... 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!!

… of A Response to Diary of a Mad, Black Alumni's "What's In A Name?"

A Mad Black Alumni posed a simple question: What's in a name? Is there really any significance to a name beyond it being the unique calling card of every human being. Does it really matter what a person is named – does it change who they are as a person? Is it important how a person is identified? Does a person's name directly impact how a person is perceived by society? These are seemingly some of the natural extensions to that simple, yet difficult, question. I believe that the field of personal identity, especially how a person chooses to identify themselves, is at best an intellectual quagmire fraught with a myriad taboo topics that tend to be swept under the carpet; and at worst a philosophical nightmare that coerces a person to directly confront one's perceptions of culture, dyadic relationships, education, gender, race, and even sexuality. I think all this lies at the bottom of how a name serves as the marker that encapsulates all of a person's particular characteristics, flaws, personality, and traits. I mean this is a mental machination that occurs when a name is called out; automatically, instantaneously the mind not only visualizes, but also conjures up the vital details associated with a particular name. Is the person male or female, short or tall, fat or skinny, their race, their looks, how their voice sounds, and the prevailing attitudes you hold towards that person … etc. You get the idea? So, when we try to unpack the baggage associated with a particular name, we run into all the issues associated with the underlying naming traditions of person's culture. Sounds simple, but it really is a difficult proposition since it forces us to confront the reasons why a particular name was chosen amongst the available choices; and then, compare that to a name a person would choose for themselves.

I am certain that most folks, if it were possible, would jump at the chance to partake in their own naming process. I think the major reason behind this desire is that at some time during the formative years we have been embarrassed or been made to cringe at our given names. Such is the cruelty of youth! Most folks are able to overcome this embarrassment, but some fail and resort to using a sobriquet in an effort to avoid using their government name. The only way to even start understanding the reasons why a particular name was chosen for a person begins with an appreciation of the naming traditions of one's particular culture. The most common naming traditions consisted of choosing a name that indicated either the family's aspirations for a newborn or the family's prevailing circumstances at that person's birth. This has led to a proliferation of some humorous, and some rather unfortunate names in some sections of Afrikan societies – there's a lot of kids named Problems (or its traditional equivalent), Fortune, Independence, Trust, Luck, etc.; I mean there's even a president named Goodluck (Jonathan of Nigeria). All these 'new' names emanate from a co-mingling of traditional naming systems with that of the colonizers.

I know this is a rather broad generalization, but it seems that the aspirational naming tradition is particularly prevalent in patrilineal societies. Patrilineal societies have since developed and continue to follow the legal principles of male primogeniture – that primordial right of inheritance that guarantees that first born sons not only inherit the father's name, but also his entire estate. It follows that uterine (matrilineal, if you will) societies would tend to mirror and have similar naming traditions to the patrilineal societies described above, with the emphasis being on guaranteeing the rights of inheritance to first born daughters. There is a third system of inheritance known as the double descent, in which individuals receive some rights and obligations from the father's side of the family and others from the mother's side – regardless of gender. Double descent cultures, as I continue with my very broad generalizations, would seem to favor the naming traditions based on the prevailing circumstances surrounding a person's birth. One of the more common types of naming traditions is that used by Native Americans – hence the prevalence of names like Dark Cloud, Eagle Feather, Whistling Donkey, Farting Chicken, Night Walker … these names are derived from circumstances at a person's birth or as close to it as possible. That's the only significance attached to these sometimes unusual names.

There is a strong cultural heritage in the naming traditions of most societies. However, these and many other traditions were severely disrupted and diluted by political, philosophical, and religious colonization. The conquering cultures quickly imposed their traditions on the defeated cultures. The best way to survive under these new dispensations was to adopt the language and traditions of the conquering culture – those that adapted quickly made the most headway. Assimilation and adaptation seem to be good survival techniques that have been used throughout history and are still effectively employed to this day. It is not uncommon to meet people in these societies that not only speak two languages, but also have two names – their identities just as interchangeable as the languages they speak. Most modern names are drawn from the religious traditions of the conquering culture – mostly from either Christianity or Islam. The second or middle name is inevitably drawn from their own traditional culture. As already intimated above, most of the traditions of the colonized cultures either totally disappeared or became integrated into a new culture. It is interesting that when the colonized and conquered societies began to fight back to reclaim their space, the first traditions to be revived were language and naming rights. There was an easier recovery in Africa and Asia where societies had managed to retain their languages and vestiges of most of their cultures.

The arc of history was much different for Black society in America. By the time Black society started to earnestly fight for equality, they were so far removed from the West African traditions of their heritage that they had neither language nor culture to fall back on. This is the only explanation that I can safely proffer for some of the crazy names extant in the Black American community. I can understand how in the late 60s and early 70s it was fashionable to choose an exotic – read Afrikan – sounding name as a form of protest. Among the most prominent people to change their names were the new Muhammad Ali and the new Malcolm X. Both publicly indicated that changing their names was an effort to break with their recent slave history. The more extreme of these attempts led to the propagation of some unpronounceable and mostly meaningless names – the only condition attached to their use being that they sounded so exotic that even the villagers in Zamunda could relate to them. Unfortunately, these 'exotic' names only elicited the exact opposite reaction – confusion and derision. It is unquestionable that these efforts failed as there was no effort to directly connect with the real Afrikans of their distant past. However, that must remain as a discussion for another time, but these might be some of the reasons why Mad, Black Alumni's mother chose that combination of names. If they hold a specific significance remains a question that only her mother can satisfactorily answer – the rest of us can only speculate as to the reasons for her choice.

A name remains the only identifier that pervades the duality of existence – it is the only thing that constantly straddles both the public and the private person. As Mad, Black Alumni stated “a name is distinctive” and clearly identifies all the person's aspects “... two sides of me; a lighter, happier, and more positive side of me. Then there is a much darker, secretive, confused, and lost side of me.” The latter darker aspects can be mitigated through direct communication with her mother and getting answers to the question of why she was so named. The choice of a name has always been an important decision as most people will bear that same set or combination of names for life, and even beyond their death. Women have a slight advantage in this scenario as they usually have an opportunity to, at least, change their family name after marriage whereas men do not readily have a similar opportunity. There seems to be growing acceptance of the culture most prevalent in double descent societies of husbands double-barreling their family names with that of their wives. This is simply an acceptance of equality in dyadic relationships, especially in marriages, rather than a deliberate effort to change the combination of one's names.

At the end of the day it remains a personal choice what name or names one chooses to be identified. The only limitations to that choice being whether to stick with one's given names or to change them to others of one's choosing (Ocho Cinco or Meta World Peace anyone?). There are various options available to changing one's names: There is the legal route which takes time and financial resources. Then, there is the simpler and less expensive route of insisting (or just telling people) on being called by a certain name or combination of names. It takes a high level of confidence and self awareness to tell people how you wish to be identified. It seems Mad, Black Alumni has done just that. Please, call her Jasmine!

Today's thought is from the novelist Miguel de Cervantes (1547 – 1616): No fathers or mothers think their own children ugly; and this self-deceit is yet stronger with respect to the offspring of the mind.

Have fun always!!