... Of Parsimony In Writing

It goes without saying that in order to be a good writer, one has to also be a good reader. These two are mutually inclusive skills, that have at their core the ability to communicate. Ergo, a writer is motivated to write on a subject matter so as to communicate his ideas and viewpoints to either a specified or unspecified audience. At times, it is prudent for a writer to compose a message with an audience in mind, although this is not necessarily crucial. I have read some crap in my life, but there are certain authors and writers that possess that particular ability to turn a phrase that I keep returning to their writings regularly. With that in mind, I have been looking over the past dozen posts of TTT to determine if I would put me on the list of regular 'must reads'. I started reviewing my last dozen posts not as a writer, but as a reader. Wow, even if I say so (it's intrinsic to my Pisces nature!) and I am biased, but these are a fascinating read. They cover a lot of technical and philosophical ground – some of it a tad esoteric. I concluded that I will continue to include me on my list of 'must reads' as I would enjoy reading such material. However, I needed to consider it from the perspective of an average reader, a run of the mill reader.

Immediately, from this perspective I found two particular issues with my posts – their length and the elevated vocabulary used in most of them. Most of the posts could be chopped up into two or three easily digestible posts. Although, I think all of them are well written, I do not feel that they are focused enough on one particular subject matter at a time. It is a quirk of how my mind works … a sort of mental attention deficit disorder that creeps in occasionally into my writing. Say, is that a blue squirrel? Anyway, that is a small quirk that can be corrected by limiting my future posts to no more than a thousand words. This limit will effectively coerce me to better write more focused material and more often. It will no longer be as mentally tiring to churn out these bi-weekly, long form posts. There have been times when a random thought has grown legs and developed into a full post. I would have started writing about some topic, when its flow is interrupted by a random thought. The legs develop as I try to extricate from further developing the random thought, and return to the original flow. That usually fails, but has led to even more interesting posts.

As for the elevated vocabulary – well, that is just par for the course and there really is nothing much I can do about changing it to simpler form of expression. A friend of mine told me it was because I was an intellectual snob. I countered that it was not that I was an intellectual snob, but that I was reaping the benefits of being a bookworm, of being well read. I see how that could be misconstrued as being snobbish. However, I will try to keep it fairly simple and use my other blogs for my more esoteric musings. I will know when I begin to cross this line in the sand – it will be like when the eyes of a run of the mill reader start to glaze over. Trust me, I have personally witnessed the eyes glazing over and seen the look of confusion take over someone's face, when I start meandering through some seemingly complex concepts. This usually happens during heated political debates when I start detailing the minutiae of some policy. What I enjoy more is how most folks will play off that they understand everything that you might be talking about – until you directly confront them about it. Then, there is usually a lot of lip smacking and prevaricating. So, I will do my best to keep it light and flowing easier.

So, doesn't this effectively limit the scope of my random thoughts – not at all. It's just that they will be expressed or covered in smaller chunks. Make sense? It's like explaining to non-politicos just how American democracy doesn't translate to a simple majority rule. Simply – it is because the USA is a republic and therefore obligated to guarantee individual rights as enshrined in the constitution. That's for another day and post. So, this is a slight change of strategy until the next time I change it. The first test of this strategy is whether the frequency of posts increases dramatically. That will be a strong indicator of how well this new strategy will be working. Besides, didn't some wise old man say that the only constant in life was change. In this case, my change has been necessitated both by a thorough review of my current output and by some of the solicited responses I have received. All this feedback has tended to indicate that all the posts have been good – which tells me that I induced some eye glazing. Huh? What can I do?

Here's a thought for today; Every human being's essential nature is perfect and faultless, but after years of immersion in the world we easily forget our roots and take on a counterfeit nature. Lao-Tzu, philosopher (6th century BCE)

Have fun always!!

... Of Lives Lived Forwards, But Always Understood Backwards.

         My cousin uses this old saw as his Skype status: Life is lived forwards, but understood backwards! It is a slightly different interpretation of another adage that defines hindsight as the only perfect and true vision. Of course, the underlying philosophic in both maxims is that life and events along its path can only ever be put into their correct perspectives through reflection. On first gander, it reads like an oxymoron that wistfully wishes life was the other way around – live backwards, but understood forwards. However, one only has to consider some past, ostensibly cataclysmic life event to realize that it really was not that big a deal. Hmm! Try explaining to a lovelorn teenager that being rebuffed by the object of their affections is really not the end of the world. One would have a better chance explaining the science behind the blue hue of the sky. It is not because the light bouncing off the oceans which are blue but, rather has to do with how light disperses as it travels through the atmosphere. It can get quite involved but you would need to basically understand the red/blue shift in light – more commonly known as the Doppler shift (The very same doppler abused by television meteorologists). Ever wonder why they are called meteorologists, rather than weather forecasters – since theirs is not an exact or precise science but rather mere machine learned guesswork. Well, I'd rather take this little sojourn and dissect light dispersion, meteorologists, and machine learning than deal with a lovelorn teenager. Been there, done that. It will all make sense, in a minute, and should all fit into this overall concept of the efficacy of perfect vision in hindsight.

         Anyway, onto light emanating from the sun. The reason the sky appears blue is due to both how humans perceive light, and how light disperses through the atmosphere. The basic assumption is that the sun shines white light – which is a mixture of all the colors of the spectrum – and each color travels across space at a specific wavelength. The human eye responds most strongly to the red, blue, and green wavelengths of the color spectrum. The visible part of the color spectrum ranges from red through orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, to violet. I use the mnemonic ROY Gave Ben In Violet to remember the visible spectrum from largest to smallest wavelength. This is the reason why emergency medical vehicles (ambulances, firetrucks) run with red flashing lights, while cop cars tend to run with the red and blue flashers. This is because those colors make them more visible during all light conditions, and helps with depth perception. They rely on the red/blue shift or the Doppler effect – which makes light appear red as it shifts away, and appear blue as it moves towards a particular point. Therefore, the sky appears blue because the shorter blue wavelengths are dispersed more strongly than the red as the sunlight passes through the atmosphere. It gets complicated and has some fantastic mathematics attached to it. I can easily recall the color spectrum (vital for any graphic designer to know) but, had to look up the Tyndall effect which details the mathematics of how different wavelengths of light disperse through the atmosphere. Now, this many decades later all my High School physics is beginning to make sense. Can you see the picture yet?

             Why do we call television weather-casters meteorologists? What do meteors have to do with the weather? I think the initial sense was to give the pseudoscience of guessing the weather based on atmospheric patterns some of the gravitas of a real science. To this end, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) set an official description of a meteorologist as an individual with specialized education who uses scientific principles to explain, understand, observe or forecast the earth's atmospheric phenomena and/or how the atmosphere affects the earth and life on the planet. See what I mean by giving gravitas to a pseudoscience? The AMS further delineates meteorologists into television weather-casters, academics, and forensic meteorologists. Most dictionaries define meteorology as a science that deals with the atmosphere and its related phenomena, including climate and weather. I am still fascinated by both the meteor root, when joined with the suffix -ology which means study of or the science of. So I dug up the etymology of meteor which is “a thing in the air, noun use of neuter of metéōros raised in the air, equivalent to met- met-+ eōr- (variant stem of aéirein to raise) + -os adj. Suffix” This led to a meteorology being the science of something raised in the air, and since weather is essentially of the air – I will have to concede that meteorology has everything to do with weather and weather-related phenomena. However, I will not stoop as low as to consider those television weather-casters as actual scientists. I can just as easily prognosticate the weather by stepping outside my door every morning. I mean, any pretty face can read a teleprompter and point at a green screen. That is about the sum total of all the science involved in the broadcast meteorology. Understand that I am dissecting the pseudo-science of meteorology only to make this larger point: At the time, I complained bitterly about the precious many hours of my youth spent learning how to use a dictionary. As silly as it might sound, most folks do not know how to use a dictionary to define a word. Most folks use a dictionary like a thesaurus and simply substitute a word for another without gaining a conceptual understanding of the original word. That is a topic for another day.

             Anyway, most of the time, television meteorologists even get the localized weather wrong as their knowledge is based on reading various computer generated models. Which brings me to machine learning. It sounds like serious science when some local broadcast (usually celebrity) meteorologist mentions looking at various computer models to figure out the following days' weather patterns. But, it all is really just machine learning. See, machine learning is basically collecting a large data sample and then, trying to predict how a subject will react to certain stimuli. In the case of weather, they have collected and collated large amounts of recorded data on temperature, wind speed, wind direction, humidity, atmospheric pressure, the amount of sunlight based on the tilt (angle) of the earth (determines seasons – but, you knew that already:-) ) and fed all this into huge databases. These databases are then manipulated to spit out the computer models they are so proud of mentioning during their forecasts. In the old days, before computers, most farmers relied on the Farmers' Almanac which was a long range weather forecast used to plan for field preparations, plating, weeding, and harvesting. This was the basis of machine learned computer based systems as almanacs were based on observed, and recorded weather patterns of certain farming zones. Nowadays, this is where machine learning comes into play as computers are programmed to spot patterns based on the prevailing data. Warm winds blowing west off the equatorial coast of Afrika are energized by the warm waters in the Atlantic ocean and pick up circulation and speed to spawn tornadoes over central and North America.

                      Exactly where the winds will buffet the Americas is influenced by the Coriolis effect – which is basically wind shear caused by the earth's rotation. The Coriolis effect stops winds blowing in a straight line. Ever wonder what happens to ants during a flood? Ever wonder how birds, rodents, and small animals know when a severe storm or, even a tornado is imminent? Their innate survival instincts have a more advanced early warning system than any computer man will ever build – it's their ability to detect minute and dramatic changes in atmospheric pressure. These are things I learned during those seemingly boring, long, and tedious geology lessons. I recall complaining about having to attend a basic storm chasing course as part of an assignment for an Astronomy class. I still know how to look at cloud formations and determine the direction of a storm, or how to accurately (within 15minutes) determine the amount of time remaining before sunset, based on the sun's position in the sky. At the time, I complained bitterly about having to give up part of an afternoon of chasing skirts to learn silly storm chasing basics … now, when I confidently say we can finish the round as the storm is going around us they can rely on my word. There is a few that believe I am imbued with some indigenous talent of weather forecasting - if only they appreciated that it is because I was coerced into paying attention in an extra credit class in College. Is that illustration of the efficacy of hindsight beginning to take better shape?

                  I used all the examples to illustrate the point in my cousin's choice of status. The point is neither necessarily on the misdirected impulses nor the misguided emotions of a misspent youth. I think the point is not only to reflect on the lessons that can be gleaned from history, but to also apply those same lessons to present and all future endeavors. The underlying philosophic of not only reflecting on, but also putting into the correct perspective the life lessons learned from past exertions, escapades, and experiences. There is always a certain amount of schadenfreude for every heartbroken, lovelorn teenager, when they realize, years down the road, that the object of their affections and fantasies was never all that and a bag of chips. It is especially more pronounced when life has been unkind to the object of one's teenage affections … you know the ugly duckling has matured into a beautiful swan and Adonis has degenerated into a toothless, obese, misshaped mess. Or, that the teenage queen has degenerated into a rotund, saggy breasted, old hag and teenage zit-face has not only matured but, filled out the lanky, awkward frame into a veritable Adonis. You get the drift? The important thing is how grown swan and grown Adonis treat grown toothless mess and mature old hag. If they would have well learned the lessons from their own youth, then, they would be kind, open, caring, and just absolutely munificent towards the 'tormentors' of their youth. That is the abiding philosophic and lesson contained in these two old saws on hindsight and vision. The world needs to understand that physical beauty is not only fugacious, but is always a secondary consideration to character in the longevity of human relations. The true substance of friendships is to be found inside the person, as the outside is at the mercy of the weather and other life events. However, the most important aspect of this adage is to remember to be kind to yourself. I believe that if one can be kind to themselves, then, they would find it easier to transfer kindness and other emotions onto others. So, be kind to yourself!

                    Here's today's thought (even though I doubt the veracity of its attribution, I still like how it makes you think of the important things in your life): "When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money." Cree Prophecy.

Have fun always!!

P.S. Leave a comment – so I know you passed by here.

... Of Religious Doublethink And Social Myopia.

I sat there flabbergasted! I had inadvertently maneuvered myself into a philosophical corner – what had started as a light, cursory touch on the history of religion was turning into a full dissertation on the known history of religion. I was in a slightly heated, but mild, political discussion with a devout religious person when I made a passing reference to religious myopia. They bristled at the religious myopia and demanded an explanation. I mordaciously asked if they wanted the true historical perspective or the religious inspired bullshit that tries to explain colonization as a divinely inspired act of dissemination. Humongous mistake. If looks could kill … actually, I think they said a quick prayer for my dirty soul. I urged them not to pray for me as that would only annoy me and be a waste of their breath. Out came the swords and we retreated to our respective intellectual corners. That's when I realized how that little snarky comment had just turned my evening into a futile adoxography – you know, that age old debate technique of defending an absurd position. So, I went on the offensive intending to quickly blitz them into submission. Pure folly. I should have known better as that never happens with people of faith.

I started with the emotional tack of the doublethink of religion. The notion of doublethink stems from the idea of reality control in George Orwell's 1984. “It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control,' they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink.'” I just applied it to religion. Reality control which is mind control is the basic stock-in-trade of most cult environments. Adherents are cowed into submission by the doublethink of religion. Doublethink coerces followers into non-confront on the negative aspects of a religion. Doublethink uses the positive aspects of a religion to promote and uphold its most negative features. How many times have you heard the exhortation to love the sinner, but to hate the sin. How is that even possible? Faith is used to reinforce the doctrinaire attitudes of a religion's leadership. There is nothing divinely inspired about any human's leadership characteristics – rather dismissive I know, but I'll tackle atheism on a different page. What is extant is just a lot of confirmation bias. Adherents become victims of their own faith and are cowed into silence by the 'groupthink mentality' of religion. To question 'divinely inspired' authority is frowned upon and conformity is heavily promoted. The only way to stop being a victim is to grow a pair, speak out, and leave the group. You are free to leave, however, your departure will mean the loss of your sure ticket to salvation. This is when the doublethink of religion kicks in as followers are victimized into keeping quiet to maintain membership in the group.

It is damn near impossible to persuade a Catholic to leave a Diocese when you underscore instances of predatory, sexual conduct amongst their priesthood. Catholics would rather ignore all the evidence and prefer that all victims shut up about the abuse. The argument is that it is better to handle such matters internally, within the church, for the sake of the unity of the church. The best solution proffered by the Papacy is prayer for both the perpetrators and the victims. In other words, the best approach is to put a lid on it, pretend it never happened. The main and vocal proponents of victims keeping silent are the perpetrators. They can only continue their abuse if no one speaks out. The pedophile priest, the abusive husband, the sociopathic cult leader, they can only operate by maintaining layers of secrecy about their unsavory activities. These abusive leaders remain untouchable as long as their victims keep their mouths shut. There is a point where silence becomes enabling. As Jeff Hawkins (Author of Counterfeit Dreams) outlines in his biography, “The minute their victims open their mouths, the light comes streaming into their sordid little worlds. And the victims aren’t victims any more.” Hawkins poses an interesting question: If exposing abuses within a religion results in the destruction of that religion, then who is the source of that destruction - the person who exposes it, or the person who commits that abuse? That's a nice quandary for another day. However, doublethink which is the art of simultaneously believing dichotomous concepts ideas is not only limited to politics and religion, but is also prevalent in various justice systems.

I wonder why it is acceptable for a man to commit the most atrocious and heinous of crimes; only to plead insanity as the impetus for the crime spree. In most cases, well-heeled lawyers will make the case for the criminal's diminished capacity based on alleged instances of physical or sexual abuse in the perpetrator's youth. The insanity plea almost always leads to a lenient sentence – the whole judicial systems tends to be sympathetic to offenders that would have been abused as children. I do not get it – a man spends months planning a massacre, then carries out his plan killing several, injuring dozens; when the perpetrator comes before the courts for an initial arraignment, counselor usually -as expected - enters 'not guilty by reason of insanity' plea. This is a normal opening gambit in capital punishment cases. This procedure effectively changes the tone of a trial as its focus changes from the elephant in the room - which is the heinous crime committed – to the diminished reasoning capacity of the offender because of some alleged physical or sexual abuse from decades prior to the crime. In most cases, the individual would of managed to cope without manifesting their particular insanity. The Colorado shooter was a n intelligent student in a neuroscience doctoral program – that's some heavy brain power capable of some serious intellectual lifting. That he somehow snapped is obvious, what isn't is that he was insane. I mean, this was a cold, calculating individual who had the foresight to not only booby trap his apartment, but left the music playing loudly to entice the police into breaking down his door. There are shrinks that will be willing to testify that he is insane, as many as there will be willing to testify of his sanity. Only time will tell which side prevails, but it is unfathomable that this man is accorded the rights to pursue the 'insanity plea' which will prolong his existence. Although, natural justices stipulates that he has a right to be heard, I wonder how many of the affected families would rather dispense with the whole process and just exact immediate revenge and retribution. I know it is possible to conceive anarchy having some place in our justice systems.

As appealing as that sounds, it quickly fails in real life application. This type of quick retributive justice is rooted in anarchy and usually demands quick action which can lead to unregulated mob justice such as the burning alive at the stake of alleged witches in early 1690s Salem, MA; and more recently in 2013 Papua New Guinea. Other religious based retributive justice systems stipulate the loss of limbs – thieves losing arms or legs – and, at times, demand the loss of an equal number of lives. But as the old saw goes, an eye for an eye makes the world blind. There have been other instances of religious based retributive justice which was based on a fear of the unknown such as the witches who are supposed to possess the dark magic of sorcery. This determination is usually directed at some hapless female at the instigation of some local, male opinion leader – a religious one nonetheless – and based on their ignorant interpretation of some unusual occurrence. Thus, the argument can be made that natural justice, despite its slower acting pace, has the advantage of allowing reason (no matter how far fetched) to prevail. This leads us down the path of victim families accepting the use of the insanity plea. In rare cases, some victim families have been known to become so sympathetic that they even forgive the perpetrators; once they became aware of the root cause of the offender's insanity. In these rare cases, the forgiveness is based on the tenets of some faith in a religious doctrine.

I continue to rail against forgiveness inspired by a religious doctrine. It really is difficult to juxtapose religion and forgiveness without delving into the confusing double think associated with religion. This confusion stems from trying to reconcile one's feelings between condemning the atrocities and condoning the charity undertaken in the name of religion. This doublethink began when religion started consolidating its influence around political power. We are still grappling with this notion of a true separation between politics and spirituality, between church and state. Political control gained the upper hand when religious expansion became a secondary consideration to political colonization. Through the ages, especially during the aptly named Dark Ages, this led to a purging of knowledge from texts considered anathema to prevailing religious interpretations. There have been numerous and seemingly endless wars, always religious at their core, mainly in Europe and throughout the Middle East (Crusades, Colonization, Genocide, Slavery, Apartheid, Racism, Jihad, Zionism.) It is so prevalent that one could point to any place on the world map, and I could name an atrocity committed or being committed in the name of religion.

What I can not fathom is why educated people refuse to acknowledge the evil that religion has done and is doing. These are fairly open minded folks who have been exposed to some basic world history - they have to be aware of all these global events. What is even weirder is the unprecedented decline in former colonizing countries and resurgence in colonized territories of religion. I am amazed by the statistics coming out of Africa and Asia – they are among the largest growth areas for the various iterations of Christianity and Islam. There is a new fascination in the prospects suggested in the new phenomenon of prosperity gospel. It still doesn't compute for me – I mean, you have these fantastically wealthy hucksters pretending to preach salvation by preying on their societies' poorest, and downtrodden. I have come across the late night television shenanigans of the Dollars, the Popoffs, the Hilliards, and the Lambs of this world - and they do offer the possibility of some seductively easy ways of getting out of debt. Theirs is an easier sleight of hand than that of colonization – they also offer the hopeless and poorest in a society unimaginable riches based on only one condition. Faith. That is the only requisite, to believe unquestioningly in the miraculous acquisition of immense wealth, the possibility of driving expensive cars, and even owning those huge mac-mansions on the hill. It is a veritable vision of the possibilities of heaven - the very stuff of paradise as espoused in their religious literature. In the meantime, there are two simple caveats: the adherents and converts must tithe – euphemism for giving either the church or the preacher-man some of their hard earned cash; and, faithfully wait for the pink fairy to deliver on her promise in her own sweet time.

This is such a disingenuous strategy that I am almost always tempted into jumping on the preacher-man bandwagon. This prosperity gospel is such an easy way of self-enrichment, until one is confronted by its effects on the true believers. I, once, had to intervene in the affairs of an economically distressed family. Their fight centered on how to spend the few extra dollars on hand. The husband was opting to pay off their utilities while the wife would rather they tithed. She was adamant that this was god's money and their failure to remit it to the church was contributing to their misfortunes. It sounds implausible to even consider not paying one's bills as a pro-survival action - this world is just not wired that way. You would have a better chance of hitting the jackpot in a lottery than having your bills magically paid off. In the lottery you, at least, have that one in several hundred million chances of hitting the big one; whereas, in the tithe matrix, you have zero chance of your bills being magically expunged. Which are the better odds? I'm going with the lottery chances – as there is that one chance which is better than none at all.

The same arguments can be made for the genesis of the more radical forms of Islam. The mullahs and other clerics exert more direct influence than political leaders on most muslim societies. In Iran, the Ayatollah (similar in stature to the catholic pope) is a more powerful presence than the rest of all the political leadership. The clerics are able to influence adherents into suicide missions by convincing these usually hapless, and poor males that their ultimate sacrifice (suicide) is in defense of their faith; besides there is that little matter of 72 virgins at their disposal in the next lifetime. Sex is such a powerful motivational tool. Even some orthodox Jews are enforcing the agnathic kinship of their faith by refusing women the right to congregate and pray at the wailing wall. The orthodox Jewish women were met with unmitigated violence when they tried to march on the infamous monument in Jerusalem. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world - in Myanmar - some of the usually placid Buddhist monks have been rioting and attacking muslims in the central and western parts of the country. I will concede that the violence in Lashio began May 28 after Ne Win splashed gasoline on a woman and set her on fire. The woman was seriously burnt, and is currently hospitalized. The Buddhist monks took revenge by burning several Muslim shops, one of the city's main mosques, an Islamic orphanage and a movie theater. One person, a Muslim, died. Is it just me or is there a verifiable trend in there. I see the continued oppression of women based on religious faith. Faith is a powerful motivator, as psychologists and religious leaders will attest. However, common sense is not so common as this article proves.

Doublethink is also affecting the very basic core of human communication. There is an increasingly overarching reliance on technology which, initially, was meant to save time by increasing efficiency. However, this same technology increasingly either takes the saved time along with it, or makes the saved time less present, intimate, or rich. Most interaction amongst humans is now conducted via binary code (text, email, social media) that it is becoming extremely rare to actually engage another person in direct conversation. It has become easier to text than actually speak to another. Social decorum is dying a slow, unnatural death as it moves from our mouths to our fingers. You only need to spend a few minutes (if you are brave enough) perusing the comments and message boards on any major news sites – there is unfiltered vitriol, undisguised racism, unadulterated hatred; simply because posters are anonymous and can type whatever nonsense they feel like from behind their screens. I will leave technology alone since it was simply a final attempt to mundify my mind from the extended debate with them folks of faith. The rest is mere confabulation. I am still flabbergasted that I put me through that exercise. C'est la vie - OK, here's a few thoughts:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams (Oct 30, 1735 - Jul 04, 1826) 2^nd American President, Statesman, Diplomat.

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire (Nov 21, 1694 - May 30, 1778) Philosopher, Author.

It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men. Samuel Adams (Sept 16, 1722 - Oct 02, 1803) American statesman, political philosopher.

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards out of men. Abraham Lincoln (Feb 12, 1809 - Apr 15, 1865) 16th President of the United States.

Go light some brush fires!

Have fun always!!

... Of Fear, Courage, And Emotional Intelligence.

Fear is such a debilitating emotion that is, at times, difficult to confront. Fear is a very strong emotion and it can paralyze some folks into inaction. It is so powerfully enervating as some forms of severe depression that it could leave one curled up in the fetal position in bed with the blinds drawn. Fear could render someone totally useless for days on end, if a person becomes overwhelmed by the specter of a seemingly hostile world. I am convinced that there is a direct correlation between depression and fear. I could go a step further to suggest that they might also have a direct causal relationship in that fear leads to depression, or the obverse. Fear effectively shrinks the size of one's world when almost everything begins to be perceived as a potential threat. Fear triggers a simple survival mechanism which effectively dims out any extraneous light until all the focus is directed on one tiny, tolerable point of light. If a person is unable to confront even the smallest source of light, this is when one ends rolled up in a ball,on a bed in a darkened room. It is an instinctual action to stay still, embrace the darkness, until the sense of danger passes. This is a comfortable, and common level of non-confront predicated on the hope of the situation easily resolving itself. In this instance, it seems safer to look within for a solution rather than to seek the aid of some external agency. Even if all it involves is a subconscious effort not to move, not to draw attention to oneself. Actually, this type of response is only one of six possible responses to the devitalizing effects of fear.

The six responses to fear are best illustrated by the hunter folklore of the Khoisan (the nomadic, and pastoral tribes of the Kalahari and Namib deserts). Basically, as the story goes, these six ways of approaching fear are a throwback to survival instincts developed in the wilderness. The six choices are to avoid, befriend, fight, flee, ignore, or succumb to the source of fear. These choices are an expanded version of the more putative western 'fight or flee' syndrome. The lore goes that a hunter wakes up one morning to discover a lion sleeping at the entrance to his cave. He has to get past the lion in order to check on his traps. The hunter has to quickly decide how to best handle this situation. He could attempt to tiptoe past the sleeping lion (avoid). He could take some leftover meat and bones and try to feed the lion (befriend). He could grab his weapons and attack the lion (fight). He could look for an alternative egress out of the cave (flee). He could simply wait for the lion to leave of its own volition (ignore). If the lion should be startled and attack him, the hunter could lay down and play dead (succumb). The leitmotif of these six choices is that the hunter has to decide how to confront his fear. He has to act in some fashion that we can safely deduce that courage is an integral component of Khoisan culture.

It follows, therefore, that courage is not necessarily the direct opposite of fear. Courage is neither a lack of nor an absence of fear, rather it is the ability to act in the face of fear or danger. Courage demands direct action and is a specific skill to overcome the debilitating effects of fear. The body, instinctively, injects adrenaline into the bloodstream, shortens breath, tenses the musculoskeletal system, and releases toxins via the sweat glands when it prepares to act in dangerous situations. This seems to work when the fear or dangerous stimuli is suddenly introduced into one's environment. However, it doesn't seem to work as well when the dangerous stimuli is insidious or cerebral in nature. This form of fear induces the debilitating physical effects intimated in the exordium. This type of fear is induced by an inferiority complex, severe self doubts, and a lack of self confidence. I am fascinated by how some people opt to capitulate to fear rather than to seek understanding and resolution through any of the six agencies discussed above.

It is almost counter-intuitive that even though most people are afraid to be with their own thoughts, yet most select the succumb option to confronting their fears. I know that people are innately gregarious creatures – well, at least ever since we have been able to vocalize, interpret, and transmit our thoughts. But, we remain scared to be alone with our own thoughts and look to outside agencies for distraction – trashy television, mindless mechanical games (Candy Crush anyone?) - and if that fails, we just curl up and die a little at a time. This phenomenon is most prevalent in troubled romantic dyadic relationships. I mean, where is it written that once couples embark on a romantic relationship, they are bound to make it persist in perpetuity regardless of insurmountable stressors like a lack of trust, a lack of loyalty, infidelity, incompatibility and a lack of any viable relational maintenance strategies? Even if there are children involved, why is the prospect of striking out solo so difficult to imagine? Why is it such a daunting task to face life alone? Flying solo is simply a return to the state one was in before starting a relationship. I am always fascinated by the guests on Springer (I know trashy TV) – who when asked why they will be fighting to stay in a relationship seem programmed, without exception, to claim undying love as their motivation. A secondary reason seems to be based on the longevity of a relationship. It seems that after three days of dating, it becomes almost impossible for some of Jerry's guests to even consider existence without their partner, regardless of infidelity, and overt declarations of the relationship having run its course. Its as if in the eyes of these folks believe it impossible to either find or meet new partners. I put it down to the paralytic effects of fear which are at the bottom of such rationale, such that some people fail to imagine tackling the world either alone or with a specific partner. There certainly might be other socio-psychological reasons why someone might choose to physically retreat from the world, but I am convinced that fear is always the underlying cause.

The principle of the duality of existence stipulates that in life there are always two basic, but opposing, motivating forces: fear/courage and love/hatred. These principles teach that when we are afraid, we retreat from life. However, when we are in love, we open to all that life has to offer with passion, excitement, and acceptance. The only deficiency of these principles is that they fail to address how fear can be used as a motivational tool for success. It seems like an augean task but, with some emotional intelligence fear can become a protean tool for success. The first and fundamental lesson to learn of emotional intelligence is simply to gain an awareness of one's feelings and how one reacts to potential threats. Emotional intelligence teaches us to understand the enervating effects of fear as barmecidal; and to learn to love ourselves first, in all our glory, and all of our imperfections. This is based on the notion of transference found in Psychology, which implies that if we cannot truly love ourselves, then we cannot fully open our ability to love others or our potential to create. So, the hopes for a better world rest in the fearlessness and open-hearted vision of people who fully embrace life. A lack of a developed emotional intelligence will lead to one always being at the short end of the stick of fear; as fear clouds one's ability to correctly estimate the gravity of a situation.

Fear can severely impinge close personal relationships as the afflicted person approaches the relationship from a recessive or weaker position. It seems as if their natural relational maintenance strategies are motivated by a fear of losing the cohesive intimacy of a dyad. In most cases these attempts have the opposite effect as fear turns the relationship into a power play. The fearful partner perceives the other as having ascendancy so much, that their own approach to the relationship becomes to match reality with that perception; either by pulling down their partner to their level, or by raising their own stock to the higher level. The latter exercise is very rare as humans are not wired that way as the fear of failure tends to overwhelm any attempts to raise personal stock. This is the stock in trade of gamesmanship – subdue, beat, intimidate, or defeat your opponent at all costs. It also follows the essence of the Roman military ethos of conquest that dictated that it was more important to be feared than be loved. Don't let fear cloud your judgment – choose to love! Choose to live! Choose to create! And Have fun always!!

Consider this: The greatest obstacle to discovering the shape of the earth, the continents, and the oceans was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, professor, attorney, and writer (1914-2004)

... Of Ignorance, Racism, And A bar Fight :(

It was an innocuous status update on Facebook -"Prayers going out for the families of Holden Hues who was killed last night stabbed to death bY to black males. I met Holden a couple of times and he was a very nice person he served in the army . You will be missed but not forgotten buddy." Reads like the thoughts of a shocked, and distraught friend. But something about this message stunk to high heaven and caught my eye. Was it that last name Hues? Was a typo – it was Hughes. No, that wasn't it. Was it the endless run-on sentence? No, who cares it's the grammatical wilderness of Facebook. It actually was that “stabbed to death bY to black males.” Hhmm – a soldier stabbed to death and the alleged perpetrators were two black males. Wonder what that was all about? Was it a robbery gone wrong? Was this Holden ambushed or was it a case of wrong place, wrong time? This happened in Hatiesburg, Mississippi which has a rather dubious race relations history. I don't really know why, but something instinctively bugged me about that post. A quick online search yielded nothing. I was about ready to leave it as the incoherent ramblings of a shocked person in the early stages of mourning, when she posted a new update (http://www.wjtv.com/story/22481051/police-soldier-murdered-in-hattiesburg-bar-fight). Turns out he was stabbed by two white males during a bar fight. I was a little miffed when I read that update. So, I reposted her link on her timeline highlighting that the perpetrators were white males. She replied, “Yea u was told they where 2 black males until my friend *** tagged me. Then I saw it on the news. I wasn't trying to be racist in any way.” To which I replied. “It was racist or race baiting at the least .That kind of misinformation belongs to the ignorant backwoods of the 40s.” This back and forth quickly degenerated into this gem: “I'm not dealing w this crap a buddy of mine and bf best friend was just murdered. Show some respect.” That's where I left the conversation which continued for a while longer with her exchanging myopic platitudes with her mother. The gist of that exchange was that: a) It was sad that an American soldier survived war only to be killed on home soil by fellow Americans; b) It was not race baiting to claim it was two blacks instead of the two whites (It is the way a person interpets the wording of it that makes it racists to them.); c) We should be grateful that we have soldiers out there fighting a war (I still do not see the correlation between war and domestic safety.); and d) We really should consider the feelings of the affected families.

The only thing I could not dispute in that extended conversation was that the focus should be on the grieving families. The rest of it is just noise in their own echo chamber. I have thought about my reaction and am still at sixes and sevens about how I handled this little spat. On one hand – I was being crass and insensitive by heuristically [serve to point out] trying to make a philosophical point to an emotionally frazzled, and guileless idjit. I am convinced that she is too oblivious to visualize the bigger picture; but, on the other hand – I was compelled to call out her anosognosia [unawareness of one's defect], ignorance, and the latent racism contained in her little post. I am certain you are aware of apophasis – that's the rhetorical strategy used by most politicians of denying their intention to speak on a subject or topic that is insinuated (I shall not mention Caesar’s avarice... get it?). She was extremely deft at dodging the racism topic by quickly claiming that she was not being racist. Well, you know the old saw about the most prejudiced people being the quickest ones to decry discrimination. Hhhmm – okay, why did this post annoy me so much?

The Facebook effect basically demands that you post every aspect of your life online. In this globalized world, it has become the norm to be digitally voyeuristic as Facebook allows unlimited access to most aspects of a person's social existence. Of course, this is dependent on how discerning a person is about what details of their lives they post. I think that those who frequently update their status only truly feel validated by the number of likes associated with each post. A like means someone has seen your status and has a positive reaction to it. This becomes a popularity contest which, in this environment is predicated on generating interesting posts. This means cultivating loyalty amongst one's digital friends and followers. You are likely to garner 'likes' to your posts if you like other people's posts – it's a system built on reciprocity. I mention the Facebook effect because that is at the bottom of what inspired this post. This has become a society that is technologically hardwired and constantly glued to its computers, smartphones, and tablets. Therefore, every emotional tic must be recorded and acknowledged online. The risk associated with this kind of existence is that there really is rarely a self-editing or self-muting ability which results in folks unwittingly posting racist stuff.

Was this an instance of sheer ignorance of the effect of that choice of words, or was this an inadvertent reveal of some deep seated, and possibly latent racism. I am going with the latter, coupled with sheer ignorant bliss. That is the thing that annoyed me the most; that a seemingly normal, well-adjusted being could be so blatantly ignorant and prejudiced. I can only conclude that she is not only ignorant, but racist in outlook. It reminds me of an old Afrikan proverb which dehorts people from ever pointing an accusatory finger; it simply reminds us that there are always three fingers pointing inwards for that one pointing in accusation. Simple lesson, huh? Well, have I been lax in my observation or have I been tolerant of less than stellar attitudes? I know that I would never classify our relationship as a close friendship, but as more of a familiarity bred out of shared circumstances – the odd party or three at Uni and she dated whatshisname. However, the more important point is that I should have observed the warning signs – there had to be some from her postings and status updates. This wasn't some sudden cataclysmic reveal – there have been questionable, borderline posts in that past. I let those slide and never said a word. Why, then did this one annoy me much – is it because of the rather overt race baiting, or because of the lack of intimate knowledge of the event?

She claimed she was basing her statement on second hand information. If that isn't the dumbest thing ever – well, not quite. In American terms that is par for the course – second hand information, and innuendo is passed off as fact. It is then enhanced, conflated, and introduced into the twitter feed – before long it is known fact. Some of this blame has to fall at the feet of the media who dictate how we perceive our society. If you watch any local newscast, you are led to believe that our cities are not only contemptible wastelands, but are extremely dangerous. Newscasts are structured around the simple principle that if it bleeds, it leads. Another big culprit that perpetuates these narrow racial cliches is Hollywood – that bastion of celluloid make-believe – which has no shame in portraying that: Blacks are criminals; Latinos are either undocumented immigrants or drug smugglers; Whites living in trailer parks are trash; Native Americans are drunks; Asians are butt-kicking karatekas; Europeans have criminal tendencies which manifest as the mafia (Italians, Russians); and all the money is controlled by a Jewish cabal. Since we are regularly exposed to these stereotypes, I think, we are no longer shocked or perturbed when we encounter them in our daily lives. Therefore, in all estimations, the correct reaction should have been to focus on the death of a friend, a soldier. A soldier who served and fought for our freedoms blah, blah … What absolute twaddle! I am just making excuses for her race baiting and racist attitude. That is the intellectual trap that is set every time someone uses the 'patriot' card.

The use of the 'patriot card' has never cut the mustard for me. Firstly, as an avowed pacifist, I hold to the principle that war is a failure in human communication. Secondly, and specific to the case that opened this can of worms, the deceased was killed in a bar fight – regardless of the actual reasons for the fight, he actively participated in escalating the conflict. Thirdly, he was a soldier in a professional army. He voluntarily signed up to go and fight in a war that really has nothing to do with preserving our freedoms at home. These wars, in fact, have severely compromised and negatively impacted the very domestic freedoms that he is purported to have fought for and protected. There have been a slew of legislative maneuverings, since the turn of the century, that have effectively curtailed and threaten to further curtails personal freedoms (The Patriot Act, The NDAA). So, I always handily dismiss this 'fighting for our freedoms' argument with the contempt it deserves. Why is it that all patriotic warmongers fail to see the long term effects of these wars – it's like sticking your hand into a hornet's nest and agitating it like crazy. Eventually, the hornets will organize and fight back against the stir crazy hand. My point is that as long as we remain engaged in these wars means the longer these Acts (NDAA, Patriot) will be in effect and just prolongs a return to true personal freedoms. However, most government bureaucracies, and large institutions are neither in the habit of giving up powers nor reducing their own reach and size. At the end of the day, all this reasoning out is another attempt to excuse what annoyed me in the first place – she is racist and was race baiting like some ignorant, backwoods, inbred idjit from the 1940s. The rest is my extended reaction to how it has become acceptable to simply let instances of overt ignorance and prejudice slide.

Do what you will, but do not let either ignorance or prejudice ever rain on your parade. Here's a final thought:

By a free country, I mean a country where people are allowed, so long as they do not hurt their neighbours, to do as they like. I do not mean a country where six men may make five men do exactly as they like. Robert Cecil, British prime minister (1830-1903).

Have fun always!!

... On The Quality Of Life And End of Life Processes

I was recently accused of - or rather labeled as - being stone cold and insensitive to the feelings of other people. This label stemmed from my rather blase reaction to the news of the untimely demise of some acquaintance. Not only was the acquaintanceship rather abstruse, but it was tenuous at best. So, was it wrong of me to not immediately commiserate with someone when they shared the news of a third party either dying or being diagnosed with some terminal illness. There is nothing that can be done to mitigate the impact of someone's death, but there are many opportunities to ameliorate a terminal illness. My natural reaction is to find out what options are available to the affected person. I want to know what choices the person is making. I want to know how high their chances are of beating the illness. This is the line of processing information that has led to me being accused of callousness and insensitivity to the feelings of others. I am always amazed by people's reactions when they hear of someone being diagnosed with a terminal disease. I have seen grown folks break down, cry, get depressed, start mourning, and generally express disappointment at the unfairness of life. In most cases, people start acting as if the person has already died. I find all this carrying on, unnecessary hand wringing, and endless sympathizing rather morbid (pun unintended). It's as if folks become blind and switch off their brains at the slightest hint of bad news. They, then, fail to contemplate the possibilities offered by medical science, I mean, there is always the hope for a full recovery.

I, on the other hand, am instinctively optimistic which is why I always consider there being a possible modern medical intervention. I research the chances the person has of beating the odds and surviving the illness. I take the inductive reasoning approach and am all in to getting a second, a third, and even a fourth opinion. Humanity has progressed and made so many advances in the medical field that it is always possible to medically assuage any terminal illness. I never take the sympathy route – I think sympathy only further exacerbates the introversion and shock a person feels at a time when they are being forced to confront their own mortality. I think that sympathy only serves to further mask the true emotions in such situations. Introversion effectively mutes the body's ability to naturally fight back against disease. Sympathy is only good, I believe, when used as an initial coping mechanism to soften the blow of the enervating news. I believe that empathy, in the long run, is a much better action as it forces a person to identify and understand the other person's feelings and difficulties. Ergo, empathy forces us to directly and immediately confront the issues surrounding the difficulty or illness.

Look, sympathy has its place and uses in life but, it is a weak reaction as it tackles life at a distance. It is natural to sympathize with the victims of a natural disaster – I mean, your emotional engagement is at arm's length. We shake our heads and express shock at the amount of damage ..., but this does not affect the general and smooth rhythm of our own lives. It becomes a talking point around the cooler before we have to rush off to the next meeting. However, if the disaster directly affects a person or a family member – if all they have left are the clothes on their backs – we are more prone to act in a meaningful manner beyond the pithy 'in our prayers, in our thoughts' mantra. If a disaster directly affects a person, the more likely they are to get involved in rebuilding and recovery efforts. This illustration attempts to show that there is a real dichotomy in the emotional mechanics of the two actions. There is an extended explanation here Empathy_vs_Sympathy

I think that sympathy as a social convention is detrimental to how effectively people deal with difficult issues like death, natural disasters, and terminal illnesses. Sympathy is one of the reasons why society has its collective head in the sand regarding death. I believe that only a minority of people have confronted their own mortality. The rest of modern society is focused on avoiding the inevitable by attempting to prolong life, maturity, and youth. There is no need for further explanation except to highlight that the cosmetics, pharmaceuticals – including the vitamin and supplement industries – are trillion dollar businesses. This is a concerted effort to avoid one of the only two certainties which are consistent across all life forms – birth and death. Merely confronting one's own demise and the whole end of life process is an almost taboo subject reserved for the elderly and terminally ill. That is such a philosophical travesty as I feel that the sooner in life mortality is confronted, the higher quality of life a person is able to lead. It really is as simple as acknowledging that death is inevitable and then living a full life – the old saw of living a life without regrets. I think we have become accustomed to approaching life as if we are immortal, that we postpone certain milestones until well into the end of life process; The proverbial bucket list and its insufferable time crunch. The better approach is to do as much as quickly as possible before the end of life process puts the squeeze on your time. The only time I truly feel saddened is when some poor soul is unable to complete their bucket list due to a violent, accidental death. I must qualify that statement somewhat, as I do not feel for the perpetrators of violent deaths, rather I feel for their innocent victims. So, drunk drivers, suicide bombers, murderers, rapists, and ilk of that nature – I never feel sorry for their deaths. I empathize with both the victims' families and the perpetrators' families as they both suffer the loss of a loved one. These are all difficult issues to tackle and I believe they should be a part of our daily conversations. The best way to consider this process is to empathize, you know, to put yourself in the shoes of those affected by either a terminal illness or a violent death. Most of the choices at the end of life process are best viewed through the prism of the choices dictated by the philosophical parameters that most resonate with the affected individual.

The most common solution of choice is religious. I am yet to conceptually understand the whole notion of either sending or keeping in prayer the victims of natural disasters. How does it make sense to get on your knees and talk to the woman in the clouds while your neighbors have lost all their possessions? It might make you feel better, but it does absolutely nothing for the affected people. This is simply an indictment of the pervasive nature of religious thought. It is unfortunate that it still has such control over many aspects of modern life. Religion, in all its iterations, is still the opiate of the masses as it offers the hope of a future existence beyond death in some imaginary paradise. Religion, as a control mechanism, demands that its adherents not directly confront life but stake their faith (pun intended) on solutions from on high. The most insidious aspect of religion is the underlying belief in the concept of some form of reincarnation; whereby, not only families, but whole societies coalesce around the possibility of reuniting at some point in the future in some imaginary place. Thus, a lot of time is needlessly expended on meditation and prayers to an imaginary woman in the sky – this is simply, but stupidly, betting the farm on the hopes of some post-death delayed gratification. In my case, I abide by the hedonistic principles of existence – give me my pleasure now as the future is not guaranteed but will take care of itself. I have been asked if I would not like to spend eternity with my family and friends in the next life. Well, firstly let me fully enjoy this current life as I might not want to spend eternity with some of the people that I have met. Secondly, what happens after I die will take care of itself and there is certainly nothing I can do about it during this lifetime. The essayist William Hazlitt (1778 – 1830) said it best when he wrote that:

Perhaps the best cure for the fear of death is to reflect that life has a beginning as well as an end. There was a time when you were not: that gives us no concern. Why then should it trouble us that a time will come when we shall cease to be? To die is only to be as we were before we were born.

How, then, would I handle life if I were to be hit with the 'terminal illness' label. As I intimated earlier on, I would be searching for other medical opinions as well as considering unorthodox methods to combat whatever the terminal illness might be. I would stake my survival on medical science and if that failed to cure my malady, then I would be actively engaged in my own end of life process. I would refuse all offers of prayers as I would find all that religious mumbo-jumbo a mere annoyance and more of an insult. If my family and friends wish to pray – they would be free to do so in the their own time. I would keep copies of the various studies done by several medical schools and hospitals on the inefficacy of prayer – just as a rude reminder. I would prefer they visit with me, so we can talk of our shared human experience. Nothing would please me more than to just sit and shoot the breeze, reminisce on some past escapades and times without getting either too nostalgic or overly sentimental. I would enjoy discussing the meaning of life, the purpose of life, the dying process, and death. Anything else will not only introvert me, but will make me absolutely miserable. A better use of my time would be to discuss issues that deal with quality of life (Nicomachean Ethics anyone?) rather than spending my time listening to others talking to themselves in prayer to some unresponsive entity. This is the prism that dictates the philosophical parameters of my decision making process. I think each person has their own unique philosophical process. There are some shared common strategies for a higher quality of life and the secret is to find and apply them to your life. Some of these strategies are encapsulated in famous poems like Marianne Williamson's Our Greatest Fear ; some are contained in the words of a remixed song, from the turn of the century, that exhorts you to Wear Sunscreen ; or in the words on a sandwich board:

This is your life. Do what you love and do it often.

If you don't like something, CHANGE IT.

If you don't like your job, QUIT.

If you do not have enough time, STOP WATCHING TV.

If you are looking for the love of your life, STOP; They will be waiting for you when you start doing things you love.

STOP over analyzing, all emotions are beautiful. LIFE IS SIMPLE.

When you eat, appreciate every last bite.

OPEN your mind, arms, and heart to new things and people, we are united in our differences.

Ask the next person you see what their passion is, and SHARE your inspiring DREAM with them.

TRAVEL often; getting lost will help you FIND yourself.

Some opportunities only come once, SEIZE them.

Life is about the people you meet, and the things you create with them. So, go out and START CREATING.

Life is short. LIVE YOUR DREAM AND SHARE YOUR PASSION. (Anonymous)

Live your live – Have fun always!!