on philosophy around Wittgenstein. The concept fascinates me and so I'm transplanting it here in the hope of wider discussion and that I might return to it now and again.

----

In Buddhism, there is a lot of teaching around 2500+ year old quantum theory - some of it seems to echo the passages you selected from Wittgenstein. In particular, there is the concept that everything is composed of the things that make it up. This seems so sensible (because I worded it that way) that people accept it. Until it is applied deeply.

In the West, there is a perception that a thing exists inherently. We point at a car and say, "It exists! Step in front of it if you don't believe me!"

In Buddhism, a person might deny it exists. Not that there isn't a phenomenon labeled "car", but that the thing has any inherent existence outside being an effect of its parts. It doesn't exist independently as a thing, but rather simply an an effect of its parts. Remove a part and the car is something else. Language being what it is, we may still apply the label "car", but we are applying it to a different effect now: without the fender, it is a different effect. Close to the old one in our judgment, but undeniably different.

An interesting aside here is that the perception of the viewer is one of the parts. It is that which applies the label and so is an integral part of the identity "car."

Parts change from moment to moment. Thus, the effect they create is changed as well. The car exists for a moment, an atom spins off or a mud splash jumps in, the label is applied to this new combination of parts.

In Buddhism, the pertinence of all this is that the individual is encouraged to question the contribution of his personal filters to this process. Also, acknowledging that all things are in constant transition brings a perspective of transience to both attachments and aversions. Don't expect anything to last forever.

(One application of this which can cause shuddering is that of the Self - the soul or psyche or spirit. It, too, is considered to be an effect of body and mind. A concept created from those parts. Because the self-identity is a huge deal to this ego or Self as a part of its construction, it desperately resists the thought that it might not be permanent. For those who mistakenly identify the ego as the core self rather than as an effect of being alive in a human body, the conflict becomes a defining power in their lives.

There does seem to be a more basic Awareness beyond the busy ego-self, but it, too, is considered to be changing as experience. For there, we would we delve into Buddhist theory of rebirth where this Awareness [energy?] survives the death of form, but not as the individually identified ego or Self of popular Western conception.)

I imagine that Wittgenstein might have been thinking along lines like these? I can't deny that a car means something different to me than it does to someone else. It is appropriate to say that my reality of a car is different from another's. And that might lead to the difference in perspective between the idealist and the realist...?

---

D

Glitter and Lost Simplicity

2009-06-26T19:49:00.036-04:00

We love to build elaborate conceptual constructs. We do it unintentionally, sometimes we do it on purpose. Usually we do it to reinforce our own identities. For whatever reasons, though, we take a simple starting point and add layer upon layer of decoration until the beginning is lost in the creation.

In reading about spiritual teachers from history, I notice that they seemed to follow a path noticeably different from those carrying their messages today. Jesus walked amongst the working class, teaching on the side of the road. It seems his Message was more important than the trappings and that he considered the words appropriate for all human beings.

What started so simply has grown, in some cases beyond recognition. Nowadays, priests charged with bringing the same message to the people often wear special clothing and have evolved many new rituals. Where Jesus went to homes or sat beside the road, we now have special buildings - sometimes expensive ones. The message is delivered with flair, during scheduled events, impressively decorated with vaulted ceilings and polished pews.

Spirituality is about human beings. Possessions are superfluous to the message; egoic identity gets in the way. A huge soaring cathedral is not more impressive than the sky, even if I created it. The original teacher spoke of kindness, compassion and human concerns. Would he approve of his spiritual tradition buying buildings rather than homeless shelters? Is a priestly uniform and residence the best way to walk in the original footprints? Should we deliver a message of humility in the soft glow of golden candelabras and coloerful windows?

I'm not knocking the trappings so much as asking if the message is still clear. At one time, it was about the straying lamb, a compassionate hand extended to each person encountered. The goal seemed to be to help the individual attain spiritual clarity. Simple, straightforward discovery offered to people. Maybe it's still there, beneath all the trappings, but it certainly seems harder to see.

When I see the priest, I see the spiritual tradition of Jesus brought forward 2,000 years, but with many changes. After all, the original was OK for its time, but we need progress, right?

D

David Carradine: Kwai Chang Caine

2009-06-15T08:50:00.001-04:00

King Fu remains an inspiration to me despite all the hype around Carradine's death. I got the series on DVD for Christmas of 2007 and I still haven't watched them all from that because I only fit it in when I am in a nostalgic mood and sitting by the TV. It seems to be like having something to look forward to for special occasions.

For me, Carradine's (and Lee's) character Kwai Change Caine portrayed an excellent balance between the Buddhist commitment to compassion and the fundamental principles of self-defence common to all living organisms. What I saw was a man who dedicated his life to a thinking philosophy and to behaving according to that philosophy. Unlike most humans who seem to try to balance contradictory positions between high ideals and material pleasures or fears, Kwai Chang faced the moral challenge head-on and so walked the talk.

Carradine's death was tragic. I don't use that word lightly and I realize the use represents a subjective viewpoint. Many have not even heard of him and, if shown an episode of Kung Fu, would likely see only an outdated soap opera filled with staged martial arts. I have no problem with that - this is a personal interpretation. For me, though, Carradine was an artist and his work inspired me.

Kwai Chang stayed in the background of my thoughts after the show ended in 1975 and his philosophy was likely a factor in my own decision to change some major parts of my life around 1990, which set me on a new course where I am still going strong today. Years later, as I practice Aikido, work out with Hatha Yoga, sit in zazen and study Buddhist psychology, that quiet Shaolin monk still walks beside me with his worn working man's clothing and simple possessions, lending me his smile to share with people I pass.

Actors have the opportunity to touch many lives in their work. It is easy to forget that they are not their characters. Carradine was a human being with his own life to live and he died the death he did, which is simple reality and neither good nor bad. If, during my own time here, I can touch one life in the way he touched mine, I will be blessed.

Sorry - didn't mean this to turn into a eulogy! At least one person has seemed to think that the circumstances of his death may ruin the previous impact he had on me. Guess it weighed on my mind!

D

Gone Beyond...?

2009-05-27T10:07:00.002-04:00

Once again, from a discussion somewhere in the ether:

[CJ]
And sure, I know, YOU have personally gone beyond all the 'dogma' of "religion"...to a place which few understand.

[Darrell]
I don't go anywhere that any other human can't go.

[CJ]
Yet, is not the 'church' nor the 'temple' nor the 'mosque' -- correct? And, then, why do we argue?

[Darrell]
Because of a desperate need (of the ego) to validate ourselves externally for the sake of security. If we could accept that there is nothing permanent, no security or guarantee, then we would likely be less worried about whether we were right and more interested in what we are being right about.

Any thoughts, world?

D

Death and Enlightenment

2009-05-21T19:58:00.024-04:00

I am talking with some friends about immortality, the nature of time and similar trivia when one of them posts this:

Lest I am mistaken, death should be feared because of the cessation of all of the pleasurable and rewarding activities in which we engage, or because of the physical pain accompanying whatever malady or mishap produces death; it should not be feared because of the pain of death itself. Imagine your mind emptied of all fears, of all hostilities, of all recollections of the good and evil that has filled your life. Imagine the tranquility of dreamlike sleep when nothing from your various worries troubles you nor does the warmth of your little victories nourish you, nor the bogeyman of nasty personalities haunt you, nor the pleasures of friends and family delight you. Imagine utter stillness and peace. That is what I have tasted and what I feel death of the body is like.
—Ken Wear, Love to Live and Live to Love. http://www.rationallink.org/

I responded by telling him that this sounded to me a lot like what enlightenment or awakening or nirvana is billed to be. Duh, right? So why would I fear it?

Then I thought a bit more. Allow me some generalizing: some people fear death. Some also fear change. Some fear being wrong, whether the topic is religion or sports. Is there a common thread?

One theory is that the ego fears nonexistence. Substitute any word for ego that you are comfortable with - I'll use it here provisionally. The ego's mission is to survive. To do so, of course, it has to keep the organism alive, so the fear of death is logical. But to tie this to the rest, I need to make a leap: the ego identifies with the stances it takes, the opinions it asserts.

The hypothesis is that the ego attempts to validate and reinforce its existence through phenomena external to the person. And it takes this activity very seriously. When it identifies with a sports team or a political candidate, a perceived failure on the part of these is a threat to the ego's existence.

Why the fear? In my speculative theory, the ego was included in the package as a survival tool. It includes the stream-of-consciousness chatter that is always focused on past or future. Its job is to ensure that stream is dealing with issues that protect the organism, pulling past lessons from memory and measuring potential future scenarios against them. This makes for a very useful tool.

At some point, we humans began mistakenly identifying the ego as our core self, as the I. Perhaps this was because it was such a great tool that we used it more and more often, until it was constantly running? Likely we won't know that answer, but in any case we are now in the position where we accept the ego's choices as our choices, identifying with them as though we had no option.

As Ken is alluding to in his post, death itself has no inherent reason to cause fear. No matter what I may believe about the post-death experience, the fact that life ends is a fundamental reality that we as a species have had plenty of time to get used to. It may be that we have a genetic drive to survive and it may be that we have to deal with pain or discomfort in our own death, but these don't seem to me like sensible reasons to be afraid in advance of the actual event.

My thought is that the ego, equipped as it is to plan for the future and ingrained with the need to avoid ending at any cost, is the phenomenon that is afraid of death. And it is also the one behind the resistance to all the little deaths that are represented by the home team losing a game or by being wrong in an argument.

The key to peace seems to be recognizing that the ego is not I. Sometimes I think of it as a loyal, beloved dog: excited over many things and not always obedient, but certainly not the one who should be in charge! It is a part of me, but it is not me.

I can watch the stream of consciousness without getting caught up in it. Mindfulness, for instance, is one technique that can be used for this. When I dissociate from the internal chatter, returning to the present moment, I am not caught up in the scenario the ego is playing out. Watching from the outside, I realize that I am not ending in this moment, that the team's loss was simply a game score, that I will still be existent whether my favorite politician wins or loses. I do not need to get caught up in the drama.

The way to nurture and mature the new perspective is spelled out in many spiritual traditions - I won't dive into it now. What I want to emphasize here is that there is a discrepancy between what death is and the fear commonly assigned to it. Death is as common as rain. It may be preceded by pain or lingering deterioration, but it seems to be in itself an almost instantaneous transition.

The only thing death can threaten us with is the ending it represents, and that would only be scary if some part of us could not come to terms with the concept of nonexistence. But why would we fear nonexistence in the future when we exist right now? When it does happen, we won't be here to be bothered by it.

So, why are we afraid of something that won't happen right now and won't matter after it does? What is wrong with this picture? Should I mistake the defensive posturing of the ego for reality?

D

Inner Harmony: Dutiful Commitment and Spontaneous Enjoyment

2009-05-14T10:12:00.003-04:00

The text below is in response to a post from a long discussion around the topic of being of divided mind and motivation when pursuing goals. My general thought during the thread was to look into why I would occasionally pursue self-sabotaging behaviors. Or even feel mindsets of this type. Why, for instance, would I fully support the advantages of a fitness program but then often resist executing it? Theories abound, but I am all about practicality, so I have embarked on a mission to see just how far I can bring the divided motivations into line with each other.

In practical advice, to be "my own taskmaster" is likely one of the most useful even as simply obvious as it seems. There are times when I recognize the object to a given task as a temporary laziness, a fleeting lack of energy, and I perform the task anyway because my rational mind presents a good case for the benefits. In this, I believe I am not an unusual human being. And yes, I have a bit of the perfectionist in me - a very useful observation!

It is interesting that I often give that rational, thinking mind the lead in these things, though. What I once saw as completely sensible and logical, I now question on occasion. For instance, it was once (in my far away youth) not uncommon for me to decide that today was a great day to skip work and pursue some less responsible pleasure for the day. This behavior had predictable outcomes and eventually I became more firm with my commitment to meeting my commitments...:). In doing so, however, I chose between the goal-setting rational mind and the more spontaneous motivations that it conflicted with. I lost some care-free joy in favor of a mindset toward sober duty.

Whether or not one agrees in that instance, it becomes an issue of interest when we discuss similar conflicts. Am I also making the right choice when I stick to my dieting or fitness goals, even if my day becomes tedious at times? My studies? Volunteer commitments? What about writing a paper for class when I feel like adding to my unborn novel? Do I stifle my creativity then? Discourage myself from completing the novel in pursuit of a degree meant to buy me credibility with others?

Obviously I judge these situations individually, but I often chose in favor of the obligatory commitment rather than the spontaneous impulse. So, am I living a life of responsibility and duty, or am I missing the opportunity for properly experience the joys of life?

Example: I have chosen yoga as a form of exercise and meditation because it sensibly addresses recent new goals for my workout: to support feeling good on a moment-to-moment scale rather than to support an ability to exert force against my problems. Daily comfort and energy vs. situational strength and speed. It makes sense based upon the evidence of the effects of aging and the average historical day in my life, but I often still think about exercise as a way to ensure I can deal with adversity - I feel regret at giving up my old ways. And I have plenty of times when I'd rather do something else than my workout. Interesting that I can be so divided even when I give something extensive consideration and feel when asked that I made an absolutely correct decision.

I think one of the reasons I've enjoyed reading about Buddhist psychology over the past few months is that it drew what was for me a very eye-opening line between transient sensual pleasure and true lasting contentment or happiness. In doing so, it addressed some of the conflicts helpfully. I'm trying to expand upon that now by using self-hypnosis and by choosing which thoughts to spend time with as ways of influencing my divided motivations to combine in support of considered goals. I'm also collecting references from these discussions to look into. I think I have made progress on a very slippery journey.

My highest goal for the discussion on pursing goals(!) is to be comfortable at any given moment with my present activity and with my ongoing progress toward goals as well. Inner harmony. Or, in other words, to truly enjoy living in a healthy way. Some of it is likely to be prioritization, some of it responsible discipline, but I also have the feeling that there is something gentler and more relaxed that I am missing.

I have a nagging feeling it shouldn't be such a chore to do the right thing every time!

I'll bring the results here if I have anything worth writing about!

D

Contribute to the Species?

2009-05-09T08:53:00.004-04:00

From a discussion about the drive and direction of each person to contribute to the human race as a whole. Examples mentioned included art, science and similar positive possibilities. As usual, I had to go off on a tangent...:).

I don't tend to think in species-wide terms, but perhaps I feel a similar urge. To me, the way to build a healthy structure is to ensure each brick is of high quality and placed with care. Thus, it makes sense (to me) to focus on the individual.

We can't teach everything in schools. Perhaps we should teach emotional health and judgment more proactively, the skills necessary to allow healthy interpersonal interaction. But we focus instead on cultural values and on trying to achieve immortality through our progeny: learn my beliefs, my values, child! Fear-based curriculums. Perhaps we should just teach young people to think, evaluate, self-explore. Or perhaps the hidden agenda is just to train future serfs and I'm being silly thinking the goal is to produce mature thinking citizens. Pet peeve...:).

Religions, governments, wars, crimes - all are composed of or enacted by individuals. In our culture, we accept that the focus that produces results is material in nature: social achievement, earning power, physical beauty, attaining occupational goals. I postulate that the fundamental priority of the species should be personal psychological health development, be it termed religious, spiritual or emotional/cognitive. People should be taught to understand themselves first, then to focus on social and material achievement.

Maybe I'm just a dreamer, but it seems to me that a roomful of people who don't feel threatened by each other might just find something productive to do with their time...:).

It seems obvious to me that the collective health is rooted in that of the individual member. The goals of health appear obvious to me as well: increased happiness and well-being, decreased suffering and illness. There are recipes for success recorded throughout history and never has information been more readily available to the average person than today. Will we use this power?

D

Morality? Me? I Can't Quite See...

2009-05-07T09:03:00.007-04:00

Another discussion list post. We are talking about morality and a concept one personal labels sacrificial love - her assertion is that it is a uniquely Christian behavior and is superior to other forms of love. This didn't feel totally accurate to me and I was trying to feel out why.

(Dr. Molla was a woman who took a health risk in order to safely complete a pregnancy. She died because of this and was later canonized by the Catholic Church for the decision.)

OK, so good example. The mother chose to risk and accept death in order to provide the child a chance at life. I don't for a moment question the validity of her decision. In her case.

Doctor Molla made a personal decision based on her own morals and the structure of the current situation. This resulted in an outcome she approved of. Now, if she had decided to preserve her own life at the expense of the baby, she would also have made a valid choice through a personal decision.

It is when we extrapolate this into a stricture for me to follow, I look up in amazement. This was her choice and it was a beautiful thing for her and her family in this situation, coming from her strongest beliefs and applied to what was happening then, at that time, to her and the others involved. It does not necessarily apply to me and mine, right now. I am in a new situation with new people and new facts, which would seem to support a new decision!

So, why do people feel the need to replace thinking with blanket rules of behavior? A person who choses to be a Christian should fully explore that path rather than learning a set of rules and then running off to dinner. If he fully understands and accepts the concept, then his decision will support this.

A person who choses to accept Islam instead, should do the same with Islam. And the Christian and the Muslim can each accept that his neighbor will make differing choices because of differing philosophies. Peace.

Yet there is something threatening about seeing someone living according to different rules! Hell, I've identified with my rules - they define me! If another set of rules works, too, then maybe mine are not as valid as I thought! Then I might not be as valid as I thought! Oh my God, what if I have to continuously question who and what I am? For life?!? What if I am never sure!

It's not the beauty of such moral lessons I don't see. It's the validity of applying them en masse. Even more, it's the fallacy of identifying with them. I am not my religion or my philosophy. I can accept change, accept that I may in time learn these are off-course. Even totally wrong. I am not my clothing, my body image, the morals I follow or the history I come from.

In this discussion, I was struck with the fact that it would be easy for me to identify with the stance that I don't identify with such things. It seems there is an endless adaptability to this tendency. Yet once I succumb, I am one more step removed from me, looking through a filter of yet another concept I've accepted to represent myself.

Mindfulness and Stories

2009-05-05T13:42:00.001-04:00

In response to a question on a discussion list regarding what mindfulness is, of what use it might be...

One theory has it that we possess six senses: the five external organs and the mind, which provides input from memory and imagination. In this viewpoint, the brain can not tell inherently the difference between input from the mind and that from any other sense. Thus the realism of dreams, hallucinations, illusions.

Sensation delivers information to the brain. Perception is the initial conceptual interpretation of the information. These don't always agree as perception may include judgments or other filters. Information delivered from memory is already filtered, given meaning and connotations, distorted from the original reality by virtue of being the principle's version of that reality.

Emotion is a reaction to perception from any of the six senses. Last week I saw a squirrel hit by a car, left in the road with its little tail going up and down twice like a old pump handle. I felt saddened for the squirrel's end, brought on by the thought that it had been on its way from here to there and suddenly it was all done - something like that. The longer I considered it, the sadder I felt.

The event was a catalyst, but the impact came from my perception - the mental story I built from the incoming information. By dwelling on this story, I sustained and nurtured the accompanying emotion. The sadness hurt, yet even though I had seen a real event, the sadness came from my interpretation of that event. Thus, since the source of the emotion was internal, it might be possible to affect it.

Mindfulness is the act of consciously focusing on something. That thing can be within the mind, the body or out in the environment. We might say that it is being present-minded as opposed to absent-minded...:). When I was thinking about the squirrel, for instance, I wasn't paying much attention to the next few moments. I was lost in my story, not even consciously realizing I was lost in my story. I was reacting emotionally to a fantasy.

Applying mindfulness to my own thinking means to look at what I am thinking about and evaluate it - to observe the thinker. In this way I recognize the stories and can do a check on my emotional state: is it appropriate to the reality around me or is it a reaction to a illusion?

When I did this in the car after the squirrel tragedy, I looked around and saw that we had moved on. There was nothing dying at this moment within sight. I focused on the scene really in front of me and the emotion faded.

The premise here is that we don't recognize when we are responding to conceptual reality as opposed to actual reality. The squirrel died, I responded with sadness - all well and good. Reality ended there, though, and I kept going on a sort of imaginary sidetrack. Mindfulness is to recognize this, to re-center in reality. Absurdly simple concept, but quite effective since I can only think about one thing at a time with my conscious, rational mind.

New and Exciting?

2009-04-13T09:15:00.003-04:00

I portion of a post I made - it sparked some new thought:

I enjoy learning, growth, exploring. I am currently recapturing that youthful perspective that makes every moment an exploration. I once asked someone in list conversation why footloose restlessness was attractive and received a few answers around the theme of new things being exciting. This led me to think about how really focusing on an old thing can make it seem new.
So, is the excitement of new things really a sort of unconscious yearning for presence, for the experiencing of everything fully? Is the horizon's call actually a reminder to look more closely at what is right next to me? Why run from here to there, superficially experiencing new sights when I could spend a fully aware moment right here that is just as thrilling and fulfilling?

The world was bright and new and exciting when I was very young. As I explored and constructed conceptual models of everything, it became reduced to what I'd already seen and what was new. But much of what I have experienced still has new things to offer - why do I feel I've already fully experienced them? What is the boundary between interesting and worthless?

Interesting is subjective, but one of the objectives of mindfulness is to see with new eyes. When I do, the old thing becomes new. Is this all I needed to become fully alive in the current moment?

D

Lost Lives: The Illusion of Rules

2009-04-12T21:12:00.005-04:00

A friend asked me if I would write something related to my thoughts of how we treat parts of our life as a game. Especially about how we set and relate to the rules of that game. Or something like that. I had to laugh, as I can't really think of much that we do that isn't relevant to a project like that. Where to start? How to select one game from so many that we play? What do they all have in common that would allow me to express what I see?

This article first appeared in the e-journal, The Life of Games, in April of 2000.

Illusion

Aren't the rules all illusion? Of course they are. Rules are a way to create an environment within which we can perform certain actions, pursue certain goals, and justify certain conduct. The environment isn't real unless the observer agrees to the rules. It is an illusion, having substance only within the mind of those who have opted in to the game.

Read that again. Then think about it for a moment. How many times have you considered yourself "trapped" in a situation that was causing you discomfort, or even pain? Were the walls real, or did you make them by agreeing to the rules of that situation? Were you really being hurt by something/someone...or were you twisting the knife yourself in accordance with the rules of some unchallenged illusion.

Consider a common situation where John Human in an unhappy work environment stumbles through day after day with no real consideration of exploring alternatives. The boss is hateful, the work is deadly boring, and the workplace is unsafe and depressing.

John's entire life, home and work, is nothing but a dreary, gray haze of unhappiness. Yet, what can be done? After all, John has responsibilities...perhaps a family, financial debts, people who depend on him...not to mention the need for food and shelter.

He has thought about maybe looking elsewhere for different work, but isn't it all the same? Except for the "lucky" ones, of course...the ones who had more opportunity, or better education, or just better luck...

John has built his own prison! He is the one responsible for his situation. He made the rules up, or he adopted someone else's rules. Voluntarily. Because there's no other way.

People don't usually get forced to obey a rule...ask any criminal, or any child with a hand in the cookie jar. People accept the rules...they agree to be bound by them.

John accepts the rule that he doesn't have the resources to change his situation.

John accepts the rule that his responsibilities allow him no freedom of choice.

John accepts the rule that only "other people" can do the things that would make his own life richer.

John has chosen a path of depression and unhappiness for himself by refusing to challenge the situation. Even worse, John is wasting his life! He is alive now, today...yet he passes each day away as though his life weren't going to start until some hypothetical point further along, when things get "better".

It's not hard to compare John's problems to other situations. A lover pining for a lost romance, or a child waiting to "grow up"...or parents waiting for the children to grow up! Yet, how often is the problem simply a matter of having accepted the Rules of this particular Game?

"I can't be happy without him!"

"I can't afford to quit!"

"I don't have the education to do anything else!"

"I'm too tired to think about it."

"I can't be happy because..."

All rules, all made up by someone...all accepted as Law when they are, in fact, only illusion. They may be descriptive of some part of the game they belong to, but they are still illusion. Stated definitively, as though they were immutable conditions of living, the rules gain all their power from the mind that obeys them.

There may be consequences to throwing out a rule, but it's important to realize that it can be discarded. The illusion of the game is usually the loss of choice.

We play the game of office politics because "we need to," because "we need our job," because "we have responsibilities," because "that's the way it's done"...

There are indeed obligations and necessities in life that we need to consider. The question is not whether action needs to be taken, but rather whether one is considering all the possible options...or have some been arbitrarily ruled out as being "against the rules"?

Have you ever decided a certain course of action was not possible, only to see someone else succeed at it? Was that other person really better equipped, or did you just create an obstacle for yourself that they didn't have to deal with?

This is the nature of Illusion: that it exists only within your mind. The rule is not real, the game is not real, and even the problems that weigh so heavily on your mind are probably not real. They may be based on real circumstances, but the power to dispense unhappiness or depression, or to set limits, exists only within your own mind.

Some rules may be beneficial, or useful, or fun...so keep them. Just realize that you kept them...it was your choice. They were created from within your mind, and they exist for only as long as you allow them to do so.

As an example, there is one rule, one illusion, that

I personally find offensive above all others. It is the rule that one can not be happy "because...". It's the biggest fantasy of all, as it leads to depression, lack of motivation, and subverts all efforts of that individual to live their lives in a fulfilled manner.

It creates the barriers that prevent it from being questioned...a self-fulfilling nightmare that many people embrace and never even question!

Happiness is a state of mind!

It is not a commodity that can be bought, or a possession that can be stolen. It is not dependent upon another person's presence, or life, or death; it is not an embedded part of any of our games.

It belongs to every person as a birthright, and is obtainable at any time. It's yours irrevocably...just reach out and take it!

Although you may have been taught that various obstacles can bar you from the simple state of happiness, I invite you to look around yourself someday and actively seek out evidence to the contrary. Watch for smiles on the faces of people with little or no money, and watch for optimism in people subjected to misfortune. You'll find examples if you bother to try that might just make you wonder if you want to play the old games anymore...

It is possible that you are setting yourself limits that really don't exist outside your illusion. So, just out of curiosity, let's play a new game today. The rules are simple:

We will question every obstacle we think we see before us.

We will agree not to accept any rule just because "it's a rule".

We will agree that any change to our emotional state is something we did ourselves.

The goal of the game is to achieve a state where we are in control of when we will be happy or sad, motivated or depressed. We will decide what affects our mood today. We will live by a rule because we accept it, and not because we never questioned it.

Maybe, we will gain our lives back. It's just a game...what have you got to lose?

Author's note: Since writing this article, I have modified my views a bit, but I still find these words ring true as far as they go. And they represent a very significant time for me when many hard-won lessons were culminating in an opening cocoon.

Emotional Vampires and Distance

2009-04-12T11:21:00.004-04:00

This was a post in response to a request for opinion on two Youtube clips:

I want to be present (Moojiji)

Being Present in Relationships (Eckhart Tolle)

It was part of a virtual conversation at Global Mindshift (http://www.global-mindshift.org).

----------

An analogy I found helpful in dealing with relatives, close friends and acquaintances was that of the emotional vampire drawn from a book of the same name by Albert Bernstein and from other sources. Essentially, these are folk who validate themselves through responses from other people and so they try to elicit the desired behaviors by drawing those people into their own dramas. It can be draining on someone who cares about the actor but is unable to maintain healthy boundaries.

I deal a lot with personality disorders - DSM IV Axis II diagnoses (http://tinyurl.com/dj4pua) - and addiction. This gives me more practice with such things than the average Joe, but it also means that I have to be better at the skills or risk providing lower quality care to those patients. Healthcare provider burnout is only one of the serious risks associated with this situation and many of my coworkers have expressed amazement at my "patience" and ability to retain my equanimity.

(As with many, I also run into this flavor of behavior in my personal life. Although it is less frequent, I find it actually more challenging to deal with! Something about the clinical setting affecting my mindset - I'm working on it!)

There are defenses against this kind of thing. A common one is to close off the emotional leaks by cutting the person out of one's life. In this scenario, a lover might break up with an emotionally needy, draining person with the full support of his or her friends and family because the vampire is considered crazy or insane, unbelievably selfish and demanding. This is an oft-chosen solution that is sad, unskilled and unnecessary.

In the videos, we find the key that allows me to deal with my patients: space. I one day had the epiphany that I suffered from their neediness because I was running myself ragged trying to satisfy it. I internalized their need as a personal need to satisfy. Over time, I identified with their issues, losing perspective. My first reaction, of course, was to cut them off in self-defense, using phrases like tough love to justify my withdrawal. Except that it didn't feel like love anymore - it felt like withdrawal.

When I began centering myself in the moment, I suddenly found the problem disappeared. I could still love the people and be willing to help them for as long as it took, but I was no longer feeling drained! I felt instead as though I were a conduit to a vast, bottomless ocean of energy and that I could pipe it through to them as fast as they could suck it up. (I don't know why, but that analogy popped into my mind intuitively and it has stayed there.)

More objectively, I realized that the reason I had felt drained was because I had identified with their stories and run my own internal drama in sympathy. I had drained myself by playing out a storyline of how this endless neediness would go on and on forever, thus overwhelming myself with a fantasy of an eternal future of misery. When I just dealt with this moment as it was without building my own drama extending into the forever, it became trivial to retain my balance.

I had been carrying the emotional baggage of the last interaction into the current one and then spent the incident worrying about how much heavier it would be next time. When I just focused on this conversation without envisioning it as an extension of the last one, I was suddenly dealing with just the one act rather than the whole play. I went from being overburdened in these situations to feeling light as a feather and suddenly I can work with these folks all day long with absolutely no stress.

Psych Tech

2008-07-21T10:43:00.004-04:00

In response to a question asked on a list, I posted this quick down-and-dirty review of the Psychiatric Technician role. I held this job from June of 2007 to June of 2008 in a chemical dependency inpatient unit and it is not only the source of many valuable memories, but also of just as many lessons that I will carry forward into Nursing.

Psych techs will handle routine data collection, such as obtaining vital signs and supervising urine specimens. They are highly visible in the milieu, observing the population for signs of impending crisis and handling workaday requests from the patients. They often facilitate educational groups and occasionally provide some one-on-one in the milieu to help a patient work through a train of thought. When appropriately trained, they will take shifts on 1:1 suicide, seclusion or restraint observations. They can monitor phone calls, search incoming admissions, escort patients to appointments and help defuse situations that are unsafe and inappropriate, including assisting with restraint.

Psych techs differ from their acute care counterparts mainly in that they have less involvement with the physical activities of daily living (ADLs) and more with the mental ADLs. Fewer bed baths and ambulation assists, more time spent in conversations and in helping emotionally labile people maintain. In the hospital, I spent much of my shift with body fluids and in the psych milieu with emotional dumping. Acute care was physically hard for me, with lots of running and lifting, while the milieu is said to be more mentally stressful, although it fits me like a glove.

Psych techs are often more educated, often possessing a Bachelor's in Psychology. I did not have such a degree, but I was a nursing student in my psychiatric rotation, which got me in. Psych techs are often on their way from undergraduate to somewhere else, such as a MSW, counseling or psychology doctorates. It's really a great way to get one's feet wet in a psychiatric setting because there is lots of patient contact time and also lots of support and backup.

To be honest, I loved the work and would have considered staying in it longer if it paid better. As a tech, I had little documentation to record and my day was mostly spent helping the patients get through their day. A very rewarding job.

At the time of writing this, I am over a month into nursing practice and beginning to balance my new responsibilities with my knowledge obtained from the tech jobs I've held. As I look forward to new skills and more opportunities to make a difference, I send a thank you back in time to the earlier me who made the decision to work with patients during nursing school.

Patient Care Assistant

2008-07-21T08:57:00.008-04:00

From January of 2006 to June of 2007, I worked as a Patient Care Assistant in a hospital. I spent about six months in the float pool and then a year assigned to a respiratory unit. Moving forward as a new nurse, I find that my commitment to recording my rich experiences from this position is continuously back-burnered. The following synopsis is intended to temporarily fill the void by giving some idea of what this period was like for me.

When I applied for the position, I was a first-semester nursing student and a volunteer EMT. I was hoping to gain practical experience to support my future nursing career and vacillated a little bit between taking work as a part-time EMT, which paid more, or as a tech. I opted for the latter because I expected the in-hospital experience would benefit me the most in the long run. EMS would provide somewhat more medical care opportunities, but the tech position would allow me to work alongside nurses in their natural environment, so to speak.

The decision paid off on many levels. Not only did I get about 18 months of exposure to real-world nursing, but I also experienced hundreds of hours of invaluable direct patient contact. I became adept at many of the physical basics of nursing, such as giving bed baths, taking vital signs and monitoring intake and output, but I also became comfortable working with people who were in acute crisis and those with more chronic challenges.

In our healthcare system, it often seems that the lower down the licensing totem pole a job is, the more time is spent in direct contact with the patient. As a tech, I not only made a difference in people's lives through the tasks I performed, but often with just my presence. I wore a smile when I entered their rooms no matter how dirty I thought the job would become. I chatted brightly with people while I cleaned body fluids off them, I cheerfully ran errands for things that would make their days a bit easier and I listened to their fears and their stories. The system imposes limits on the amount of time nurses and doctors can spend socializing with sick people and I tried to help fill that gap.

During my time in acute care I received many compliments from coworkers, patients and their families for the quality of care I gave. I didn't work for these, however; they were simply the natural result of empathizing with people. There was no need to force myself to get through the workday - once I began moving from patient-to-patient, the hours flew by. Some memories that float through my head as I write this:

A proud ex-Marine who was losing his foot to amputation due to poorly-controlled diabetes. For such a person, the loss of control was likely even worse than the loss of a body part. I spent time with him, listened to his words, shared my thoughts, did what I could to make him welcome. I learned how much this kind of thing helps when he told me exactly that.
A lovely woman of more than 80 years who was practically incapacitated with respiratory disease. She had to breath through a tracheotomy and was often hooked to a ventilator. Her husband of many decades would visit frequently, wheelchair-bound and practically doting on her for hours even though she couldn't talk because of her ventilator needs. I used to change her radio stations, set up her audio books and play catch with her using the little gel ball Physical Therapy supplied. Laying there in that bed for day after day, she never failed to deliver smile when we came into the room.
Another elderly roman, hands gnarled and twisted from arthritis, grateful when I would make time to help her eat as it was so much work to do so that she often gave up before her hunger was satisfied. We would try to get her up and into a recliner during the day to support her independence and she would thank me for being so gentle with her during this process. Her skin had the strength and feel of tissue paper. I always made a few minutes for social chatter with her - she said it added some life to her day.
There was a man who was frail and wasted, not really all that old but worn away by COPD. I treated him with the same respect and dignity I would any healthy man I might meet outside the hospital and he commented many times before he died on how valuable this attitude was to him.
A very obese lady with diabetes and respiratory disease who some thought of as a complainer but who was just lost and lonely.
A young woman who overdosed on prescription meds and who had no idea how her life had led to this hospitalization. We talked.
An old man who forgot from minute to minute and lived with the confusion and fear that might be expected from such a condition. Made some extra stops in his room - smiled and tried to exude calm reassurance. "Everything is safe - you have fallen ill and will feel better soon."
A woman of generally good health who has acquired first pneumonia and then, in response to the antibiotics, a really fun nosocomial overgrowth of clostridium difficile or c-diff, that had her running to the bedside commode several times an hour. My challenge was not only to keep her clean and hydrated, but also to preserve her dignity in the presence of endless diarrhea and a male tech.

I have a long list of these memories. The common factor through all of them is the recognition of the patient as a human being in crisis as opposed to a task needing to be checked off.

I learned and observed many nursing skills during my stint as a tech in acute care. Not only did I see a bedside colonoscopy and watch innumerable dressing changes, but I also collected techniques used to deal with patients, families and with job-related problems. It was grueling work and at times I watched people I helped to care for worsen and even die. It was also rewarding work, though, and I made a real difference in many people's lives.

Heal The Person, Not Just The Body

2008-05-09T18:38:00.002-04:00

Funny thing - old story came out in my Clinical Performance Appraisal (which I aced!) yesterday. Speaking about my approach to patient care during the past semester, I brought up the memory of a patient I'd handled as a tech in a local hospital. I took the job as a way of advancing my basic nursing skills, so I had a long-range focus even though it is essentially an
entry-level job.

The man was an ex-Marine (as am I) and he was also a diabetic and had respiratory issues. His disease left him essentially dependent on help for all his daily activities including personal hygiene and toileting. He was a proud man and did not respond well to the workmanlike attitudes of many of the career techs. He developed a reputation as being unpleasant and a bit of
a burden.

I approach all patients in a positive way despite reputations and I did so with him. He was not happy needing help with cleaning up the mess left from bowel movements or needing to be shaved or needing help repositioning himself in bed every two hours so sores wouldn't develop. Yet he also wasn't fond of the consequences of ignoring these need, either. I saw this in the first ten seconds of knowing him and I went in treating his just as he was: a complete human being in a rather unpleasant predicament. Instead of treating him as a job, I related to him as I would a friend. I did the tasks needed and I joked with him in a guy way about the various duties - no
ladies need eavesdrop!

Before long, we were sharing laughs (as best he could with reduced lung capacity) while I inspected skin, held his urinal or washed the stool off his backside. I treated him gently when I needed to move him around - he was quite wasted - but I treated in equally when we talked. His mood improved and his reputation proved unwarranted.

His family praised me, proving that this simple approach wasn't something they were used to seeing, and that is a shame. He eventually died, but I believe he did so with some sense of dignity and I think a part of that was due to the fact that I treated him as a human being. This lesson belongs in every nursing school and tech orientation!

I had a very limited scope of practice as a tech, but even without meds or dressings or diagnostic privileges, I had the one tool that makes the most difference to a patient: my attitude. We each have this awesome power to impact the person standing beside us and never have I seen a more powerful reason to do so than with the example of this man who needed simple human empathy more than all the expensive medical equipment he was surrounded with.

He is actually one of the reasons I chose psych nursing, in fact. There's no sense healing the body if the person inside is ignored.

If you ever get sick, you be sure to point out to everyone from the doctor to the tech that you are a human being, not a walking pathophysilogy!

Neal Vonada

2008-05-07T16:14:00.004-04:00

(December, 1926 - April, 2008)
http://www.qagrizzlies.org/Features/Profiles/Vonada_profile.htm

I met Neal on MPositive. I was looking for a place to enjoy folks who seek to always look up and look forward – not always easy! In Neal, however, I found a kindred spirit who not only walked the talk, but who had endless stories from a life rich in positivity. He was not only committed, but also on a mission to bring his perspective to the world.

Neal once named me Word Weaver after reading a post of mine. I loved the name – he had that effect. He encouraged my attempts to bring positivity to my peers and my patients, and he urged me to expand my horizons without fear, as he himself had done. He reached across a continent and touched me, adding a little more gold to my life. I grew because of him.

I will miss Neal, yet I can't bring myself to bask in my own grief over this man's passing. It would disappoint him. Instead, I acknowledge my loss and then I look around to see who I can bring his legacy to in this moment. As he would desire. For as long as I am able to reach out with our message, he will still be touching this world.

Neal often told the story of how he would get babies to stop crying in various public places. Such a simple gift to give the mother, such a fitting image for Grandpatime, a superhero of simple things who appeared from nowhere and shared happiness. I wrote this haiku for him and, to me, it summarizes all things Neal:

When the baby cried
And the mother wanted to,
His smile was welcomed.

Thank you,

Darrell G. King
Rochester, NY, US

Social Proof Revisited

2008-04-25T09:19:00.012-04:00

Good Morning America (GMA) aired a brief segment about a child crying on a busy sidewalk. Using hidden cameras, they filmed the various reactions of passing strangers. According to the report and those clips aired, most folks walked by without even glancing at the child. The most common exceptions were other children, at least one of whom convinced his mother to get involved. The most energetic intervention shown was a woman described as a grandmother who not only spoke with the child, but searched the area of the responsible adult and also intervened when an adult GMA employee started walking away with the child.

In his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, author Robert B. Cialdini, Ph.D describes social proof by stating "that one means we use to determine what is correct is to find out what other people think is correct" (p116.) He further assets that this applies especially to determining correct behavior. I enjoy this book as it covers several areas related to the ways we influence each other, providing very clear examples and research. In this chapter, a host of experiments similar to the GMA scene provided some very convincing results paralleling the above.

Another interesting result was that people were more likely to intervene in staged emergencies when alone than when in groups or in the presence of actors who ignored the emergency. Social proof is a valuable time-saving tool for decision making. It appears that at times it can backfire by providing inappropriate information which is then not questioned. Should I follow the cars ahead of me in the traffic jam as they begin signaling for the next exit? Or was it a mindless stampede started by the guy who normally exits there? Is that pale, sweating elderly man leaning against the mall wall really OK as we all pass by or does he need an ambulance?

In using social proof unquestioningly, I am essentially surrendering independent thought in favor of the shortcut. In a confined building suddenly on fire, this can be a life-saving way to find the unseen open exit located by the first people out. Follow the crowd because it is following the leaders who are now outside and across the street. When the herd is reacting to a mistaken assumption or improper choice, though, the consequences can be less happy.

There are obvious questions for me, such as asking how often I use social proof as a crutch to support the easier decision; do I really want to get involved with the crying child? Will my intentions be mistaken when I stop to help and the mother suddenly appears to defend her child from the stranger? Maybe everything is just fine the way it is - everyone else seems to think so! I try to handle this type of thing by switching perspectives at the time, by questioning the little stories my fears make up, but it seems the tendency does not disappear just because I'm aware of it!

Some less obvious questions are related to the times I may not recognize the influence of social proof, or when I may see it but don't question it due to other distractions or more pressing considerations. What decisions am I making that are almost automated, that are perhaps not even in line with my beliefs or ethics? And what other influences are out there affecting me daily, nudging my behaviors this way and that, operating just under my radar?

Once again, I come back to focusing on the moment as a way of slicing through the confusion. Not as a cure-all, but as a path of improvement. It seems to me that much of the power of social proof is due to our habits of directing attention elsewhere, thinking about things unrelated to the moment we are standing in. Of course we find great benefits in anticipating future possibilities or in reviewing past scenarios, and I know I have developed those skills to a powerful level. And I understand I am not alone in this in my culture! When looking for reasons to develop the skill of fully entering the current moment, though, perhaps I should add this morning's GMA segment to my list.

Put simply, I suspect there are times when it is not proper to let others do my thinking for me and it seems the only way for me to recognize the danger is by being present and observant enough to see it happening.

Animals and Suffering

2008-04-16T09:32:00.005-04:00

I recently read a post which described some of the harsher aspects of raising sheep commercially. I thought a bit more about my own relationship with animals and how I feel about their experiencing of life...

I grew up with cows, pets and wild animals. There were probably more non-human mammals inside the boundaries of my home town than humans. Maybe even without counting the cows! In this environment and given my mother's strong habit of anthropomorphizing pets, I learned as a child that animals were part of the family.

We went through many dogs when I was younger. We had one that got hit by a car, one that ran away, one that bit me and my father had to put it down - in my town, this last was done gangland execution style with a pistol. It seems I must have also learned that certain family members could be removed under the right circumstances - an observation that only came to me for the first time while reading a recent post.

The upshot of all this is that, to me, animals are people too. I don't attribute them with sentience, but who says people can't come in different flavors? I do observe emotional behavior and the obvious effects of sensation. I eat meat and wear leather, but I deplore efficient animal factories where life is perverted to produce resources for human consumption. Life is interdependent and it is not so ugly to consider different species living off each other in various ways. What seems sad to me is when a life form is intentionally robbed of the chance to follow its instincts and luxuriate in the glory of being alive. To live only to die seems somehow a diminishing of that magic time between coming and going.

I do learn from even the most tragic scenarios I run across, a kind of symbiotic act, but I also feel empathy as I learn and this is natural and confirms my humanity. On the road recently I saw a dead squirrel, flattened by traffic. Further on, a pigeon lay broken. It was a beautiful summer day, sort of the start of Spring for me as the temperature had risen enough that I had donned shorts for the first time. I thought of how the day might have gone for those two animals up until death, flitting about in the pleasure of warm weather and pursuing their little seasonal animal urges. Then all the promise of Spring ended abruptly.

Did I learn anything from their deaths? Almost my first thought after the above one was that I should enjoy this moment of my ride home because I might not see the end of the trip, which was only five more minutes in length. When life ends for one being, it may being value to another that still lives. This is not a bad thing. What corrupts the process is when we do not celebrate life while it is here.

As for suffering, if we think of pain or death as harsh, then life is harsh. If we think of life as beautiful, then are pain and death not beautiful as well?

Eden Unbalanced (An Essay)

2008-04-14T19:29:00.003-04:00

During a discussion, there arose the question of how to reconcile the suffering around us with the concept of a loving God. What if there was no special reason?

In a dream, a vision, a window opened, a glimpse outward, as though for a moment or two vision bound to here unexpectedly perceived there. And I saw:

Eden Unbalanced
by Darrell G. King

In God, all things are possible and so evil embraces good, sadness dances with joy, the bright and the dark slide across the godscape in patterns beautiful and insane. In the multiverse all things are known and yet some must be tried in order to be experienced even though the experience is also known before the trying. Such is the way of infinity and so God, examining pain and misery, thought to try His image in a Concept bound to peace and joy, prohibited to suffering or hurt.

Eden is how we will say what He Created and this garden held one who was a true child, not the same for the absence of darkness but not so different, either. Life was celebrated, all were sated and yet none were hunted, sunlight and moonbeams washed over dancing forms beneath flawless trees atop perfect carpets of living mosses. Of course, this is only how it looked in the dream and I felt the reality would taste the same way, so this is how I will build my picture: an idyllic setting that would set itself outside the nature of things.

Balance is the way of God, however, and so the child, in part God itself, eventually came to notice that which was missing and then sought it out. The child reclaimed the knowledge of balance, of good and of evil in harmony. In learning it grew, but this was growth it was not designed to absorb and thus it did not become of God, but instead a sort of tormented potential of God. It fit neither in Eden nor in God. And so God made the Earth that the child could experience its turmoil in sufficient stages and manners that would not overwhelm its nature.

Forth walked the child into a new place Created with necessary structures under which it might learn to balance its Godhood. Adapting to the world, it became two and their forms adjusted to the rules of this material haven and multiplied, each new form of the same spirit yet pursuing answers independently, a doubling and redoubling of learning until they filled their classroom with the Quest. Each spark of life sought to understand, then brought what it gained back to the whole to be absorbed and to nourish growth until the child would be ready to step beyond the Creation and rejoin God.

Of course, this is but one way to tell the story and but one way in which Life can pass from one state to another. Of the many ways such things unfold, however, this is the one I was chosen to see and the one which I will tell of today.

Religion Revisited

2008-04-14T17:40:00.001-04:00

From another discussion list post:

In my unimportant view, not meant to trample anyone's beliefs, there is the Divine, whether a being or a state or something I am not (capable of?) thinking of right now. Then there is religion, which I think of as Man's attempt to pack a big concept into a small enough box that it can be shared with language. As with describing color to a blind man, language can approximate the reality but not replace the experience of it.

Certain traditions of spirituality have striven to experience the Divine more closely, in their highest levels transcending language and ritual for direct sensation. The key concept is seeing the color personally rather than accepting a secondhand description as a permanent substitute.

Staying with Freud for consistency, the ego is the mediator between id and superego and it is our conscious experience. I wonder if this is the main impediment to sensing my relationship with the universe directly. What if that sensation were a function of the id or superego and not available to the ego? My natural human bent may to be to relate to the world via the ego, so I find it easier to focus neatly packaged concepts shared via language.

I am disturbed by what is lost in the translation from direct sensation to conceptual structures like religion. I see the personal experience as shared by wise and holy teachers from many traditions in an effort to lead their fellows to similar enlightenment. In passing from mouth to ear, however, the word is degraded, interpreted and reinterpreted, until finally it is put on paper, formalized into rituals and fed to congregations that each accept their customized version as a convenient substitute for the more difficult process of knowing the Divine directly.

Man is fallible. Priests exploit, fanatics distort, worshipers rationalize. For me, the religion can provide either a framework or a maze, depending upon the intent and capabilities of the adherent. I suspect many people juggle non-spiritual goals with religious directives and that, during conflicts, the latter become open to interpretation because that's a major side effect of language. Without condemning the use of personal judgment, I would assert that a more direct pursuit of one's spirituality would provide a superior guide to any external set of rules.

D

Social Proof

2008-04-14T17:38:00.001-04:00

In Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Robert Cialdini, Ph.D., writes of a concept labeled Social Proof, in which people will tend to take cues from the actions of others in the crowd. Thus, in a traffic jam, one motorist attempting to sneak around the mess using the shoulder may inspire a whole line of followers, or, in an example from the book, one person walking past a fallen homeless wino may result in other onlookers deciding that the man is just sleeping. Dr. Cialdini asserts, with historical examples, that this phenomenon can stimulate group behavior totally out of character with what the members might do if operating alone and under their own judgment.

In a recent discussion around positivity, I realized that I use this concept with chemical dependency patients in recovery. I try to walk the talk with them, maintaining a constant attitude of personal growth, treating patients as equals, using appropriate language in voice and body, generally setting the pace for the crowd. It is sometimes amazing how this approach, coupled with sensible and rational teaching, seems to draw out the best in people under stress.

Why should those setting reckless or selfish examples be the only ones to influence the crowd? Why shouldn't those with more positive ideals lead the way? While it admittedly can seem safer to allow someone else to blaze the path and so run interference against any nasty surprises, this can also deaden spiritual growth by reducing the journey to a half-dazed slogging in the footsteps of others.

For those so inclined, walking the talk is simply a matter of listening to the calmer inner voice instead of the fearful one. If a thing seems morally and ethically right despite potential gain or loss, it may be worth a moment to think about how it might feel to act on it. People may be watching you for the lead this time; where do you wish to take them?

WWJD?

2008-04-14T17:37:00.001-04:00

In the not-so-distant past (as Baby Boomers measure such things), a bumper sticker enjoyed a brief spurt of popularity. It prominently displayed four letters, WWJD, and, usually in smaller print, the phrase What Would Jesus Do? I payed no attention to it at the time.

Years later, this admonition came back to me from out of the blue one day and I've been haunted by it since. I consider myself a spiritual person, but not an especially religious one. Yet the WWJD slogan has brought me quite a bit of introspection. Being me, of course, I couldn't just think of it as a cute moral reminder, but instead had to explore it in great detail. People love that about me.

The man Jesus had a message, just as did Buddha, Muhammed and many other wise persons throughout history. For me, at least, his teachings have often become submerged in the more divine attributes of The Christ and so he was cataloged and stored in memory according to the exhortations of red-faced Baptist ministers of my youth and the persistent preachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses sharing my suburban landscape. For years I thought only of the symbol when I thought about the subject at all.

The return of WWJD? brought me a new line of thought. If he were to walk today's streets (being from US suburbia, that's where I set the scene for my musings), what would he look like and what would he say? Over time, my imagination ditched the desert robe for jeans and a T-shirt, cleaned up the hairdo a bit and switched out various ethnic front ends. In other words, I made him into a face in the crowd so that if he stands out at all it will be by something other than an outlandish appearance.

Thinking back to exceptional people I've known or learned of, I expect Jesus the man would stand out, even wearing baggy jeans and a hoodie. I think the gentle peace of his nature would be noticeable against the aggressive flurry of the mall crowd, that his quiet sense of self would contrast against the eager shuffling of the supermarket lines and his unhurried pace would certainly mark a man living in the moment rather than rushing off to the future. Of medium build, appearing fit and healthy, without piercings or green hair or any physical oddity to speak of, I believe the aura of tranquility sliding across my hectic path would demand attention.

The most outstanding effect the man would radiate, however, would be his message itself. I expect he would walk the talk. He would smile at children, pause to sit beside the lonely woman with pain written across her face, offer his position in line to the mother with her four kids and full cart. He would share positive comments and kind acts with everyone and anyone. He would speak in simple, respectful language using quiet tones. Courteous, of course, but managing to be so with few empty words; his speech would have meaning.

I don't picture him on stage or with a microphone. Perhaps those images carry too many connotations of commercialism. Instead, he shares wisdom with people he meets in the daily crowd, stopping to sit with shoppers around a mall bench or on a street corner, listening carefully to their opinions and worries, interjecting simple questions that naturally lead the listener to deeper introspection. Non-confrontational. Friendly. Insightful. Peaceful. A nice guy who focuses on teaching love and change without preaching disharmony or guilt.

My imagination strips away the trappings that distance this holy and wise man from a self I've been told is sinful, unworthy and laden with guilt-inducing baggage. It returns him to the role of simple wandering teacher that impacted so many lives in a distant time and place. In peeling back the veneer of centuries of idealization, I find something that I never saw from the church pew: a message for living rather than a plan for after death.

I like to do right by people. I am most pleased with myself when I find I've stuck to the route laid out by my moral compass. Sometimes in the heat of events I need a reminder to stop for a moment and reflect on the course I'm about to take. And sometimes when this moment is immanent, into my mind pops WWJD? and into my mind comes the picture of an ordinary-looking man with a message. And he gives me pause.

I don't think it matters whether I use Jesus or any similar figure during these moments. What matters most is that I hear the message, that it is gritty and real and sensible. Not a gilded idealistic untouchable commandment wrapped in layers of distancing holiness, but rather a practical and immediate bit of advice I can apply to this moment in my life.

Religion: the Framework for Spirituality

2008-04-14T17:31:00.000-04:00