-
-
The funniest email interaction I have ever read
-
-
-
-
n

The Age of Not Really

-
-
Almost any cultural epoch can be characterized by its dominant values and objectives. Each has its own specific flavor of creativity, science and religion. In many cases, of course, such easy historical characterizations -- Hellenistic or feudalistic or rationalistic -- are possible only because we are far removed from the age and have the luxury of ignoring nuances. Nevertheless, historically minded people naturally tend to see overarching self-consistencies in every age.
Later historians will have a difficult time characterizing our epoch. Perhaps we will one day come to be known as the age of globalism, in which goals and troubles (health, war, pollution, social engineering, etc.) took on worldwide proportions.
Or perhaps ours will be remembered as the Information Age or the age of unrestrained technology. From the space race to the domination of electronic entertainment, to computers, video games and virtual reality, it sometimes seems as though technology is, in our time, altering the very nature of humanity.
The possibilities may be endless; there seems to be a confusing overabundance of ways to characterize us. In my view, this very vagueness is the key. The one characteristic that most identifies us is that we have no firmly established identity. We are living in the Age of Not Really. At countless points, our lives are touched and molded by things that are Not Really what they are supposed to be, or Not Really what they used to be, or Not Really what we think they are.
Ours is the age, for example, of Not Really a meal. All through history, people who loved to cook prepared good meals so that loved ones could gather around a common table. This is what the word "meal" always meant. But our age is the age of the drive through, of fast food prepared by people who care not at all for our well being, of eating on the run, eating in front of the television, the binge and purge, nutritional consultants and Slim-Fast.
Ours is the age of Not Really a war. Our age started with the "Cold War." It continued with Vietnam, which was only a "conflict." And now, our age is punctuated by "police actions" and wars against activities (terrorism, drug use) rather than nations.
Ours is the age of Not Really an education. There are still classrooms, books, teachers and students, but a growing number of high school graduates are Not Really able to read, write, calculate, or explain why the U.S. Constitution matters.
The examples are relentless. Since the idea of lifetime commitment is gone, marriages are Not Really marriages. This in turn has led to families which are Not Really families. Some people are Not Really male or female. Professional sports is Not Really about athletics anymore. We have a criminal justice system that does Not Really protect innocent people by bringing criminals to justice. Much music is Not Really very musical. There are a host of "jobs" that do Not Really create anything of value or provide a valuable service. Those in authority are Not Really in authority, or do Not Really use that authority to give real leadership. Instead of true statesmen, we have mere politicians whose primary concern is re-election. And on and on. How did we get to this place?
The dream of the Enlightenment (the 1700's) was that people could leave behind the religious faith of the Middle Ages while remaining essentially decent and tolerant. Then they could aggressively pursue all manner of freedom, pleasure, knowledge, technology and wealth, and the world would only get better.
By the end of Second World War, Western Culture had awakened from this dream.
The dream has been replaced by a jumble of conflicting impulses. Even the most anti-religious of us has been more profoundly affected by the biblical revelation than he could possibly realize. And even the most religiously devout among us would be shocked to discover just how much of his supposed religious faith comes straight from ancient pagan philosophers.
It has become the Age of Not Really because, for all but the most simple minded among us, every possible road has gaping cliffs on either side. One can not consider Christianity without being flooded with visions of crusaders and inquisitions and fundamentalists. One can not put his faith in politics without immediately being haunted by reigns of terror or bloody revolutions that bring no real change, or corrupt career politicians, or narrow activist agendas. One can not depend on science without envisioning a mushroom cloud or a partial birth abortion. So the most profound spiritual-human hungers in us, in order to avoid feeling pointless, get pointed in a hundred random directions all at the same time: money, physical fitness, adult toys, the environment, vacation trips, the internet.
Which leads only to new reminders that this is the Age of Not Really. The money can Not Really buy anything of lasting value, the toys are Not Really that fun to play wit. The computers are Not Really a means of communicating with people; they are a way of keeping people at a distance. Those who are most enamored of the internet are, it is increasingly obvious, social misfits.
Transitional ages such as ours do not last very long. Nature abhors a vacuum. Lately, I have been spending quite a bit of time in classrooms, interacting with those who have Not Really been parented or enculturated. They know very little about the historical and psycho-social forces that have made them what they are, and they have very little interest in finding out. But they are becoming intensely interested in breaking out of the Not Really. Sometimes it takes a great deal of courage to really look into their eyes. A haunting combination of sorrow, resentment and naiveté can often be found there. The gangs in which they increasingly gather, the music that has become their mode of worship, the drugs that literally block rational thought, the utter non-interest in what used to be called "common decency," and the absolute contempt in which they hold their elders -- all of these are seeds that have been planted in the soil of Not Really. Be certain that there will be a harvest.
Of course, many will grow up, and grow up well. The next generation will no doubt produce some wise and noble people. They will be extremely wise and extremely noble, because it will be an extreme period of history.

The Pyramist

-
-
Was I a conscript, slave, an employee, or a mere citizen?
not to matter the glory was constructed
for the benefit of the culture
for what benefits the god-king benefits all beneath him
and we might have something when we die
if he prospers in heaven
what we have here is labor
but not once the great rock nothing is finished
and closed up to the eternities
then the courageously irreligious of us climb the incline in the night
we know our way in because we created the way in
and closed it off to the true believers
we are the middle class
and whatever we can get away with is ours
the rest is left for tourists
four thousand years from now
when all our gods and wars and misery and thievery
are tourism only
-
-

Gracie gets her first percussion lesson from her Uncle Trent

The Rivals of Our Rightness

The conventional (sterile) thinker separates human discourse into the rational and the emotional (or irrational or illogical or habitual). Rational thought is thought that is considered to be conscious, scientific, reasoned, experiential, tested, etc. Emotional thought is thought that is marked by the absence of such things - substituting them merely with what someone desires to be true without regard to raw data.

This is not valid. Rather, it is a manner by which people of all ideas argue for their own points of view. One KNOWS his own arguments and therefore sees himself as "rational," and does not know any serious arguments by those who disagree with him ; thus, there is an assumption of "irrationality."

The fact is, virtually all sides of an issue arise from a cumbersome combination of assumptions, desires, feelings, thoughts, arguments, impulses, habits and experiences. It's not that "I" have facts and rational arguments while "you" have feelings and irrational ideas. It is that each of us has a different set of assumptions, desires, feelings, thoughts, arguments, impulses, habits and experiences.

The issue is one of awareness or what might be called consciousness. "I" am aware of some things, while "you" are aware of other things.

The closest humanity can come to complete, thorough Truth must consist of the best assumptions, desires, feelings, thoughts, arguments, impulses, habits and experiences of all of us together. Therefore, "Truth" is only possible in a context of a complete diversity that welcomes all, into a unity that includes all.

The great obstacles: the persistent, irrational drive of every individual to be "right" in contrast to some rival. The energy of that drive comes from our great fear of the pain and shame that we anticipate if we are "wrong."

Even those who claim to "celebrate diversity" and pursue "unity" are in a state of rejection of a set of rivals - those who do not seem to them to properly "celebrate diversity" or pursue "unity." Rosie O'Donnell and Sarah Palin are ridiculed for almost identical psychological reasons, each by her own rather shallow community of rivals. The fact that the political opinions of each community seem so different is almost trivial in comparison to the more powerful and destructive psych0-spiritual forces that are at work.

In most cases, rather than saying one argument is "rational" while another is "emotional," we must say - and teach ourselves to MEAN - that each argument is what could rightly be called fragmented awareness.

It seems impossible for many of us to embrace the rivals of our (assumed) rightness. Thus, all seeming impulses toward unity in diversity turn out to be mere anemic rhetoric. And any real, complete, healing Truth remains undiscovered.

Because every viewpoint is a mere fragment, every agenda is merely "so called."

So called faith vs. so called science. There is no small degree of doubt and rebellion in even the most faithful heart, and every scientist that has ever lived has functioned out of a substantial degree of assumption and blind faith.

So called conservatism vs. so called liberalism. Most conservatives bring their fair share of tolerance and generosity into the world, and most liberals can be pretty intolerant and stingly in certain situations.

So called feminism vs. so called gender traditionalism.
So called wealth vs. so called poverty.
So called intelligence vs. so called ignorance.

The Beauty and the Beast

Old song by the Who - powerful and relevant

See and hear it here.

Lyrics:

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution,
Take a bow for the new revolution,
Smile and grin at the change all around me,
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray...
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come,
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution,
Take a bow for the new revolution,
Smile and grin at the change all around me,
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray...
We don't get fooled again

I'll move myself and my family aside,
If we happen to be left half alive!
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky,
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie...

There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution,
Take a bow for the new revolution,
Smile and grin at the change all around me,
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray...
We don't get fooled again

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Please fill in the blank for yourself

-
-
When the home you grew up in was a [blank] home...
When all or most of your friends are reflexively [blank] and your entire social environment would reject you if you were not also [blank]...
When all or most of the movies and television you watch and music you listen to are [blank]...
When all or most of your teachers are so closed-mindedly [blank] that you have to express [blank] views to get a good grade...
When the significant other you have chosen for yourself is a [blank]...
When the only versions you ever hear of any other point of view are misrepresentations and stereotypes from those who are [blank]...
When your arguments for being [blank] arise, not out of rational discourse or an honest exploration of facts, but out of defensiveness...

Then, of course, you are a [blank].
To you, there is no difference between being "[blank]" and being "healthy" or "normal."

It would take a rare degree of intellectual courage to give yourself any other label.
There is one thing you are definitely NOT, and that is - a rebel.

Luke and Grace

Remembering Saddam Hussein

photographs courtesy of http://aldea-irreductible.blogspot.com/2008/10/la-otra-cara-de-los-lideres.html

-
-
Is it possible for Iraq to be "governed" except in the way old Mr. H did it? There seem to be so many awful people over there with all the self-righteous rhetoric they need to turn whatever desires they have into "rights" worthy of being defended via murder. And they produce such a steady stream of converts that there's no hope of just having them kill each other off so that everyone else in the country can get back to their jobs, cafes, family get-togethers, and tour guiding.

And how different will any other nation be in 5 or 20 or 50 years?

We all seem to take it for granted that there is a pretty firm boundary between the crazies and the common people, as if the world would be all peace and flowers if all of "them" could be put away for good, while all of "us" could run the country or the world with our humble peasant simplicity, liberal attitudes, earthiness and easy grace.

What a heap of stinky maggot droppings. The fact is, there is no firm boundary between "them" and "us." We are, or can become, them, they are, or can become, us. A serial killer is discovered to have been living in our neighborhood for years, and we immediately call him a “monster.” Why? Primary reason: to pretend that his fundamental humanity is fundamentally different than our fundamental humanity.

I’m not talking here about a moral equivalency - as if there were no appreciable difference between murder and watching too much television. Don’t play that game. Of course there’s a difference, and it's good when there is a justice system that can put some controls on the worst things we are capable of doing. But do you have the courage to think about how much of our own humanity is shared with the humanity of terrorists, wife and husband beaters, and corrupt politicians?

The corrupt machinery that spins out their victim claims and self-righteous justifications is right here in us too, spinning out what are essentially the same kinds of arguments - if not the same degree of obvious destructive behavior. Mr. H himself was once a tiny baby sleeping sweetly in the arms of his mother. He was part of a family - one that had the same humble occupations or preoccupations we do: money, "self-respect," comfort, direction, a need to get our way, etc. Money mostly. It's not two vastly different groups of people with a line drawn between them. It’s one deep polluted ocean we’re all swimming in, and the news only reports the most sales worthy events that happen on its surface. But each of us is a drop of water in that ocean - moving and being moved.

We all have known - I know I have - manipulative, deceptive people who put on a good outward show and constantly rehearse to themselves the evidence for their own worthiness. But do you see the trick I just played? I said we have all "known" such people. Naturally, I did not say we have all BEEN such people. But we all have agendas, want our way, "know" what's right, etc. Given a standing army, limitless oil resources, and a room full of people constantly telling us how wonderful we are, what might each of us be capable of?

The American First Name Crisis

-
-
Most human beings are quite entertaining, even more than television. That's why I become frustrated with always having to use boring names when I refer to them. Most of our first name choices are the verbal equivalent of watching yourself sleep. They simply do not do justice to the regal and befuddling beings to which they are affixed.
As the Christian Church attempts to retain some of its eroding influence in society, it is probably not helped by the fact that these dreary labels are called “Christian names.” Why are they called that? Does it have anything to do with the way Jesus was always renaming everybody? I'm just asking. Saul got renamed Paul, Cephas became Peter, Levi ended up as Matthew. I hate to say it, but every one of these is a change from a name with some meat on the bone to a name that sounds like cabbage tastes. This is not good PR.
I'm as happy as anybody that American Democracy won the Cold War, but those reds had it all over us in the first name department: Vladimir, Helga, Igor. What's wrong with the following sentence: “Yaah, my cumrad, let us consume gallons of vodka, then incite revolutions and carry buxom women back to our tents. What do you say, Otis?” Get the point? There may be an American flag on the moon, but that doesn't change the fact that it was put there by guys named Neil and Ed.
Like many of our social problems, I think this one may have something to do with juvenile delinquents. Remember how grade school bullies would always make fun of anybody who had an interesting name? Guys named Gordon Lord Byron, Igor Stravinsky or Horace Walpole or Humphrey Bogart would come home from school sobbing, and when there was an addition to the family, Mommy and Daddy would have learned their lesson: “Hey, Jupiter, say hello to your new little brother, Roy.”
Our forever-cutting-edge television writers have evidently been aware of this problem for a long time. The ancient T.V. show "The Waltons" gave its characters two boring names: Jim Bob, John Boy, Sue Bob, etc. But it didn't work for two reasons: First, the effect of two boring things together is not increased interest, it's just two boring things together, like someone with an MBA playing shuffleboard. Secondly, in all the history of English speaking peoples, there was no basis anywhere in objective reality for this two first name scheme. Why didn't anybody ever question this? Suddenly, sitting out in the mountains of primo Americana in the 1930's were a husband and wife who did not know how to name their children, even with lots of practice. With just a little more effort on the part of its writers, “The Waltons” could have been a very clever Sci-Fi satire. The two first name thing would have been your first clue that creatures from another planet had come to harvest us, and their preliminary research team had just been a little shoddy. Later on in the show, you'd see them sleeping under their beds instead of on them, and still later, old Doc and the wimp who owned the mercantile could stumble across a flying saucer in the hay barn.
In the 80's and 90's, certain Southern California Former Yuppies Now Parents (FYNP's) tried to solve the problem by giving their children trendy names like Justin, Genelle, Jason and Jamie. But I fear that this is only a false alarm, a pseudo-revolution. First of all, 90% of these names begin with the letter J, which is even worse than boring, a new low in social conformity; and secondly, there's just something in these names that calls to mind blueberry yogurt, pasta salads, beamers and complete ignorance of anything truly enduring in human culture.
So to solve the boring name problem, I hereby put out a call to all prospective parents. Don't just buy one of those little first name books that sit next to the National Inquirer at the grocery store (Mark Your Baby for Life!). If we all start applying our imaginations at the same time, nobody will be treated like a freak. Here are some guidelines: Adolph is out because of the Nazis and the meat tenderizer. Rudolph is out because of the Nazis and the reindeer. (One more good reason to hate the Nazis: Interesting Name Trashing -- INT.) Other names which are not boring but should not be considered for other reasons are: Darth Vader, Tarzan, Idi, and God. Which reminds me of how much a name influences how someone gets treated. What if God were named, say, Roscoe? See what I mean?
People used to be named after the major Christian virtues such as Faith, Hope and Charity. I think it's a good tradition, but those particular traits hardly stir the passions anymore. How about Tolerance? Or, Billionaire? Free Thinker, Highly Evolved, Never Discriminates? Or if you aren't that ambitious for your offspring, why not Table Manners, or Potty Trained?
Native American Indians are as colorful and profound as anyone can be in this area, with the likes of Running Deer or Sitting Bull. How about a contemporary continuation of this tradition: Sizzling Bacon, or Eyes-From-Too-Much-Television?
Here are some miscellaneous possibilities: Sigma, Negatron, Huge, Tasmania, and Luminous. Or names that sound like sophisticated initials: Aybee, Arjay, Beebee. Or DeeEmZee (that's a good one). Of course a lot of these sound like nicknames. But that's just the point. Maybe we give nicknames as a result of humanity's natural tendency to spice up boring things. If someone really was named Potty Trained, we might call him or her “Pot” for short, but I don't think so. Nobody refers to Saskatchewan as “Sassy”, or to the Hundred Years War as "The Hunny”. Arnold Schwarzenegger always gets called by his full name. Why? Because no one wants to miss an opportunity to talk like that.
I think if our real names were more interesting, most of us would have better self-images and get invited to parties more often. Then we would stop burdening ourselves with global problems which are so enormous that they make us overly nervous so that we forget to be considerate of our neighbor. Of course, there is also the possibility that I am completely wrong on this point and that boring names provide a major calming influence, like soft music, Prozac and Utah.
In any case, In any case, the subject needs a little more attention than its getting. So I conclude with a poem:

Zebulon Zyffle
Came at the end
Of lines and lists
And telephone books.
He sat in school
Without a friend
In the very last row
Where no one looks.

Imagine what
His life became
As he thought and he thought
Without speaking at all;
As he heard profound questions
Like, "What's in a name?"
Come from Artemis Ashley
And Bernadette Ball.

He built funny bombs
That really went BOOM!
To show to his mother
(Oh, how he adored her!)
When she scolded him harshly
He withdrew to his room
And blew up the world
In alphabetical order.

Puff

-
-
Everybody starts with the same sized
ego: the same sized
balloon.
Then come
the pains, and we huff and puff
and blow it up more to protect more stuff
Bigger, thinner:
"thin skinned."
Pray and hope
for the pop.



-2010