In the modern Western European tradition, we consider knowledge to be the result of the scientific method and inductive reasoning. These are the process of questions and answers that follow logic. This Enlightenment tradition is well and good, for it freed us from becoming mired in superstitions and unfounded ideas. However, contrary to common belief, it does not result in a true understanding of things.
Why? Because it logical reasoning is only half the picture. Allow me to quote someone far more studied than I -- Idries Shah, who is widely considered to be a world-scholar on Sufism. In his introduction to The Sufis he says:
"There are two modes of knowledge, through argument and experience. Argument brings conclusions and compels us to concede to them, but it does not cause any certainty nor remove doubts in order that the mind may remain at rest in truth, unless this is provided by experience."
This Sufi doctrine is known in the West as the scientific method of inductive proceeding, and subsequent Western science is largely based upon it.
Modern science, however, instead of accepting the idea that experience was necessary in all branches of human thought, took the word in its sense of "experiment," in which the experimenter remained as far as possible outside the experience.
From the Sufi point of view, therefore, Bacon, when he wrote these words in 1268, both launched modern science and also transmitted only a portion of the wisdom upon which it could have been based.
"Scientific" thinking has worked continuously and heroically with this partial tradition ever since. In spite of its roots in the work of the Sufis, the impairment of the tradition has prevented the scientific researcher from approaching knowledge by means of itself -- by experience, not merely experiment."
The point of this passage is that reliance solely upon the Enlightenment value of objective reasoning as a means of seeking truth is only half the picture. We may read any manner of logical argument we wish, but unless we experience it to be true, we can never truly know it as such.
The reliance of atheists upon only logical, rational arguments and their disregard of the validity of intuitive (or as Shah would call it, experiential) knowledge will never lead to a true understanding of things because it sees only half the picture. One cannot understand the nature of reality unless one views the whole.
This is not to say that viewing the whole and accepting the validity of intuitive/experiential knowledge results in theism. I am not arguing for or against any particular conclusion; that is, by defnition within my argument, the sole province of the individual. I am only saying that reliance solely on cold observation and logic can never result in an understanding of the true nature of the universe. Prior to the rise of patriarchal religious and political institutions, intuitive knowledge was valued. It is only when patriarchy rose to dominance that intuitive knowledge came to be disregarded and devalued as "emotional" or "feminine" (and therefore characterized as weak).
As many of the world's traditions profess, one requires balance. Yin requires yang; the Jedis sought to restore balance to the Force. And so true knowledge requires balance as well. This is the difference between the knowing of facts and the understanding of truth. Knowledge as opposed to wisdom.
To disgregard experiential or intuitive knowledge is just as egregious as disregarding logical reasoning. We need both, otherwise the movement we know as the Enlightenment will only leave us in the dark.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Saturday, July 21, 2012
If This is God's Plan, then God is a Jerk
(Note: this piece is satire. It is not an attack on anyone's beliefs.)
Everything happens for a reason. It's part of God's plan. God works in mysterious ways. These are things people say to cope when something bad happens. Sure, it helps lessen the pain to think there's some Greater Purpose behind it -- but not if you take a look at what such words really mean.
If God has a plan, why doesn't He just get on with it? Why the games, the subterfuge? Does he enjoy His Cosmic game of cat and mouse, swatting us with His paw as we struggle?
And what of these Mysterious Ways? If the idea is that we just don't understand because we are peon humans and He is a god, well that has some merit -- but then why is He so much like us in other aspects? Is He our Heavenly Father, or a mysterious, unknowable Being? Not that God can't have a multifaceted personality, but if your human father subjected you to blind obedience to a plan he refused to reveal to you, you would resent it.
Which makes God kind of a jerk. At best He's an autocrat; at worst He's a sadist on a power trip. This isn't all that inconsistent with the Old Testament -- God was indeed vengeful and ruled with an iron fist in those days. But I thought He was supposed to have mellowed with age and fatherhood? Wasn't the whole point of Jesus to usher in a new era, one of forgiveness and love? If so, then why these Old Testament games? Maybe Old Dog God is having a hard time learning new tricks. Maybe He's a crotchety old geezer set in His ways. Wouldn't that make Jesus His apologetic son? Is God the cantankerous Grandpa we tolerate but mostly ignore on Thanksgiving? Feed him turkey till he falls asleep and shuts up?
Now, I'm all for the idea that struggle makes us stronger, that something crappy that happens today can make us better prepared for something else down the road. But to say that God intentionally subjects us to such trials? If a parent did that to a child, it would be called abuse. A god that subjects me to endless tirals in the same of some Mysterious Purpose doesn't really earn my respect. And if that's the way God rolls, then I'd rather go to Hell. At least you know where Lucifer stands on things.
Whether God made us in His image or we made Him in ours, the idea that "shit happens" as part of His grand scheme is childlike at best. What kind of god gives his creations such big, fabulous brains only to demand that they shut them off in blind acceptance of his "plan"?
Roman Emperor and philosopher Marcus Aurelius expressed it well:
If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.
A god that subjects me to the recent events of my life as part of some grand plan is pretty unjust in my book. That's not the kind of god I want to believe in. So, I refuse to believe that it's part of some mysterious scheme. And if I turn out to be wrong, well, then I guess I'll be hangin' with Marcus in hell.
Everything happens for a reason. It's part of God's plan. God works in mysterious ways. These are things people say to cope when something bad happens. Sure, it helps lessen the pain to think there's some Greater Purpose behind it -- but not if you take a look at what such words really mean.
If God has a plan, why doesn't He just get on with it? Why the games, the subterfuge? Does he enjoy His Cosmic game of cat and mouse, swatting us with His paw as we struggle?
And what of these Mysterious Ways? If the idea is that we just don't understand because we are peon humans and He is a god, well that has some merit -- but then why is He so much like us in other aspects? Is He our Heavenly Father, or a mysterious, unknowable Being? Not that God can't have a multifaceted personality, but if your human father subjected you to blind obedience to a plan he refused to reveal to you, you would resent it.
Which makes God kind of a jerk. At best He's an autocrat; at worst He's a sadist on a power trip. This isn't all that inconsistent with the Old Testament -- God was indeed vengeful and ruled with an iron fist in those days. But I thought He was supposed to have mellowed with age and fatherhood? Wasn't the whole point of Jesus to usher in a new era, one of forgiveness and love? If so, then why these Old Testament games? Maybe Old Dog God is having a hard time learning new tricks. Maybe He's a crotchety old geezer set in His ways. Wouldn't that make Jesus His apologetic son? Is God the cantankerous Grandpa we tolerate but mostly ignore on Thanksgiving? Feed him turkey till he falls asleep and shuts up?
Now, I'm all for the idea that struggle makes us stronger, that something crappy that happens today can make us better prepared for something else down the road. But to say that God intentionally subjects us to such trials? If a parent did that to a child, it would be called abuse. A god that subjects me to endless tirals in the same of some Mysterious Purpose doesn't really earn my respect. And if that's the way God rolls, then I'd rather go to Hell. At least you know where Lucifer stands on things.
Whether God made us in His image or we made Him in ours, the idea that "shit happens" as part of His grand scheme is childlike at best. What kind of god gives his creations such big, fabulous brains only to demand that they shut them off in blind acceptance of his "plan"?
Roman Emperor and philosopher Marcus Aurelius expressed it well:
If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.
A god that subjects me to the recent events of my life as part of some grand plan is pretty unjust in my book. That's not the kind of god I want to believe in. So, I refuse to believe that it's part of some mysterious scheme. And if I turn out to be wrong, well, then I guess I'll be hangin' with Marcus in hell.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
God has a Purpose....Or does Shit just Happen?
It is human nature to wonder at the purpose of life's events. Especially the bad ones. Few stop to consider why good things happen -- they simply rejoice and enjoy them. But when bad things happen, we lament, "why?"
Why must there be a "why"? Perhaps in a world full of cause and effect, it is only logical to assume the pattern holds true for ourselves. Or perhaps we simply can't bear the idea of pure randomness, that things happen for no reason.
That ill befalls us for no cause violates our concept of justics, of fairness. But as your mother might say, "who said life was fair?" But in a world so full of beauty and symmetry, perhaps fairness just seems right. Or maybe "reason" is a better word; in nature, nothing happens without reason. A lion kills a zebra calf because the lion is hungry and the calf is weak. The "reason" for this seemingly brutal act is not only to feed the lion but to keep the zebra species strong. It is nature's balance, her symmetry.
So it is only logical to apply such balance to ourselves. If something bad happens, it must be for some reason. But what? So we make up tales to explain the inexplicable: God is punishing us for some sin; God has some mysterious and divine purpose; that it's karmic payback for some past wrong committed in this life or one past.
The aspiritual among us will call this hogwash and say there's no reason. Shit happens, period. No reason, no purpose -- it is what it is, to no particular end. And maybe they're right -- who's to know? But if they are, then our lives would be the sole exception to nature's machinery. How likely is that? How could it be that among the vast and complex relationships in our world, that we are the only beings free from it?
Let us examine things from this framework then -- not one of Divine Purpose but of nature. If the purpose of killing the zebra clf is to ensure the strength of the species, then might not our suffering be similar? It would be a weak species indeed that curled up into a ball of self-pity and depressed inactoin every time tragedy struck. That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger, after all.
This is not to say there is an Intent behind things that happen, for that would just replace God or karma with a personnified Mother Nature. There is no intent behind the lioin and zebra, but merely a system of checks and balances that naturally arose. As part of the natural world, we would be subject to the same balances. While we have largely removed ourselves from the basic checks of the environment (though not for much longer), might not we, with our large brains and self awareness, be subject to a psychological version of the same?
Personally, I have gone beyond wondering why. You may know that Shit Happened in my life recently, and rather than lament on the reason I find I am just numbly accepting it. Allowing myself a little leeway for withdrawing into a little ball, but also carrying on with life. Yes, friends are full of comforting assertions that there must be a reason for it, that something better will come of it. And typically I would agree, but not this time. Did god send me lemons because he wants me to make lemonade? Hardly. It's not the lesson I "should" learn (intent) but what I "could" learn (opportunity).
Why must there be a "why"? Perhaps in a world full of cause and effect, it is only logical to assume the pattern holds true for ourselves. Or perhaps we simply can't bear the idea of pure randomness, that things happen for no reason.
That ill befalls us for no cause violates our concept of justics, of fairness. But as your mother might say, "who said life was fair?" But in a world so full of beauty and symmetry, perhaps fairness just seems right. Or maybe "reason" is a better word; in nature, nothing happens without reason. A lion kills a zebra calf because the lion is hungry and the calf is weak. The "reason" for this seemingly brutal act is not only to feed the lion but to keep the zebra species strong. It is nature's balance, her symmetry.
So it is only logical to apply such balance to ourselves. If something bad happens, it must be for some reason. But what? So we make up tales to explain the inexplicable: God is punishing us for some sin; God has some mysterious and divine purpose; that it's karmic payback for some past wrong committed in this life or one past.
The aspiritual among us will call this hogwash and say there's no reason. Shit happens, period. No reason, no purpose -- it is what it is, to no particular end. And maybe they're right -- who's to know? But if they are, then our lives would be the sole exception to nature's machinery. How likely is that? How could it be that among the vast and complex relationships in our world, that we are the only beings free from it?
Let us examine things from this framework then -- not one of Divine Purpose but of nature. If the purpose of killing the zebra clf is to ensure the strength of the species, then might not our suffering be similar? It would be a weak species indeed that curled up into a ball of self-pity and depressed inactoin every time tragedy struck. That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger, after all.
This is not to say there is an Intent behind things that happen, for that would just replace God or karma with a personnified Mother Nature. There is no intent behind the lioin and zebra, but merely a system of checks and balances that naturally arose. As part of the natural world, we would be subject to the same balances. While we have largely removed ourselves from the basic checks of the environment (though not for much longer), might not we, with our large brains and self awareness, be subject to a psychological version of the same?
Personally, I have gone beyond wondering why. You may know that Shit Happened in my life recently, and rather than lament on the reason I find I am just numbly accepting it. Allowing myself a little leeway for withdrawing into a little ball, but also carrying on with life. Yes, friends are full of comforting assertions that there must be a reason for it, that something better will come of it. And typically I would agree, but not this time. Did god send me lemons because he wants me to make lemonade? Hardly. It's not the lesson I "should" learn (intent) but what I "could" learn (opportunity).
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Now I am Become Death: Apocryphal Quote?
As you might guess from my choice of blog banner, I am into J. Robert Oppenheimer. I am also into Hinduism, so it was only a matter of time that these two interests of mine intersected.
In fact, it was because of Oppie that I first read the Bhagavad Gita many years ago. Being that it was the first such text I'd read and that I was rather young (and that I read it on Spring Break, which should indicate the state of sobriety I might have been in), I didn't get much out of it. I remember coming away from the experience thinking, "huh. That's it?"
Twenty years later I have, as one should, deepened my spiritual wisdom and reread the Gita a few more times, all in the past two years. In three different translations, I found a glaring absence of Oppie's famous Trinity-blast quote: "Now I am become Death, destroyer of worlds." I've also heard that this was apocryphal, that he never said it and that it was added later to the story. So, hi-ho, hi-ho, to the internet I go.....
The closest translation I found was "Now I am become Time, destoyer of worlds." Ok, I get that. Time equals death after all, right? Death sounds better, more dramatic. Another translation stretches it out a bit: "I am time that has aged, who makes the world perish. I have come forth to destroy worlds." Wordier, but the same idea. Wikipedia goes one step further in claiming that Oppie translated the quote himself, from the original Sanskrit. Without being a Sanskrit expert, I can't comment on the accuracy of his translation -- but since he's a supergenius and I'm not, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Semantics aside, did he really say this or not? One can quite easily find several references -- including video of Oppie himself -- saying that he thought of this line after the Trinity blast, not that he said it. In fact, his brother Frank stated that Oppie simply said, "It worked." So, if others have turned this into an actual quote in their versions, it's fantasy (but good story telling).
But what's really interesting about all this is not what Oppie did or did not say but what the Gita might have meant to him in relation to his involvement in the Manhattan Project. It's easy to look back and say, "How could they have lived with themselves for creating such a horrible device? How could they have knowingly unleashed that on the world?" And in fact this very point has been portrayed numerous times in documentary ("The Day after Trinity" is a must-see for any nuke-geek) and films ("Fat Man and Little Boy" for example): there is a large body of evidence to show that many of the scientists felt regret and responsibility to work for responsible nuclear policies after the war. It is also well-documented that Oppie felt conflicted (tormented?) for the rest of his life.
But in reading the Gita again, in its full context within the larger Mahabharata, there is a very different aspect to Oppie's story. The whole point of the Gita is that warrior Arjuna feels conflicted at his "duty" to kill his cousins in battle, and he asks Krishna's counsel. Krishna's point can be summed up as: don't worry about the outcome of your actions; just do them. "Be an instrument, nothing more" (11 v. 33). That sounds harsh, but what Krishna is saying is that to be fully free and enlightened, you can't be attached to this world -- even your own actions. Do them because you must -- because it is your dharma (fate) -- but don't do them with thought toward the fruits (results) of those actions. Everything that will happen, has happened, and it has happened because Krishna willed it so. So be his instrument of Fate (my own humble paraphrasing).
This presents an interesting view of Oppie. The Gita was a huge influence on him, by his own words. So how did it play into his role as the Father of the Atomic Bomb?
It is possible that, if he truly took the Gita to heart, he was able to hold a certain emotional distance from the Manhattan Project. That he was able to view it rationally, because it was right (to stop Hitler) or his dharma (it was his duty as a top physicist) or simply that he was riding the tide of historical events. Krishna would tell him to create the bomb, knowing it would kill many people, because it was the thing to do. Because Oppie was merely an instrument of the Cosmos.
Obviously, Oppie could only take Krishna's counsel so far -- as evidenced by the deep regret he felt for the rest of his life. But it does shed light on how he could have played his role at the time. All of this is not to say that he blindly said "oh well, it's all preordained and I'm just the hand of god" -- which is a narrow-minded and shallow view. It simply shows how one can do one's duty in life even while conflicted about it.
A simple blog entry cannot possibly do justice to the full teachings of the Gita or the complex person that was Oppie. But I hope I've at least provided some food for thought.
In fact, it was because of Oppie that I first read the Bhagavad Gita many years ago. Being that it was the first such text I'd read and that I was rather young (and that I read it on Spring Break, which should indicate the state of sobriety I might have been in), I didn't get much out of it. I remember coming away from the experience thinking, "huh. That's it?"
Twenty years later I have, as one should, deepened my spiritual wisdom and reread the Gita a few more times, all in the past two years. In three different translations, I found a glaring absence of Oppie's famous Trinity-blast quote: "Now I am become Death, destroyer of worlds." I've also heard that this was apocryphal, that he never said it and that it was added later to the story. So, hi-ho, hi-ho, to the internet I go.....
The closest translation I found was "Now I am become Time, destoyer of worlds." Ok, I get that. Time equals death after all, right? Death sounds better, more dramatic. Another translation stretches it out a bit: "I am time that has aged, who makes the world perish. I have come forth to destroy worlds." Wordier, but the same idea. Wikipedia goes one step further in claiming that Oppie translated the quote himself, from the original Sanskrit. Without being a Sanskrit expert, I can't comment on the accuracy of his translation -- but since he's a supergenius and I'm not, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Semantics aside, did he really say this or not? One can quite easily find several references -- including video of Oppie himself -- saying that he thought of this line after the Trinity blast, not that he said it. In fact, his brother Frank stated that Oppie simply said, "It worked." So, if others have turned this into an actual quote in their versions, it's fantasy (but good story telling).
But what's really interesting about all this is not what Oppie did or did not say but what the Gita might have meant to him in relation to his involvement in the Manhattan Project. It's easy to look back and say, "How could they have lived with themselves for creating such a horrible device? How could they have knowingly unleashed that on the world?" And in fact this very point has been portrayed numerous times in documentary ("The Day after Trinity" is a must-see for any nuke-geek) and films ("Fat Man and Little Boy" for example): there is a large body of evidence to show that many of the scientists felt regret and responsibility to work for responsible nuclear policies after the war. It is also well-documented that Oppie felt conflicted (tormented?) for the rest of his life.
But in reading the Gita again, in its full context within the larger Mahabharata, there is a very different aspect to Oppie's story. The whole point of the Gita is that warrior Arjuna feels conflicted at his "duty" to kill his cousins in battle, and he asks Krishna's counsel. Krishna's point can be summed up as: don't worry about the outcome of your actions; just do them. "Be an instrument, nothing more" (11 v. 33). That sounds harsh, but what Krishna is saying is that to be fully free and enlightened, you can't be attached to this world -- even your own actions. Do them because you must -- because it is your dharma (fate) -- but don't do them with thought toward the fruits (results) of those actions. Everything that will happen, has happened, and it has happened because Krishna willed it so. So be his instrument of Fate (my own humble paraphrasing).
This presents an interesting view of Oppie. The Gita was a huge influence on him, by his own words. So how did it play into his role as the Father of the Atomic Bomb?
It is possible that, if he truly took the Gita to heart, he was able to hold a certain emotional distance from the Manhattan Project. That he was able to view it rationally, because it was right (to stop Hitler) or his dharma (it was his duty as a top physicist) or simply that he was riding the tide of historical events. Krishna would tell him to create the bomb, knowing it would kill many people, because it was the thing to do. Because Oppie was merely an instrument of the Cosmos.
Obviously, Oppie could only take Krishna's counsel so far -- as evidenced by the deep regret he felt for the rest of his life. But it does shed light on how he could have played his role at the time. All of this is not to say that he blindly said "oh well, it's all preordained and I'm just the hand of god" -- which is a narrow-minded and shallow view. It simply shows how one can do one's duty in life even while conflicted about it.
A simple blog entry cannot possibly do justice to the full teachings of the Gita or the complex person that was Oppie. But I hope I've at least provided some food for thought.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Us, Them, and Everyone Else
I've been trying a new approach with Tea Party types. It stems from the incessant mantra that Obama is a raving socialist liberal. It started with some conversation or other about the plethora of liberal hosts on Fox News and the lack of conservatives on MSNBC. Now, I fully agree with the latter, but liberals on Fox? This fellow went on to cite Alan Colmes as the most iconic liberal in the universe.
And this is where it began. I respectfully disagreed and explained that just because Colmes (or anyone) is more liberal than you, that doesn't make him a Liberal. See, it's not one or the other; that's why it's called the "politicial spectrum." Spectrum, not a bimodal system. (oh no, I did not use such a fancy, latte-drinking word as bimodal). There's Tea Partiers on the one end, and Communists over on the other, and in the middle lies a whole bunch of everyone else.
This middle zone contains a HUGE pool of what are rightly called Centrists. And this is where Obama stands. Is he more liberal than a Tea Partier? Hell yeah. But to someone on the Far Left, he's dead center. But apparently Partiers (TP-ers?) can't grasp anything more complex than a simple them/us scenario. Call me crazy, but I thought the idea of a spectrum was pretty simple, and I really expected this guy to come around and agree.
But see, it's that dang faith in humanity that bit me in the butt. I have tried this approach several times since, and NOT ONE person would admit the existence of anything other than Conservative (them) and Liberal (everyone else). This phenomenon goes hand in hand with being Tea Party conservative; other Conservatives can and will have this discussion and acknowledge differing degrees of Right/Left. I don't expect to win anyone over to my political views, but I shake my head in disbelief that there are people who are so ignorant that they can't even allow that things are not so simplistic.
But of course, that's the way our Corporate-bought politicians like us: simple. It makes us easy to control, easy to lie to. If you think everyone else is a liberal lunatic commie, then you'll be scared and will vote for all kinds of crazy policies that are not in your best interest. It's time for everyone to realize that we have more in common with each other than we do with the billionaire corporatists. The us and them isn't Right/Left, it's working people vs. the insanely rich. Which none of us will ever be, no matter how many lottery tickets we buy.
So please, please, PLEASE Tea Party Nation: can we stop with the polarizing slurs and just, for one brief moment, acknowledge that there's a whole lotta space between you and the Left, that's filled with different ideas?
Yeah, I know: somewhere, monkeys fly out of somebody's butt.
And this is where it began. I respectfully disagreed and explained that just because Colmes (or anyone) is more liberal than you, that doesn't make him a Liberal. See, it's not one or the other; that's why it's called the "politicial spectrum." Spectrum, not a bimodal system. (oh no, I did not use such a fancy, latte-drinking word as bimodal). There's Tea Partiers on the one end, and Communists over on the other, and in the middle lies a whole bunch of everyone else.
This middle zone contains a HUGE pool of what are rightly called Centrists. And this is where Obama stands. Is he more liberal than a Tea Partier? Hell yeah. But to someone on the Far Left, he's dead center. But apparently Partiers (TP-ers?) can't grasp anything more complex than a simple them/us scenario. Call me crazy, but I thought the idea of a spectrum was pretty simple, and I really expected this guy to come around and agree.
But see, it's that dang faith in humanity that bit me in the butt. I have tried this approach several times since, and NOT ONE person would admit the existence of anything other than Conservative (them) and Liberal (everyone else). This phenomenon goes hand in hand with being Tea Party conservative; other Conservatives can and will have this discussion and acknowledge differing degrees of Right/Left. I don't expect to win anyone over to my political views, but I shake my head in disbelief that there are people who are so ignorant that they can't even allow that things are not so simplistic.
But of course, that's the way our Corporate-bought politicians like us: simple. It makes us easy to control, easy to lie to. If you think everyone else is a liberal lunatic commie, then you'll be scared and will vote for all kinds of crazy policies that are not in your best interest. It's time for everyone to realize that we have more in common with each other than we do with the billionaire corporatists. The us and them isn't Right/Left, it's working people vs. the insanely rich. Which none of us will ever be, no matter how many lottery tickets we buy.
So please, please, PLEASE Tea Party Nation: can we stop with the polarizing slurs and just, for one brief moment, acknowledge that there's a whole lotta space between you and the Left, that's filled with different ideas?
Yeah, I know: somewhere, monkeys fly out of somebody's butt.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
War and Peace: Picking the Better Path, or Why I am a Hindu
Recently, life handed me a bunch of lemons. Then it handed me some more. And then it handed me something else -- let's just say I was in deep without a shovel. And of course, I came out on the other side no worse for the wear, and in fact I learned a very interesting lesson along the way.
By nature, I am a fighter. I don't roll over, I don't give up. This has generally served me well in life, but as I grew older I began to move towards a more balanced approach - one that incorporated a little acceptance now and then. Before you go telling me that these are opposing and contradictory ideas, let me just say that yes they are -- but that does not mean they cannot coexist! In fact, implicit in the very concept of balance is the notion of two opposing forces! But I digress.
For a while I had been on a very active roll -- taking a very active (not passive) approach to shaping the reality around me. There were a few knocks along the way, but still I marched forth. Until one day, the blow was just too hard, and it knocked me flat on my existential ass. Being one to really learn lessons the hard way, I knew that this was my cue to give up the driver's seat. "Ok Life, I give up. Whatever you're doing, I'm done trying. Peace, out." Then after a few weeks of riding the tao like a leaf on a river, things become clear again and life is all rainbows and butterflies, and I move on.
This time was different, however. This time the Universe continued to kick me while I was down, which is a really rotten thing to do. Nevertheless, I picked myself up each time, dusted off, and continued in my acceptance. After all, desire causes suffering, right? Buddha would want me to just sit back and see what lesson came out of this, right?
Every time I felt myself scratching my way out of the hole, the Universe pushed me back in. Finally, I had enough. I said, "F**k this, Cosmos! You wanna piece of me, bring it, bitch!" And lo! I instantly felt better! And I've felt my old self ever since.
So what, you may ask, is the lesson? It's that the way of peace and acceptance is a fine and worthy goal, but it may not be for all of us. Yes, it has served me well over the years, but sometimes, you just gotta pick up that sword and go into battle. Well, maybe you don't, but I do.
I reminds me of a story arc in Xena: Warrior Princess. Xena and Gabby meet up with Eli, a man of peace. Gabby ends up throwing her kick-ass staff into a river and vowing to give up violence. A philosophical discussion ensued, regarding the path of peace versus the "Way of the Warrior." Several episodes and adventures later, Gabby comes to realize that her path is not the path of peace but that of the warrior. It's all about accepting your fate in life, otherwise known as dharma.
And this is why, several years ago, I realized I wasn't a Buddhist but a Hindu. I can strive to achieve inner peace and all that, but ultimately I am a warrior. Maybe in some future life I will attain Buddha-like acceptance, but not in this one -- no matter how hard I try. To deny my dharma will only bring me further suffering. As I Buddhist I would be expected to deny that dharma, to seek a higher way of living. As a Hindu, however, I can accept that "fate" for this life -- while continuing to grow and evolve of course, but with less pressure.
I had pretty much found a nice little balance for myself this way. But recent events really highlighted the issue in a way I didn't expect. The take-away message for me was this: it's ok to go with the flow and see if life is really going to bring something better your way -- but at some point it's time to get medieval on its ass.
By nature, I am a fighter. I don't roll over, I don't give up. This has generally served me well in life, but as I grew older I began to move towards a more balanced approach - one that incorporated a little acceptance now and then. Before you go telling me that these are opposing and contradictory ideas, let me just say that yes they are -- but that does not mean they cannot coexist! In fact, implicit in the very concept of balance is the notion of two opposing forces! But I digress.
For a while I had been on a very active roll -- taking a very active (not passive) approach to shaping the reality around me. There were a few knocks along the way, but still I marched forth. Until one day, the blow was just too hard, and it knocked me flat on my existential ass. Being one to really learn lessons the hard way, I knew that this was my cue to give up the driver's seat. "Ok Life, I give up. Whatever you're doing, I'm done trying. Peace, out." Then after a few weeks of riding the tao like a leaf on a river, things become clear again and life is all rainbows and butterflies, and I move on.
This time was different, however. This time the Universe continued to kick me while I was down, which is a really rotten thing to do. Nevertheless, I picked myself up each time, dusted off, and continued in my acceptance. After all, desire causes suffering, right? Buddha would want me to just sit back and see what lesson came out of this, right?
Every time I felt myself scratching my way out of the hole, the Universe pushed me back in. Finally, I had enough. I said, "F**k this, Cosmos! You wanna piece of me, bring it, bitch!" And lo! I instantly felt better! And I've felt my old self ever since.
So what, you may ask, is the lesson? It's that the way of peace and acceptance is a fine and worthy goal, but it may not be for all of us. Yes, it has served me well over the years, but sometimes, you just gotta pick up that sword and go into battle. Well, maybe you don't, but I do.
I reminds me of a story arc in Xena: Warrior Princess. Xena and Gabby meet up with Eli, a man of peace. Gabby ends up throwing her kick-ass staff into a river and vowing to give up violence. A philosophical discussion ensued, regarding the path of peace versus the "Way of the Warrior." Several episodes and adventures later, Gabby comes to realize that her path is not the path of peace but that of the warrior. It's all about accepting your fate in life, otherwise known as dharma.
And this is why, several years ago, I realized I wasn't a Buddhist but a Hindu. I can strive to achieve inner peace and all that, but ultimately I am a warrior. Maybe in some future life I will attain Buddha-like acceptance, but not in this one -- no matter how hard I try. To deny my dharma will only bring me further suffering. As I Buddhist I would be expected to deny that dharma, to seek a higher way of living. As a Hindu, however, I can accept that "fate" for this life -- while continuing to grow and evolve of course, but with less pressure.
I had pretty much found a nice little balance for myself this way. But recent events really highlighted the issue in a way I didn't expect. The take-away message for me was this: it's ok to go with the flow and see if life is really going to bring something better your way -- but at some point it's time to get medieval on its ass.
Existential Walkabout
Where's the Manifesto been, you ask? Taking a little stroll through the dark woods. But we're back, with a new post coming soon! Stay tuned!
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
United we Stand, Divided we Fall
Abortion, guns, socialism, and now, unions. Just a few of the myriad issues used by Republicans to fan the flames of unrest, to get us worked up and fighting each other. To use our beliefs against us to serve their political agenda. An agenda set by billionaire lobbyists and corporations.
I, for one, am tired of defending unions, of explaining the concepts of freedom and democracy over and over. Because people, none of these wedge issues are the problem. Not one of these issues -- nor even all of them together -- has contributed to our country's current situation. The real problem is the corporate welfare policies supported by our elected officials.
And yes, it is welfare. What happened to the free market? If it's such a fabulous, inviolate concept, then doesn't "too big to fail" present a contradiction? Why did we bail out Wall Street, instead of letting the free market dictate the outcome? Why do we allow corporate tax havens and loopholes? Shouldn't they be able to survive without such handouts?
(For an article on the tax burden shifted to you and me, instead of corporations, check out this link. It also has a handy table of state-by-state stats. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/offshore-tax-havens-a-sta_n_186640.html )
This is just one example of the Real Problem. Everything in modern politics is geared to help corporations. Heck, our own Supreme Court even declared them to have the same rights as human beings! But the Republicans (and yes, the Dems who silently support the very same policies) are clever -- they won't let us protest their actions. They know that it's easy as pie to whip up a furor over some side issue, something that has no bearing on the state of our country, and get us fighting among ourselves instead of targeting them.
(I find it ironic that some of the loudest anti-government protestors today so willingly allow that same government tell them what to think, but that's another topic.....)
So people, here's my plea: let's stop fighting each other. You don't have to be pro-union or pro-choice, you don't have to think taxes are good, you don't have to believe guns belong in every American home. All you have to do is recognize that we have more in common between us than any of us do with those receiving billions in annual salary and millions in bonuses. They are the real enemy. Sure, unions aren't perfect, healthcare isn't perfect.....but right now, we have bigger issues at hand. When our country's economy is no longer racing to the bottom, when we are no longer becoming a third world country, when the gap between rich and poor closes and the middle class rises again -- then we can focus on these other issues. We need to stand together if we are to survive.
I, for one, am tired of defending unions, of explaining the concepts of freedom and democracy over and over. Because people, none of these wedge issues are the problem. Not one of these issues -- nor even all of them together -- has contributed to our country's current situation. The real problem is the corporate welfare policies supported by our elected officials.
And yes, it is welfare. What happened to the free market? If it's such a fabulous, inviolate concept, then doesn't "too big to fail" present a contradiction? Why did we bail out Wall Street, instead of letting the free market dictate the outcome? Why do we allow corporate tax havens and loopholes? Shouldn't they be able to survive without such handouts?
(For an article on the tax burden shifted to you and me, instead of corporations, check out this link. It also has a handy table of state-by-state stats. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/offshore-tax-havens-a-sta_n_186640.html )
This is just one example of the Real Problem. Everything in modern politics is geared to help corporations. Heck, our own Supreme Court even declared them to have the same rights as human beings! But the Republicans (and yes, the Dems who silently support the very same policies) are clever -- they won't let us protest their actions. They know that it's easy as pie to whip up a furor over some side issue, something that has no bearing on the state of our country, and get us fighting among ourselves instead of targeting them.
(I find it ironic that some of the loudest anti-government protestors today so willingly allow that same government tell them what to think, but that's another topic.....)
So people, here's my plea: let's stop fighting each other. You don't have to be pro-union or pro-choice, you don't have to think taxes are good, you don't have to believe guns belong in every American home. All you have to do is recognize that we have more in common between us than any of us do with those receiving billions in annual salary and millions in bonuses. They are the real enemy. Sure, unions aren't perfect, healthcare isn't perfect.....but right now, we have bigger issues at hand. When our country's economy is no longer racing to the bottom, when we are no longer becoming a third world country, when the gap between rich and poor closes and the middle class rises again -- then we can focus on these other issues. We need to stand together if we are to survive.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Separation of Church and State: is it really Constitutional?
Yes, it is. Many people try to pull the old "the Constitution doesn't say 'separation of church and state' anywhere" argument, but that just doesn't hold water. True, those exact words do not appear in the document; however, their intent does.
Let's start with what the First Amendment actually does say, shall we? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first part is known as the Establishment Clause, and it is the meat of the matter. What exactly does it mean to respect the establishment of religion?
Rather than put it in my own words and have you accuse me of being a Communist-Manifesto reader (which, by the way, I am), allow me to quote the Supreme Court. In the Court's decision on Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Justice Black said:
When the power, prestige, and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.
Call me crazy, but I think having Congress and the President host the National Prayer Breakfast is a pretty clear example of throwing the power and prestige of the Government behind Christianity. As is the use of the title "National" for this event; everyone knows that this makes it sound like an officially-sanctioned event sponsored by the Government. Oh wait, it is.
But Justice Black didn't stop there. Of the purpose of the Establishment Clause, he said:
It's first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and destroy religion....The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy to permit its "unhallowed perversion" by a civil magistrate.
Oooo, now that's unexpected! The Founders chose to separate these two not to protect laws from religion but keep religion unsullied by government! That's not an argument you hear every day. Frankly, I think it's a bit grandiose of a statement, but the core ideology is nonetheless intact: mixing these two institutions has historically proven detrimental sooner or later.
But wait, there's more:
Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rrested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand.
Case in point: the furor over the Non-Mosque Not at Ground Zero. If there were not such widespread misconception that we are a "Christian nation," would there be such oppression of Muslims? Another case in point: I heard some people expressing outrage that Muslims were allowed to pray on the grounds of the White House. Upon questioning, it became patently clear that this indignation was not over the act of praying at the W.H. but that it was a Muslim prayer; expression of Christianity would have been a-ok. Long story short, I caught them in their own logic: anyone truly believing in freedom of religion wouldn't have batted an eyelash at this occurrence, and it was only because of a perceived State religion that these people were offended.
Now, for those of you who may consider Justice Black a Communist, allow me to quote from the Burger Court. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1970), this Court developed a three-part test for determining establishment of religion: (1)whether the program at issue has secular purpose; (2)if the primary effect is neither to advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) whether the legislation fosters "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
Call me crazy again, but I'm pretty sure the National Prayer Breakfast could be considered excessive entanglement. And it certainly advances Christian dogma. We all know damned well that if the National Prayer Breakfast were sponsored by, say, Sikhs, the Tea Baggers would be up in arms over Obama and his socialist government forcing Hinduism down our throats. If the shoe fits.....
The fact that a measely two Supreme Court cases so clearly demonstrate that the Establishment Clause does in fact constitute separation of church and state should give you an idea of what the rest of the voluminous case law says. I will continue reading it, so you don't have to. Just check back here for more.
Let's start with what the First Amendment actually does say, shall we? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first part is known as the Establishment Clause, and it is the meat of the matter. What exactly does it mean to respect the establishment of religion?
Rather than put it in my own words and have you accuse me of being a Communist-Manifesto reader (which, by the way, I am), allow me to quote the Supreme Court. In the Court's decision on Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Justice Black said:
When the power, prestige, and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.
Call me crazy, but I think having Congress and the President host the National Prayer Breakfast is a pretty clear example of throwing the power and prestige of the Government behind Christianity. As is the use of the title "National" for this event; everyone knows that this makes it sound like an officially-sanctioned event sponsored by the Government. Oh wait, it is.
But Justice Black didn't stop there. Of the purpose of the Establishment Clause, he said:
It's first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and destroy religion....The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy to permit its "unhallowed perversion" by a civil magistrate.
Oooo, now that's unexpected! The Founders chose to separate these two not to protect laws from religion but keep religion unsullied by government! That's not an argument you hear every day. Frankly, I think it's a bit grandiose of a statement, but the core ideology is nonetheless intact: mixing these two institutions has historically proven detrimental sooner or later.
But wait, there's more:
Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rrested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand.
Case in point: the furor over the Non-Mosque Not at Ground Zero. If there were not such widespread misconception that we are a "Christian nation," would there be such oppression of Muslims? Another case in point: I heard some people expressing outrage that Muslims were allowed to pray on the grounds of the White House. Upon questioning, it became patently clear that this indignation was not over the act of praying at the W.H. but that it was a Muslim prayer; expression of Christianity would have been a-ok. Long story short, I caught them in their own logic: anyone truly believing in freedom of religion wouldn't have batted an eyelash at this occurrence, and it was only because of a perceived State religion that these people were offended.
Now, for those of you who may consider Justice Black a Communist, allow me to quote from the Burger Court. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1970), this Court developed a three-part test for determining establishment of religion: (1)whether the program at issue has secular purpose; (2)if the primary effect is neither to advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) whether the legislation fosters "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
Call me crazy again, but I'm pretty sure the National Prayer Breakfast could be considered excessive entanglement. And it certainly advances Christian dogma. We all know damned well that if the National Prayer Breakfast were sponsored by, say, Sikhs, the Tea Baggers would be up in arms over Obama and his socialist government forcing Hinduism down our throats. If the shoe fits.....
The fact that a measely two Supreme Court cases so clearly demonstrate that the Establishment Clause does in fact constitute separation of church and state should give you an idea of what the rest of the voluminous case law says. I will continue reading it, so you don't have to. Just check back here for more.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
National Prayer Breakfast: a Slap in the Face to the Founding Fathers
Can someone please explain to me why on earth we have a Government-sanctioned National Prayer Breakfast? I'm sorry people, but this is just plain wrong.
When I sat down to write this, my intent was to discuss why the President should not be attending such an event in his official capacity. But when I did a little research, what I found was even more appalling. While "officially" this event (actually a week-long series of events) is sponsored by The Fellowship Foundation (aka, The Family -- more on that later), but it is hosted by members of Congress!!!! Yeah, that's right: your elected representatives are hosting a big ol' Christian meetin'. Separation of church and state, anyone?
Not to mention that your tax dollars surely pay for, at a minimum, their time/salaries to attend these functions. If Christian conservatives can suppress women's rights by refusing to allow taxpayer dollars to pay for birth control, abortion, and other reproductive services, then can we demand that they also don't pay for events that clearly violate separation of church and state? That elevate the status of one religion to that of State Religion, even if unofficially?
I really wanted to say that the Prayer Breakfast would be ok if it were non-sectarian and celebrated all religions -- but it's not. There is no way that ANY religious ANYTHING should be sponsored or endorsed by the Government. And yes, that includes the White House Christmas tree. (Call me a Grinch, but I'm sure Thomas Jefferson agrees).
As if all this weren't bad enough, it is sponsored by THE FAMILY. Forget DaVinci Code - this is the real secret society that runs our politics. Anyone wanting to know more should read Jeff Sharlet's frightening true tale, "The Family" (handy link: http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-Heart-American/dp/0060560053/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296925694&sr=1-1).
I can't believe I'm about to make a Dirty Dancing reference, but here goes. There's a scene towards the end of the movie wherein Baby says to her father, "You always said I could grow up to be anything I wanted. But you really meant someone like you." (or something to that effect) Such is religious freedom in the U.S. -- we are free to practice whatever we want, as long as it's Christian. We are free to express our "values" and maybe even have them reflected in politics -- as long as they are Christian. Separation of Church and State absolutely applies, unless you're talking about Christianity. Because of course, we are a Christian nation! (Not.)
I won't go into the whole argument about the Founders being Christian versus Deist -- you can go google it if you want to kick that dead horse. Even if they were died-in-the-wool, fundamentalist Christians, the fact remains that they established a country firmly based on a foundation of secular government. Got that people? S-e-c-u-l-a-r. It means we should be free of having "Christian values" shoved down our throats by our elected officials, that we shouldn't have a single law based on them, that if the Muslims want to turn an old coat factory into a community center, they should be allowed to.
I am really, really tired of hearing these bigots, closet gays, immoral and corrupt people telling us about Christian values. My heathen children, who have never set foot in a Church, hold more Christian values then any of these hypocrites. Caring for each other is the ultimate Christian value, and time and again the GOP shows irrefutably that this holds no place in their politics.
But I digress. Just as it would be inappropriate for our President to publicly preach about Jesus or the Bible, so it is inappropriate for him to attend the Prayer Breakfast in an official capacity. Ditto for any elected officials. If they want to participate on their own time (and dime), then of course they should be free to do so. But to attend as the President? To post it on the White House website? To use taxpayer dollars in any way? If the Founders are watching any of this, they must surely think they have gone to Hell.
When I sat down to write this, my intent was to discuss why the President should not be attending such an event in his official capacity. But when I did a little research, what I found was even more appalling. While "officially" this event (actually a week-long series of events) is sponsored by The Fellowship Foundation (aka, The Family -- more on that later), but it is hosted by members of Congress!!!! Yeah, that's right: your elected representatives are hosting a big ol' Christian meetin'. Separation of church and state, anyone?
Not to mention that your tax dollars surely pay for, at a minimum, their time/salaries to attend these functions. If Christian conservatives can suppress women's rights by refusing to allow taxpayer dollars to pay for birth control, abortion, and other reproductive services, then can we demand that they also don't pay for events that clearly violate separation of church and state? That elevate the status of one religion to that of State Religion, even if unofficially?
I really wanted to say that the Prayer Breakfast would be ok if it were non-sectarian and celebrated all religions -- but it's not. There is no way that ANY religious ANYTHING should be sponsored or endorsed by the Government. And yes, that includes the White House Christmas tree. (Call me a Grinch, but I'm sure Thomas Jefferson agrees).
As if all this weren't bad enough, it is sponsored by THE FAMILY. Forget DaVinci Code - this is the real secret society that runs our politics. Anyone wanting to know more should read Jeff Sharlet's frightening true tale, "The Family" (handy link: http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-Heart-American/dp/0060560053/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296925694&sr=1-1).
I can't believe I'm about to make a Dirty Dancing reference, but here goes. There's a scene towards the end of the movie wherein Baby says to her father, "You always said I could grow up to be anything I wanted. But you really meant someone like you." (or something to that effect) Such is religious freedom in the U.S. -- we are free to practice whatever we want, as long as it's Christian. We are free to express our "values" and maybe even have them reflected in politics -- as long as they are Christian. Separation of Church and State absolutely applies, unless you're talking about Christianity. Because of course, we are a Christian nation! (Not.)
I won't go into the whole argument about the Founders being Christian versus Deist -- you can go google it if you want to kick that dead horse. Even if they were died-in-the-wool, fundamentalist Christians, the fact remains that they established a country firmly based on a foundation of secular government. Got that people? S-e-c-u-l-a-r. It means we should be free of having "Christian values" shoved down our throats by our elected officials, that we shouldn't have a single law based on them, that if the Muslims want to turn an old coat factory into a community center, they should be allowed to.
I am really, really tired of hearing these bigots, closet gays, immoral and corrupt people telling us about Christian values. My heathen children, who have never set foot in a Church, hold more Christian values then any of these hypocrites. Caring for each other is the ultimate Christian value, and time and again the GOP shows irrefutably that this holds no place in their politics.
But I digress. Just as it would be inappropriate for our President to publicly preach about Jesus or the Bible, so it is inappropriate for him to attend the Prayer Breakfast in an official capacity. Ditto for any elected officials. If they want to participate on their own time (and dime), then of course they should be free to do so. But to attend as the President? To post it on the White House website? To use taxpayer dollars in any way? If the Founders are watching any of this, they must surely think they have gone to Hell.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Istanbul, still Constantinople
\Turkey feels like home to me; I am not sure why. Perhaps it is because it has one foot in each world and yet is not completely at home in either. For Turkey it is East/West; for me it is an ideological battle: that which I "should" be (peaceful, controlled) and that which I am (passionate warrior).
Is this bipolarism what I perceive when I think of Turkey, what I experienced traveling her shores? The dichotomy of Turkey, and of Istanbul in particular, is not a new idea. But I never before thought of it as the framework for my own emotional reaction to the country. I could name countless aspects that attract me -- art, architecture, food, music, and so forth. But within each of these lies the same hybrid. There is no Turkey without BOTH East and West.
Perhaps I related to this country's identity crisis by way of my own. "Who am I" was not at the forefront for most of my life; it was only becoming a mother that forced it so. Motherhood, with its stereotypical and narrow identity roles, thrust me into a position of defense: I was not solely and entirely a mother, as society would have me be. It was simply an addition to who I already was. But how to integrate old and new?
Perhaps this is also Turkey's struggle: how to incorporate Ataturk's Western, secular ideals into a culture that was historically quite different. If I were to force motherhood upon myself as the sole mark of my identity, I would fail spectacularly. I could no more become that person than I could become an elephant. Likewise, perhaps Turkey struggles with the wholesale application of secular Westernization.
We have a saying in the U.S.: "everything in moderation." (Not everyone believes in it, but ....). This means I should not attempt to radically change myself because of a single event, that I shouls not become "Mother" at the expense of all else. Rather, I should (and did) incorporate this new role into the rest of me. Like a collage, each piece contributes to the whole. I am a mother, but I am also an artist, a writer, a public servant, and more.
Maybe this is where Turkey went wrong and why it still struggles. The effort to make a 100% conversion is not only monumental, it is impossible. Look at what it takes to enforce that identity: rigid control, denial of history, rabid fear of "anti-Turkism." I understand and admire what Ataturk was trying to do -- and in my limited outside understanding, I admire his courage in attempting it. but perhaps a softer approach might have been more successful in the long run, one that allowed the Old Ottoman Empire and the New Turkey to strike a balance, to blend the good of the Old into the good of the New (or vice versa, if you prefer). Perhaps this would have resulted in less turmoil over the years, in less paranoia about protecting those reforms. Perhaps it would have allowed the new nation to define itself with the New without denying the Old. After all, the future is meaningless if we don't understand the past.
Of course, the identity of a nation is much more complex than that of an individual. but if Carl Jung is right and there is a collective unconscious, then this identity crisis is indeed palpable to the perceptive visitor. If individuals are the sum of their experiences, then so are nations. Turkey can no more ignore her historical identity than I can mine. Rather she, like I, must strive to incorporate her new role into her old self. It is the only way to ensure the survival of both.
Is this bipolarism what I perceive when I think of Turkey, what I experienced traveling her shores? The dichotomy of Turkey, and of Istanbul in particular, is not a new idea. But I never before thought of it as the framework for my own emotional reaction to the country. I could name countless aspects that attract me -- art, architecture, food, music, and so forth. But within each of these lies the same hybrid. There is no Turkey without BOTH East and West.
Perhaps I related to this country's identity crisis by way of my own. "Who am I" was not at the forefront for most of my life; it was only becoming a mother that forced it so. Motherhood, with its stereotypical and narrow identity roles, thrust me into a position of defense: I was not solely and entirely a mother, as society would have me be. It was simply an addition to who I already was. But how to integrate old and new?
Perhaps this is also Turkey's struggle: how to incorporate Ataturk's Western, secular ideals into a culture that was historically quite different. If I were to force motherhood upon myself as the sole mark of my identity, I would fail spectacularly. I could no more become that person than I could become an elephant. Likewise, perhaps Turkey struggles with the wholesale application of secular Westernization.
We have a saying in the U.S.: "everything in moderation." (Not everyone believes in it, but ....). This means I should not attempt to radically change myself because of a single event, that I shouls not become "Mother" at the expense of all else. Rather, I should (and did) incorporate this new role into the rest of me. Like a collage, each piece contributes to the whole. I am a mother, but I am also an artist, a writer, a public servant, and more.
Maybe this is where Turkey went wrong and why it still struggles. The effort to make a 100% conversion is not only monumental, it is impossible. Look at what it takes to enforce that identity: rigid control, denial of history, rabid fear of "anti-Turkism." I understand and admire what Ataturk was trying to do -- and in my limited outside understanding, I admire his courage in attempting it. but perhaps a softer approach might have been more successful in the long run, one that allowed the Old Ottoman Empire and the New Turkey to strike a balance, to blend the good of the Old into the good of the New (or vice versa, if you prefer). Perhaps this would have resulted in less turmoil over the years, in less paranoia about protecting those reforms. Perhaps it would have allowed the new nation to define itself with the New without denying the Old. After all, the future is meaningless if we don't understand the past.
Of course, the identity of a nation is much more complex than that of an individual. but if Carl Jung is right and there is a collective unconscious, then this identity crisis is indeed palpable to the perceptive visitor. If individuals are the sum of their experiences, then so are nations. Turkey can no more ignore her historical identity than I can mine. Rather she, like I, must strive to incorporate her new role into her old self. It is the only way to ensure the survival of both.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Skinny Pants Chick: How I Did It
For those of you who know GeekChick in the flesh, you know that I have recently shed many pounds in a short time period. I was asked to share how I accomplished this feat, and I am more than happy to do so!!!
First, a little back story. Upon the birth of my second child, I was very strong and in shape. Mind you, "in shape" does not in any way refer to washboard abs or minimalist butts. I had my curves, but I was strong as an ox and hotter than the sun side of Mercury. However, somewhere over the next couple of years I felt all my strength sapped. Then began the not-so-slow descent into fathood.
It got to a point where I said, NO MORE!!! I refused to by yet another pair of fat pants. I decided it was time to go all out, and I sprung for a trainer at my gym. Yeah, it's pricey, but so is buying a new fat pants wardrobe every six months! (not to mention the health bills for being overweight). Ok, so long story short, here is what I have learned and done......
First and foremost: it is NOT about "turning 40" and your metabolism slowing, perimenopause, or any of that shit. It's about your fat-to-muscle ratio. What happens when you're around mid-life? You have kids, you maybe change to more of a desk job, your life in general becomes more sedentary. You have less time, as you focus on career and childrearing or whatever. So, let's keep activity level in mind as we proceed through the steps here....
Having a less active life is only step one......the second part is how you eat. Did you know that eating less frequently is detrimental? Yep that's right -- eating MORE often is actually better for you. Most of us have heard about grazing vs. meal time....and it's true. For me, there is a HUGE difference between eating every 2 hrs and every 4 !!!
And then of course, there's activity. It's not enough to do cardio. It may seem like it burns fat, but in and of itself, it doesn't. You need to increase your muscle mass, because muscle burns more calories than fat does. So, you can cardio all you want, but if you have no muscle mass, you're just gonna stay fat.
Got the basics? Ok, so here's the program that has worked for me. And by "worked" I mean, I have shed two sizes in the course of one summer, without feeling deprived in any way.....I feel good about myself and am getting compliments on how I look (which I wasn't when I was in Fat Soccer Mom Mode).......
In the end, I work out probably 3-5 times/week for resistance and 3x/week for cardio kickboxing. Some days I do both, for a total of 2 hours/day. This, plus the eating every two hours, does the trick. I've lost tons of fat, gotten toned up and in better shape, gotten stronger, and I feel and look great.
The bottom line is twofold: One, that each of us will have a different regimen that works for us, and Two, that we need to accept ourselves with REALISTIC woman bodies and not hold ourselves to some stupid standard of size 0 heroin model in Cosmo ....but that's for another post.....
First, a little back story. Upon the birth of my second child, I was very strong and in shape. Mind you, "in shape" does not in any way refer to washboard abs or minimalist butts. I had my curves, but I was strong as an ox and hotter than the sun side of Mercury. However, somewhere over the next couple of years I felt all my strength sapped. Then began the not-so-slow descent into fathood.
It got to a point where I said, NO MORE!!! I refused to by yet another pair of fat pants. I decided it was time to go all out, and I sprung for a trainer at my gym. Yeah, it's pricey, but so is buying a new fat pants wardrobe every six months! (not to mention the health bills for being overweight). Ok, so long story short, here is what I have learned and done......
First and foremost: it is NOT about "turning 40" and your metabolism slowing, perimenopause, or any of that shit. It's about your fat-to-muscle ratio. What happens when you're around mid-life? You have kids, you maybe change to more of a desk job, your life in general becomes more sedentary. You have less time, as you focus on career and childrearing or whatever. So, let's keep activity level in mind as we proceed through the steps here....
Having a less active life is only step one......the second part is how you eat. Did you know that eating less frequently is detrimental? Yep that's right -- eating MORE often is actually better for you. Most of us have heard about grazing vs. meal time....and it's true. For me, there is a HUGE difference between eating every 2 hrs and every 4 !!!
And then of course, there's activity. It's not enough to do cardio. It may seem like it burns fat, but in and of itself, it doesn't. You need to increase your muscle mass, because muscle burns more calories than fat does. So, you can cardio all you want, but if you have no muscle mass, you're just gonna stay fat.
Got the basics? Ok, so here's the program that has worked for me. And by "worked" I mean, I have shed two sizes in the course of one summer, without feeling deprived in any way.....I feel good about myself and am getting compliments on how I look (which I wasn't when I was in Fat Soccer Mom Mode).......
- Eat only a palm-sized portion. At first you will feel like you are eating all the freaking time...but after a few weeks you will adapt. By only eating what your body needs at the time, you will not put on fat.
- Eat frequently. When you go too long between eating, your body takes the energy it needs from your muscles, not fat. So, fasting only compounds the problem! Twice in my life I have shed mass pounds simply by eating small amounts every 1 or 2 hours.
- Eat responsibly. You don't want to Atkins-out, but you do want to be aware of your carb-to-protein ratio. Eat both in every meal, in a healthy balance. Personally, I try to aim for more protein than carbs in each "feeding," and of course the carbs are healthy carbs like veggies and fiber. For myself, I aim for no less than a 50/50 ratio of carbs/protein, though I do not always make it, and each person's optimum balance will be different. Yeah, I miss having toast once in a while, but being in my skinny pants makes up for it!!!
- Do resistance workouts. Resistance = weight training, but it doesn't have to be with weights. It can include things like pushups and ab work....The point is to build up muscle mass and strength. More muscle burns more calories!
- Do cardio in harmony with resistance. I started with an elliptical regimen after my resistance workouts, but over time I find that I prefer the more kinetic workout of cardio kickboxing. No matter what cardio you do, it's best to do it in conjunction with resistance, to maximize your fat burning!
- Stay motivated, set reasonable goals. It's a hell of a lot easier to stay on track if you set attainable goals. Then, once you reach them, you have automatic positive feedback to carry one. Force yourself to go to the gym or class even if you don't feel like it. Case in point: recently, I was extremely tired and didn't think I'd be able to do my kickboxing class. I gave myself permission to skip if I really felt I couldn't do it, but in the end, I did it and it was GREAT!!!!
- Toot your horn. A key motivator is to have folks compliment you on all your hard work -- so prance around the office bragging about how much you've lost!
In the end, I work out probably 3-5 times/week for resistance and 3x/week for cardio kickboxing. Some days I do both, for a total of 2 hours/day. This, plus the eating every two hours, does the trick. I've lost tons of fat, gotten toned up and in better shape, gotten stronger, and I feel and look great.
The bottom line is twofold: One, that each of us will have a different regimen that works for us, and Two, that we need to accept ourselves with REALISTIC woman bodies and not hold ourselves to some stupid standard of size 0 heroin model in Cosmo ....but that's for another post.....
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Sunday with Foucault
Lately I've been getting a lot of comments about how much I've changed. When I inquire as to what the speaker means, he will inevitably refer to how my Facebook posts or blog topics have changed in the last year. Which is fine and dandy and observant to notice -- but the comments seem to be made from the perspective that this is some sort of grand change in my philosophy. I was a bit perplexed at first, because in my world a change in Facebook posting pattern doesn't really mean much. Then I realized that the people who remarked on the change were folks who'd only known me a year or so. To them, the me they saw when we met was an Immutable Me that had always been; therefore, a change, to them, would indeed reflect something deeper.
Well let me tell you folks, it doesn't.
I'm still stark raving angry about Tea Baggers, still pissed off at the Dems for not having any balls, still sick of the likes of Sarah Palin. It's just time to stop making that my number one focus -- for now. Seriously, if that's all I posted about, this blog would be a pretty boring read, don't you think?
Here's the secret: life is not a spectrum, wherein you occupy a single point at a single time. For some of us, it's a pendulum, and we can swing from feeling extroverted and intense to introspective and pensive. (Oo, I just had a great image of a pendulum intersecting a point on a spectrum.....but it's too complex to explain here). I am simply feeling more thoughtful these days and prefer to indulge my inner philosophizing than outer ranting about the obvious sins of the Baggers.
I suspect that if you bother to read this blog, you experience the same thing from time to time. No one is unidimensional; it's just a matter of how much we express our various facets. Most people, I suspect, keep much of it under wraps for one reason or another. A vast ocean of people aren't even self aware enough to recognize this in themselves. Many people know exactly what I'm talking about, but keep it private. Me, I've learned to put it all out there. I'm tired of facades and trying to fit in.
What continually surprises me, though, is the notion that people are, in fact, unidimensional. Now, I realize that I may be more multifaceted than the average bear, but I refuse to believe that I am unique. I know for a fact that I am not (again, you dear reader!). I suppose the penchant for single-categorization harkens back to some primal "us and them" mentality -- but come on people. We are capable of more subtlety than that. Some of us can, in fact, hold opposing ideas in our minds simultaneously. Categorization and lableing is fine and handy when it comes to politics and other discussions -- but we should not extend it to labeling ourselves as a whole. Each of us deserves better than that, to have all our various aspects recognized and valued.
So, for those of you who miss the fiery, revolutionary, anti-Tea Bagger GeekChick, fear not -- she is still here. She is just resting while Philosophizing GeekChick takes over. Besides, I'm sick of hearing about the elections anyway -- aren't you? ; )
Well let me tell you folks, it doesn't.
I'm still stark raving angry about Tea Baggers, still pissed off at the Dems for not having any balls, still sick of the likes of Sarah Palin. It's just time to stop making that my number one focus -- for now. Seriously, if that's all I posted about, this blog would be a pretty boring read, don't you think?
Here's the secret: life is not a spectrum, wherein you occupy a single point at a single time. For some of us, it's a pendulum, and we can swing from feeling extroverted and intense to introspective and pensive. (Oo, I just had a great image of a pendulum intersecting a point on a spectrum.....but it's too complex to explain here). I am simply feeling more thoughtful these days and prefer to indulge my inner philosophizing than outer ranting about the obvious sins of the Baggers.
I suspect that if you bother to read this blog, you experience the same thing from time to time. No one is unidimensional; it's just a matter of how much we express our various facets. Most people, I suspect, keep much of it under wraps for one reason or another. A vast ocean of people aren't even self aware enough to recognize this in themselves. Many people know exactly what I'm talking about, but keep it private. Me, I've learned to put it all out there. I'm tired of facades and trying to fit in.
What continually surprises me, though, is the notion that people are, in fact, unidimensional. Now, I realize that I may be more multifaceted than the average bear, but I refuse to believe that I am unique. I know for a fact that I am not (again, you dear reader!). I suppose the penchant for single-categorization harkens back to some primal "us and them" mentality -- but come on people. We are capable of more subtlety than that. Some of us can, in fact, hold opposing ideas in our minds simultaneously. Categorization and lableing is fine and handy when it comes to politics and other discussions -- but we should not extend it to labeling ourselves as a whole. Each of us deserves better than that, to have all our various aspects recognized and valued.
So, for those of you who miss the fiery, revolutionary, anti-Tea Bagger GeekChick, fear not -- she is still here. She is just resting while Philosophizing GeekChick takes over. Besides, I'm sick of hearing about the elections anyway -- aren't you? ; )
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Legislating Halloween?
Seriously, people, do we need to be setting legal age limits on trick or treaters? Of all the asinine things people could be wasting government time on, this is right up there with changing the name to "freedom fries."
Call me crazy, but I never realized there was any sort of social norm on this one. Yes, it's mostly for little kids -- but when did it become a big bad evil thing for a teenager to do it? Isn't trick or treating a pretty benign thing for a teen to do? Shouldn't we be applauding a teen for doing something so wholesome and not worrying what his peers think? Hell, maybe they are all roaming in a pack. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be giving them candy than scrubbing their tags off my fence.
To make matters worse, the article that brought this very important national issue to my attention was couched in terms of fear. "Have you ever looked out your peephole and been scared of a trick or treater?" First of all, isn't the idea of Halloween to be scared? And second, who the hell uses their peephole on Halloween?
In my day, teens were too "cool" to trick or treat. I took it up again in college, when I learned how to not care what others thought. Sure, I got a few odd looks when I rang some bells, but mostly people appreciated my motto: "You're never too old for Halloween!"
Look, if you have a beef with giving teens candy, then don't give them any. But like so many other personal beliefs, this has no place in the halls of lawmaking. Maybe if local governments weren't focusing on such drivel they might, oh I don't know.....have money for schools to buy copy paper or something.
Call me crazy, but I never realized there was any sort of social norm on this one. Yes, it's mostly for little kids -- but when did it become a big bad evil thing for a teenager to do it? Isn't trick or treating a pretty benign thing for a teen to do? Shouldn't we be applauding a teen for doing something so wholesome and not worrying what his peers think? Hell, maybe they are all roaming in a pack. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be giving them candy than scrubbing their tags off my fence.
To make matters worse, the article that brought this very important national issue to my attention was couched in terms of fear. "Have you ever looked out your peephole and been scared of a trick or treater?" First of all, isn't the idea of Halloween to be scared? And second, who the hell uses their peephole on Halloween?
In my day, teens were too "cool" to trick or treat. I took it up again in college, when I learned how to not care what others thought. Sure, I got a few odd looks when I rang some bells, but mostly people appreciated my motto: "You're never too old for Halloween!"
Look, if you have a beef with giving teens candy, then don't give them any. But like so many other personal beliefs, this has no place in the halls of lawmaking. Maybe if local governments weren't focusing on such drivel they might, oh I don't know.....have money for schools to buy copy paper or something.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Friction of the Soul, continued: Wanderlust
For the last few years I have been experiencing what I would call a wanderlust of the soul. I thought at first that it was a "seven year itch" kind of thing -- an "untamable creature living a domesticated life" scenario. And while I can't deny that these are elements of my psyche, I have come to realize that they are not the true issue at hand.
The longing I feel is not for something that I wish existed. It is for something that was, or maybe could have been. For who I used to be, who I wish I were, who I could have been. For some part of me that for a brief time flowered but only lasted a season. For blooms that could not sprout today, for though the roots still live, the plant they sustain has changed. What I was, before life beat me down. What I could have been, had I the strength and support and love to be true to that Self. Strength and courage I eventually found but too late to do anything with.
I mourn the parts of me that will be forever broken. Thge little girl who will never know her parents' love. The young woman unable to value herself and demand that others do the same. The woman I am today, doomed to play with fire because it is the only way to remember she is still alive. Who misses the torment that threateneed to rend her soul.
The angst I carry now merely incites a melancholic discontent. Nothing of use will come of it.
I send my words, my cry, to the Universe, but who hears? One or two souls may hear, may even be inspired to reply -- but for the most part I shout to the wind. And so again, still, I am alone. It has always been so; thinking I was not was only an illusion.
So if this is my natural state, why can I not embrace it? Maybe what I perceive as longing against solitude is really a longing to be fully myself -- who I was, who I could have been, who I shall be.
The longing I feel is not for something that I wish existed. It is for something that was, or maybe could have been. For who I used to be, who I wish I were, who I could have been. For some part of me that for a brief time flowered but only lasted a season. For blooms that could not sprout today, for though the roots still live, the plant they sustain has changed. What I was, before life beat me down. What I could have been, had I the strength and support and love to be true to that Self. Strength and courage I eventually found but too late to do anything with.
I mourn the parts of me that will be forever broken. Thge little girl who will never know her parents' love. The young woman unable to value herself and demand that others do the same. The woman I am today, doomed to play with fire because it is the only way to remember she is still alive. Who misses the torment that threateneed to rend her soul.
The angst I carry now merely incites a melancholic discontent. Nothing of use will come of it.
I send my words, my cry, to the Universe, but who hears? One or two souls may hear, may even be inspired to reply -- but for the most part I shout to the wind. And so again, still, I am alone. It has always been so; thinking I was not was only an illusion.
So if this is my natural state, why can I not embrace it? Maybe what I perceive as longing against solitude is really a longing to be fully myself -- who I was, who I could have been, who I shall be.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
A Walk with Freddy
What men call passion is the friction of the soul with the Universe.
Herman Hesse wrote these words (roughly paraphrased) in The Glass Bead Game. Of the many words in that long, dull book (I couldn't bring myself to finish it), these were instantly seared onto my brain. Why? Because I understand them.
I suspect this is one of those "if you have to ask" situations. If you have to ask, you can't afford it. If you have to ask, you won't understand. But let's try, shall we?
Truly great art -- whether visual, written, or philosphized -- can only stem from great torment. Think about it. What does calm, peaceful, serenity give you? Beautiful but vapid Monets. Socially poignant but emotionally flat Jane Austen. Saccharine Emily Dickenson. But what does the tormented soul produce? Van Gogh, Sylvia Plath, Nietzsche! Stormy seas, these people have sailed -- and their art is so much more meaningful and profound because of it.
Monet painted beautiful pictures, Jane Austen wrote fine novels, and I suppose someone out there likes Dickenson. But one's enjoyment of them does not plow the depths of one's soul. On the other hand, even the most placid of Van Gogh's paintings evokes an emotional energy so raw that it is palpable. Plath -- who can read her poems and not feel a sense of self-recognition in their darkness? And Nietzsche -- he went so far off into the universe that he ended up in the nuthouse.
And sadly, that is a common fate for such friction-filled souls. Why did Van Gogh cut off his ear, Friedrich get carted away to the asylum, and poor Sylvia off herself in her early 30s? Why do such brilliant minds, with such insight into reality end up mentally unstable?
Because such souls are few and far between, and at the end of the day humans are social creatures. If one doesn't have another like mind, someone who understands, it takes its toll. Even the accepted-but-social-oddity of the absent minded scientist or out of touch and solitary philosopher eventually cannot resist the innate need for companionship. And so these souls spend their lives alone, adrift, trying to find their way in a world that does not understand them.
Some, like Plath, give in to despair and the desire for release. But those who lack emotional stability to begin with or who simply refuse to assimilate end up in asylums --or today, find themselves in a lifelong relationship with Xanax. I suppose it is to be expected -- what else would a society do with its "crazies"?
I wonder how this phenomenon will change in the modern world. The internet and social networking make it so much easier to meet people far and wide. Will this lessen the solitude of such souls? Will feeling less alone reduce their friction enough to make life bearable?
I've outlived both Sylvia and Vincent, so I guess I'll have to let you know when I get to my padded cell.
Herman Hesse wrote these words (roughly paraphrased) in The Glass Bead Game. Of the many words in that long, dull book (I couldn't bring myself to finish it), these were instantly seared onto my brain. Why? Because I understand them.
I suspect this is one of those "if you have to ask" situations. If you have to ask, you can't afford it. If you have to ask, you won't understand. But let's try, shall we?
Truly great art -- whether visual, written, or philosphized -- can only stem from great torment. Think about it. What does calm, peaceful, serenity give you? Beautiful but vapid Monets. Socially poignant but emotionally flat Jane Austen. Saccharine Emily Dickenson. But what does the tormented soul produce? Van Gogh, Sylvia Plath, Nietzsche! Stormy seas, these people have sailed -- and their art is so much more meaningful and profound because of it.
Monet painted beautiful pictures, Jane Austen wrote fine novels, and I suppose someone out there likes Dickenson. But one's enjoyment of them does not plow the depths of one's soul. On the other hand, even the most placid of Van Gogh's paintings evokes an emotional energy so raw that it is palpable. Plath -- who can read her poems and not feel a sense of self-recognition in their darkness? And Nietzsche -- he went so far off into the universe that he ended up in the nuthouse.
And sadly, that is a common fate for such friction-filled souls. Why did Van Gogh cut off his ear, Friedrich get carted away to the asylum, and poor Sylvia off herself in her early 30s? Why do such brilliant minds, with such insight into reality end up mentally unstable?
Because such souls are few and far between, and at the end of the day humans are social creatures. If one doesn't have another like mind, someone who understands, it takes its toll. Even the accepted-but-social-oddity of the absent minded scientist or out of touch and solitary philosopher eventually cannot resist the innate need for companionship. And so these souls spend their lives alone, adrift, trying to find their way in a world that does not understand them.
Some, like Plath, give in to despair and the desire for release. But those who lack emotional stability to begin with or who simply refuse to assimilate end up in asylums --or today, find themselves in a lifelong relationship with Xanax. I suppose it is to be expected -- what else would a society do with its "crazies"?
I wonder how this phenomenon will change in the modern world. The internet and social networking make it so much easier to meet people far and wide. Will this lessen the solitude of such souls? Will feeling less alone reduce their friction enough to make life bearable?
I've outlived both Sylvia and Vincent, so I guess I'll have to let you know when I get to my padded cell.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Can we just move on already???
September 11, 2001, was a terrible day. A day that shall live in our nation's memory. A day when we were attacked on our own soil, when innocent lives were lost in the name of fanaticism. A day when so many brave souls died trying to help those in the Towers, and when so many more did not die but contracted lifelong diseases from all the crap they inhaled. A day when brave citizens gave their lives to prevent a fourth plane from crashing into whatever its target may have been. These people should be remembered and honored.
But can we please move forward already????
I'm not going to be very popular for saying this (I can hear the pitchfork's being sharpened as I type), but it was 9 frickin years ago, people. Nine years!!!! Are we still going to mope around and cry over something that has long since past?
Nine years isn't that long, you say. Well, I grant you that. I'm sure that after WWII ended, Veterans' Day was still pretty solemn. And I don't know when we started Memorial Day, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't always a beer-guzzling, hot-dog eating fantasma of headonism.
But nine years is long enough to move forward. To not be mourning anymore, but rather to honor the dead and act to make sure their deaths were not in vain. That's right: to sit here and cry about being attacked is bullshit. You want to honor the fallen of 9/11? Get your ass out and vote! Defend freedom and civil liberty! Educate yourself and your neighbors! Don't wrap yourself up in a flag and act sanctimonious.
Why? Because that's exactly the problem. To the rest of the world. we are a nation of whiney cry babies with a too-big sense of entitlement. Yeah, that's right: I said it. So when we refuse to get over something like 9/11, or Katrina, or any other damned horrid thing that happened, "the terrorists" win. We only reinforce their reasons (if you can call such irrationality "reason") for hating us.
Look: the families and friends should absolutely feel sadness and loss, and do so as long as they need to. But as a nation, we need to put our big-girl panties on and deal. It happened. It was awful. And it's over. A long time ago. You wanna mourn something, how about mourning for the lives of our soldiers in Afghanistan, or the state of our budget that has been robbed to pay for it?
But looking to the future requires a maturity and courage that we as a nation just don't have. So much easier to watch Dancing with the Stars and to blindly regurgitate the crap Hannity spoon feeds us than to actually think and stand up for something. To actually move beyond the horrible thing in the past and move toward a positive future.
Yeah, yeah -- I know you are ready to throw stuff at me. But you know what? I don't care. I am not going to blind myself to the world with a blanket of 9/11 self-pity. I am going to see the event for what it was, and do my best to move us and the world beyond it, into a world where that shit doesn't happen again. But by all means, if you must, go wave your flag and wallow in it.
While you're doing that, I'll be having a hot dog.
But can we please move forward already????
I'm not going to be very popular for saying this (I can hear the pitchfork's being sharpened as I type), but it was 9 frickin years ago, people. Nine years!!!! Are we still going to mope around and cry over something that has long since past?
Nine years isn't that long, you say. Well, I grant you that. I'm sure that after WWII ended, Veterans' Day was still pretty solemn. And I don't know when we started Memorial Day, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't always a beer-guzzling, hot-dog eating fantasma of headonism.
But nine years is long enough to move forward. To not be mourning anymore, but rather to honor the dead and act to make sure their deaths were not in vain. That's right: to sit here and cry about being attacked is bullshit. You want to honor the fallen of 9/11? Get your ass out and vote! Defend freedom and civil liberty! Educate yourself and your neighbors! Don't wrap yourself up in a flag and act sanctimonious.
Why? Because that's exactly the problem. To the rest of the world. we are a nation of whiney cry babies with a too-big sense of entitlement. Yeah, that's right: I said it. So when we refuse to get over something like 9/11, or Katrina, or any other damned horrid thing that happened, "the terrorists" win. We only reinforce their reasons (if you can call such irrationality "reason") for hating us.
Look: the families and friends should absolutely feel sadness and loss, and do so as long as they need to. But as a nation, we need to put our big-girl panties on and deal. It happened. It was awful. And it's over. A long time ago. You wanna mourn something, how about mourning for the lives of our soldiers in Afghanistan, or the state of our budget that has been robbed to pay for it?
But looking to the future requires a maturity and courage that we as a nation just don't have. So much easier to watch Dancing with the Stars and to blindly regurgitate the crap Hannity spoon feeds us than to actually think and stand up for something. To actually move beyond the horrible thing in the past and move toward a positive future.
Yeah, yeah -- I know you are ready to throw stuff at me. But you know what? I don't care. I am not going to blind myself to the world with a blanket of 9/11 self-pity. I am going to see the event for what it was, and do my best to move us and the world beyond it, into a world where that shit doesn't happen again. But by all means, if you must, go wave your flag and wallow in it.
While you're doing that, I'll be having a hot dog.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Smoke and Mirrors
Let's start with a little recap. The "ground zero mosque" is neither at ground zero nor a mosque. The local planning commission approved it 23 to 1 (or something like that). The local populace does not have a problem with it. So why did this little bit of self-determination in a single city become the latest national issue?
Two words: election year.
And the Republicans need a good old-fashioned wedge issue to leverage votes to their side. Abortion's a classic, but not strong enough for the times. Economy? Nah, too much evidence that it really is W's fault. Gay marriage? So last year. I know! How 'bout some religious fear and bigotry? Yeah, that's the ticket!
Nothing, and I mean nothing, gets people whipped into a fury faster than fanning the flames of fear. So the poor lackey interns at Fox News got the task of searching through all the national happenings until one of them found a gem. Kind of like finding Willy Wonka's golden tickets. And some Charlie Bucket found this one.
But this is so much more than reviving people's feelings about 9/11. Oh no, Karl Rove and friends have taken this one all the way to full-on religious hatred and casting, once again, the shadow of suspect on the President. ("You know, his middle name is Hussein! He grew up in a Muslim country! He's black..oh wait, wrong talking point.....He's a secret Muslim!").
And so the birthers have a new straw to grasp: whether or not Obama is really a Muslim. After all, he's lying about his birth certificate, so why not this? And this is way more evil. He might really pray to Allah! Personally, I believe the "poll" showing that nearly a third of the country thinks he's a Muslim is just a big lie created by Fox, with the intent of making this a national story and making people afraid.
Afraid of what, exactly? Seriously people, do you really believe that Obama is a secret Muslim who faked a birth certificate just so he could mastermind a secret terrorist takeover of the US? If you do, could you kindly tell me what you are smoking?
The President's religion should not matter. But look at our history: remember what a huge deal it was that Kennedy was Catholic? And that's still playing for the same team! And yes, it was a group of Muslims who perpetrated 9/11, but so what? Does that mean we are going to fear and hate all Muslims for now and ever? Isn't that letting the terrorists win?
My favorite is when whichever right wing douchebag it was said that he'd "take Obama at his word" that he was a Christian. Did anyone state they had to take W at his word that God talked directly to him? Or any other President, for that matter? We did, in fact, see this with Joe Leiberman in his VP bid: everyone wanted to know if he'd work on Saturday. Did anyone ask any other candidate if he'd work on Sunday?
The GOP trots out these issues every two years. Sadly, there are enough people who don't think for themselves, and they follow right along. They are too happy to hate, to have some sort of "cause" to vent their anger at. Never mind that their anger is over the fact that they are losing their jobs and homes; the real problem is that Obama might worship the same god in a different way!
I get so tired of pointing out this same phenomenon. I wonder, why don't these people wake up and see the pattern? Are they really so duped? Do they really not realize that once the election is won, the issue blows away like the sand around Ozymandias' broken statue?
And that is why I write. I know I mostly preach to the converted, but I hope that my words reach at least a few ears that maybe need to hear them. And maybe others share them with people they know. Maybe I'm just a voice screaming into the void, but at least it feels good to give voice to the truth.
Two words: election year.
And the Republicans need a good old-fashioned wedge issue to leverage votes to their side. Abortion's a classic, but not strong enough for the times. Economy? Nah, too much evidence that it really is W's fault. Gay marriage? So last year. I know! How 'bout some religious fear and bigotry? Yeah, that's the ticket!
Nothing, and I mean nothing, gets people whipped into a fury faster than fanning the flames of fear. So the poor lackey interns at Fox News got the task of searching through all the national happenings until one of them found a gem. Kind of like finding Willy Wonka's golden tickets. And some Charlie Bucket found this one.
But this is so much more than reviving people's feelings about 9/11. Oh no, Karl Rove and friends have taken this one all the way to full-on religious hatred and casting, once again, the shadow of suspect on the President. ("You know, his middle name is Hussein! He grew up in a Muslim country! He's black..oh wait, wrong talking point.....He's a secret Muslim!").
And so the birthers have a new straw to grasp: whether or not Obama is really a Muslim. After all, he's lying about his birth certificate, so why not this? And this is way more evil. He might really pray to Allah! Personally, I believe the "poll" showing that nearly a third of the country thinks he's a Muslim is just a big lie created by Fox, with the intent of making this a national story and making people afraid.
Afraid of what, exactly? Seriously people, do you really believe that Obama is a secret Muslim who faked a birth certificate just so he could mastermind a secret terrorist takeover of the US? If you do, could you kindly tell me what you are smoking?
The President's religion should not matter. But look at our history: remember what a huge deal it was that Kennedy was Catholic? And that's still playing for the same team! And yes, it was a group of Muslims who perpetrated 9/11, but so what? Does that mean we are going to fear and hate all Muslims for now and ever? Isn't that letting the terrorists win?
My favorite is when whichever right wing douchebag it was said that he'd "take Obama at his word" that he was a Christian. Did anyone state they had to take W at his word that God talked directly to him? Or any other President, for that matter? We did, in fact, see this with Joe Leiberman in his VP bid: everyone wanted to know if he'd work on Saturday. Did anyone ask any other candidate if he'd work on Sunday?
The GOP trots out these issues every two years. Sadly, there are enough people who don't think for themselves, and they follow right along. They are too happy to hate, to have some sort of "cause" to vent their anger at. Never mind that their anger is over the fact that they are losing their jobs and homes; the real problem is that Obama might worship the same god in a different way!
I get so tired of pointing out this same phenomenon. I wonder, why don't these people wake up and see the pattern? Are they really so duped? Do they really not realize that once the election is won, the issue blows away like the sand around Ozymandias' broken statue?
And that is why I write. I know I mostly preach to the converted, but I hope that my words reach at least a few ears that maybe need to hear them. And maybe others share them with people they know. Maybe I'm just a voice screaming into the void, but at least it feels good to give voice to the truth.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The Meaning of Life
The Manifesto once again has a guest blogger. Today's ponderings come from the Blogging Orangutan. Enjoy!
Life; it is an unparalleled state, beyond quantification or explanation. In the average lifetime, you couldn’t cover even a fraction of what creation holds for its members. The expansiveness of life is so grand, that it leaves many with questions. What is this? Why is that, this way? Over time, we’ve grown up; moved beyond basic questioning; populated the Earth. During this period, we’ve come to the biggest question of all: why? Why are we here? What is our purpose? Does life have a meaning? These questions have given way to answers. Mind you, these answers aren’t always the same.
For some, the answer was explained away with magic’s; powers lowly mortals couldn’t comprehend. The days of polytheism are well documented. However, there are those of the time who believed in nothing but the dirt they’d turn into, one day. These are the ever-present fatalists, of the world. Then, the rise of monotheism came, and Judaism was born. Years later, in the Indus valley, the Hindu’s breathed their first answers; and so continued the many comings and goings of religion. Many would follow.
After this, the Romans would rule, for a time; their polytheistic background controlling the main stage in the west, while Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism battled it out, in the East; all main-stream religions. And of course, the rise of Christianity would follow. But, not six-hundred years later, the word of Allah would arrive, on scene. This has been a nice history lesson on some of the more widely followed religions, but perhaps unnecessary. We’ve gotten away from the topic; which is life.
What is the true purpose; the real meaning, of life? Is life a trial; our audition tape? Is it a test to see if we’ve been good enough to get into some pearly palace, in the sky? What if we break a few rules? Like or do the wrong things? Will we be damned to some fiery underworld ruled over by an evil and horned cretin? Perhaps. What about Nirvana? Mayhap we wish to go there? Or we wish to reincarnate back into Brahman; experiencing the joy of our reunion. But do we know these will happen? Are we so faithful; so sure of such things? So willing to sacrifice the most pure from of self-thought that we give our lives for it; wishing it is true?
No confirmed explanation has been given, save for the deathly gaze upon those now passed. It is not a comforting gaze, to be sure. Still, many are certain of their answers. So certain, that they give there lives for it, instantly. They jump at a chance to see their answer verified. However, not everyone has the right answer; how can they? If I answer with X, and you answer with Y, then who’s right? We cannot both be correct. So; we push. We shove. We fight. Fight to enforce our answer on the other; fight to make sure we’re right. But, here’s the question: Are we? Are we right? Perhaps we are; but, then again perhaps not. Maybe, the other person is right. Maybe they’re wrong, too.
Now, we’re left with two people, who may both be wrong. But, we’ve gone and enforced our beliefs; killed the other. So, you kill the person; and(since we’re potentially wrong in our beliefs) it was over what; an opinion. Does that mean I should start killing those who like green, best? I mean, after-all; they’ve got an opinion that is different, than my own. That MUST justify killing them. But, maybe not. Indeed, if I’d simply tolerated them, and allowed them to think what they wished, rather than forcing my own belief down their throat, they might still be alive. The meaning of life may be outlined in the bible; in the teachings of Allah, and Mohammad; in the Sanskrit language of the Indus Valley peoples; but certainly not in the killings of those whom you disagree with. That comes only from the anger of the righteous; an anger that hurts all around it.
As long as we have tolerance for the answers of others; the choices and beliefs they have, we will have the closet thing to peace, around. While many might disagree, or interpret differently, the fact remains: Humans are social beings; flawed and social beings. We will make many mistakes. We will die. These are things we must all accept. But while we’re here, we can certainly strive to be friends. Strive to understand each other. Strive to live; not to hate. Strive to love; not fight. Finally, while we may not strive to die, we should strive to understand that it will happen; we should not fear it, but embrace its inevitability. Embrace it, and spend our lives doing just that: Living. Life is wonderful, and precious; spending your time being fearful will only hinder you.
Life; it is an unparalleled state, beyond quantification or explanation. In the average lifetime, you couldn’t cover even a fraction of what creation holds for its members. The expansiveness of life is so grand, that it leaves many with questions. What is this? Why is that, this way? Over time, we’ve grown up; moved beyond basic questioning; populated the Earth. During this period, we’ve come to the biggest question of all: why? Why are we here? What is our purpose? Does life have a meaning? These questions have given way to answers. Mind you, these answers aren’t always the same.
For some, the answer was explained away with magic’s; powers lowly mortals couldn’t comprehend. The days of polytheism are well documented. However, there are those of the time who believed in nothing but the dirt they’d turn into, one day. These are the ever-present fatalists, of the world. Then, the rise of monotheism came, and Judaism was born. Years later, in the Indus valley, the Hindu’s breathed their first answers; and so continued the many comings and goings of religion. Many would follow.
After this, the Romans would rule, for a time; their polytheistic background controlling the main stage in the west, while Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism battled it out, in the East; all main-stream religions. And of course, the rise of Christianity would follow. But, not six-hundred years later, the word of Allah would arrive, on scene. This has been a nice history lesson on some of the more widely followed religions, but perhaps unnecessary. We’ve gotten away from the topic; which is life.
What is the true purpose; the real meaning, of life? Is life a trial; our audition tape? Is it a test to see if we’ve been good enough to get into some pearly palace, in the sky? What if we break a few rules? Like or do the wrong things? Will we be damned to some fiery underworld ruled over by an evil and horned cretin? Perhaps. What about Nirvana? Mayhap we wish to go there? Or we wish to reincarnate back into Brahman; experiencing the joy of our reunion. But do we know these will happen? Are we so faithful; so sure of such things? So willing to sacrifice the most pure from of self-thought that we give our lives for it; wishing it is true?
No confirmed explanation has been given, save for the deathly gaze upon those now passed. It is not a comforting gaze, to be sure. Still, many are certain of their answers. So certain, that they give there lives for it, instantly. They jump at a chance to see their answer verified. However, not everyone has the right answer; how can they? If I answer with X, and you answer with Y, then who’s right? We cannot both be correct. So; we push. We shove. We fight. Fight to enforce our answer on the other; fight to make sure we’re right. But, here’s the question: Are we? Are we right? Perhaps we are; but, then again perhaps not. Maybe, the other person is right. Maybe they’re wrong, too.
Now, we’re left with two people, who may both be wrong. But, we’ve gone and enforced our beliefs; killed the other. So, you kill the person; and(since we’re potentially wrong in our beliefs) it was over what; an opinion. Does that mean I should start killing those who like green, best? I mean, after-all; they’ve got an opinion that is different, than my own. That MUST justify killing them. But, maybe not. Indeed, if I’d simply tolerated them, and allowed them to think what they wished, rather than forcing my own belief down their throat, they might still be alive. The meaning of life may be outlined in the bible; in the teachings of Allah, and Mohammad; in the Sanskrit language of the Indus Valley peoples; but certainly not in the killings of those whom you disagree with. That comes only from the anger of the righteous; an anger that hurts all around it.
As long as we have tolerance for the answers of others; the choices and beliefs they have, we will have the closet thing to peace, around. While many might disagree, or interpret differently, the fact remains: Humans are social beings; flawed and social beings. We will make many mistakes. We will die. These are things we must all accept. But while we’re here, we can certainly strive to be friends. Strive to understand each other. Strive to live; not to hate. Strive to love; not fight. Finally, while we may not strive to die, we should strive to understand that it will happen; we should not fear it, but embrace its inevitability. Embrace it, and spend our lives doing just that: Living. Life is wonderful, and precious; spending your time being fearful will only hinder you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)