Fear of freedom

The title of this blog is actually the title of the British version of Erich Fromm's classic study, Escape from Freedom. I have never really figured out why different titles are necessary, but I'm not giving it much thought either. His thesis – and I have to say I think he argues it rather convincingly – is that we moderns (at any rate) are simply afraid of being free. The first chance we get, we'll give it up to anyone who promises or appears to promise us a little safety and certainty in exchange.

Oh, I hear the murmuring in the crowd and in some corners of the audience the downright outrage brewing. But I'm sticking with this one. I think he's onto something. The problem ... well, one of the problems: life in the modern world. Think about it for a moment: how secure are you in your job, your relationship or marriage, your finances, your ... well, you can just fill in the blank for more. I know, that's just the way things are, but have you ever asked yourself why things are that way? How did they get that way? And if you think it's always been that way, you must have been asleep that day in history class, for there was a time when we feared for our physical well-being, that's for sure, but we've never been so psychologically insecure as we are today.

The key indicator to this is stress. Do you know anyone who is really stress-free ... even all you retirees out there. Nothing you worry about? The state of the economy, the next social-security increase, prescription drug funding, Medicare ... nothing? We know that everyone who has a job, full or part time, is stressed out most of the time. One in four cancers are stress-induced. Stress is a leading cause of heart problems, strokes, digestive disorders, and more. We in the Western economies have – allegedly – never had it so good, being so rich, so well-fed, so lavished with opportunity ... why are we so stressed?

To me the answer is rather elementary: we aren't sure of anything anymore, and those who claim they are often find themselves clinging to ideas or even illusions that when they unravel cause more stress than before. Quite the dilemma, don't you think?

Free, really?

I've had to think of one of my heroes lately: Goethe. Bright man, very insightful author, great quipper, who once wrote, "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." It's the last part of the statement that gets me cogitating: how do we know whether we falsely or truly believe?

That's a tough one, especially these days when we can no longer think dialectically, that is that what causes one thing can at the same time perhaps cause its opposite. For example, the more global the world and business becomes, the more we find that smaller and smaller groups want to be recognized as their own "countries". Our first reaction is "that can't be", but somehow we see it is. Americans, in particular, like to point at other people and claim they're not free, but what many Americans don't realize how much they've restricted their own freedom by their own standards, or as Ben Franklin once put it, "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." You know, the Patriot Act, or SOPA, or ... .

One thing that we need is both honesty, especially with ourselves, but also a bit of distance from whatever it is we're going on about. We often think of freedom as the removal of external authorities telling us what to do. Perhaps. But, it is, at best, just part of the picture. In many countries, people have freedom of speech, but even though you can technically say what you want, many don't for concern about what others will think of them if they do. Is that freedom? Yes and no. Is it an external restriction or an inner limitation of one's own? Actually, the latter.

The idea of being free and whether we are free is worth being thought about again. You wouldn't want to end up on the actually side when you really wanted to be truly free.

Really free?

I know there are some who would make the case that freedom, regardless of how you define it, is an illusion, that we're not free at all. I'm not willing to go there. The Germans have a wonderful word, fremdbestimmt that describes this state of being very well. In essence the word means that you're simply not mistress of master of your own destiny, your actions are being determined by forces outside yourself.

This is something we can all relate to, I believe. There are times when we feel overwhelmed by the expectations and demands placed upon us. It is precisely at these times, however, that the ability to say "no" comes in particularly handy. Our innate ability to do just that makes a lot of difference in my mind.

Just because we can does not mean that we will nor even that we believe we can. When our boss tells us to do something we don't want to do, we don't immediately think of saying "no". The more authority we perceive that person to have, the less likely we are to say "no". Why? In simplest terms because we're afraid of the consequences. If I tell my boss "no", I might be fired, and I have to assess how much that matters. But what if your life is threatened? Or let us say that you have every reason to believe that your life is being threatened, how willing are you to assert your ability to say "no".

It's a tough question to answer, I believe. I believe there are lots of people who put up with lots of abuse because they feel they are in no position to say "no". We're not very kind to those who don't exercise that prerogative when after the fact we sit in judgment on them. Is everyone who lives under an authoritative regime, for example, worthy of punishment for not rebelling against that regime? When asked in the abstract, it is easy to come to an answer, isn't it? If you're not in the situation yourself, it is a no-brainer as to how you would react. I'm not sure it's a good idea to make things so simple for ourselves. There is much more at stake than may first meet the eye.

And now?

Another way of asking would be: So what?

As I read it, the story is telling us most definitely that we do in fact have Free Will, that is the ability to choose, to defy, to say no, regardless of the consequences. When you consider how Adam & Eve were before they ate the fruit with how they are afterwards, there is a difference like night and day. Instead of the obliviously innocent, blithely ignorant creatures who passed their time in the Garden, we now have two mature human beings who have to go out and face the world ... just as the rest of us do every day ourselves. To my mind, their act of "defiance" was their initiation into humanity. It's who we are, and sometimes who we need to be. We are sometimes simply required to choose.

Life requires choices. Sometimes the consequences are unpleasant, sometimes dire, sometimes more wonderful than we can imagine, but we don't know unless we find the courage to choose. There are more than enough individuals in this world who are more than willing to let you know that it is anything but worthwhile to make your own decisions. Those are the petty tyrants, the wannabe authorities, the annoying instances of power who think they are masters of all they see. Well, they are ... if we allow them to be. It is well worth remembering that no other human being has real power over you unless you give that person the power.

If their threats are more than you are willing to endure, they have power. If you don't accept that, you are nevertheless free. If you are willing to give up your freedom because you fear the consequences, then you have to ask yourself whether the life you have chosen is really worth living. The moral of the story we have been considering is that saying no is not without its consequences, to be sure, but how much are you willing to sacrifice to be free?

Oh yes, the all the platitudes in this case are oddly enough true. There is no freedom without sacrifice, but the real question is what are you willing to wager in exchange? It's a tough question that demands a tough answer. When I look around, I can't say that I'm encouraged that there are very many who are really willing to make much of a sacrifice at all. You have to ask yourself nevertheless: what is freedom worth to you?

Should we duck for cover?

Stated in simplest terms, the story of Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden tells us that decisions have consequences. In other words, we're responsible for the consequences that result from the decisions we make. The important point, though, at least to my mind, is not the consequences, rather, we are allowed to decide.

You will recall that Adam & Eve were forbidden to eat of the fruit of that particular tree under penalty of death. This is, for most people, the most drastic consequence of all. I don't know many of us who would blithely do something that we could believe would bring us certain death. Nevertheless, these two naïve and innocent humans did just that. Sure, we could say they were stupid. No one in their right mind would have made that choice, but that's arguing from now back to then. Regardless of who wrote the story, s/he chose for them to choose. The story tells us that we are allowed to choose, even if the consequences of our choices may be dire. Adam & Eve are, at least to me, the two bravest souls who have ever been described in literature. They just didn't defy some gangland boss or police officer or high-ranking military person or king or emperor or head-of-state. No, these two took it upon themselves to defy the ultimate Creator of the whole universe. Whether you believe in Him or not, in the context of the story, it is clear: you don't get any more powerful that this.

I'm sure there are those of you who are thinking, well the Serpent tempted them, he led them astray. But again, I say this is a false displacement of responsibility. If you look at the story closely, the Serpent didn't lie: though the penalty of death stood over their action, he told them they wouldn't die, and he was right. It's not just a matter of whom you choose to believe. The Serpent could have been wrong. No, in the end, Adam & Eve chose. Adam & Eve were responsible for their actions, and it was them who took this responsibility upon themselves.

To me, that took a lot of guts. It's not everybody who is willing, or able, to make a decision like that. Saying "no", defying authority, is an act of courage. And regardless of what you may think about the One exercising His authority, he could have done away with them, but He didn't. What's more, I can't help but think that He was just a little bit proud of his creations in the end. Anyone who is a parent has been in a similar, but certainly less existentially significant situation. There is also a satisfaction in seeing that your progeny will not just take anything thrown at them, even if it is from you.

The question quickly presents itself though: is there enough of this in the world right now (or was there ever)? Have we learned the lesson ourselves?

Just a story?

The last thing I'm trying to do is instigate a theological debate. Stories like the one of the "Fall" can be used theologically, but they don't have to be. The stories, whether we like it or not, are part of our heritage and tradition, so simply ignoring them isn't wise either.

There are two issues involved here: one is purely theological, the other can be, but doesn't have to be. The former is, of course, the notion of "sin" in general, "Original Sin" in particular. As Rhett Butler so eloquently formulated it in Gone With the Wind: frankly, I don't give a damn. If you're not a follower of the affected religion, then it probably doesn't matter to you either, and to me, that's not the important issue in the story. No, the other, not-necessarily-theological issue is more interesting to me: were Adam & Eve in a position to defy G-d; did they defy G-d; did they have the ability to say "no"? The issue addressed here is anything but a simple one, for what we are talking about, at bottom, is the notion of Free Will.

This has been a hotly debated topic in more fields than just theology for longer than any of us can remember. Biologists, zoologists, anthropologists, ethnologists, sociologists, psychologists, and other students of human nature have definitely put in more than their two-cents' worth over the years. I'm not sure there is a definitive answer to the question, but as I read the story, we do, and that is not without its consequences. Let me tell you what I mean.

For the purposes of our discussion, it is relevant whether G-d knows what they will do, how they will decide. We're not looking at the story of evidence of G-d's intentions or omniscience or omnipotence, rather we are only concerned with our two human participants and what they do. Well, we know what they do: they eat of the fruit, even though the One "in charge" forbade them to do so. In other words, even expressed mundanely, they disobeyed. To me, this is the most important point in the story. We (humans) have the capacity, the ability, the obligation (?) to sometimes say "no", to sometimes say, "I'm not going to do what I'm told". Granted, the One in charge seemingly comes down on our two no-sayers like a ton of bricks, but to me this only says that there are consequences to our saying "no". It doesn't mean they are necessarily negative, just don't be surprised if they are. Does this mean that the story is telling us "don't say no, or you're in for big trouble"? Personally, I don't think so, but that's an issue that will have to wait until next time.

And what happened here?

Saying "no", at least in the sense I've been talking about it lately, is, in a manner of speaking, an act of defiance. This change of register (that is, using bigger words to describe everyday things), increases the significance of the thought. The issue now becomes one of how willing are we to defy authority. How far are we willing to go? Is it really an issue at all? I think it is.

Our Western tradition has handed a story down to us that deals with the notion of "defiance". At least one of the three western religions has even made it one of the centerpieces of its doctrinal canon. I'm talking about the story of "the Fall", as it is sometimes known, and the doctrine that has been built upon it is that of "Original Sin".

For those of you who tend to avoid traditional literature, allow me to give you a quick recap of the story: G-d creates the universe and within it there is a special place called the Garden of Eden. This is literally paradise on earth. In this garden, he places man (Adam) and woman (Eve). He then tells them they can more or less do what they want and eat what they want, except – and this is the key point – the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and this under penalty of death. All is well until an unnamed serpent appears and tells Eve who just happens to be in the vicinity that she really won't die if she eats of the fruit, so she does, and immediately turns around and gives it to Adam (who had to be near enough to hear everything) and he eats too. And that's when it happens ... bam! they realize they're naked, make themselves some makeshift clothes out of fig leaves, because, oddly enough, they're not dead.

OK, it's an abridged version, I'll grant you that, but the real question is: what happened here? Is this just another silly story? Is it some long-forgotten myth that was just a vain attempt to explain something that we humans didn't understand until we got smarter? What can be the possible value of a story like this one? And more: even if you are starting a religion, is this where you start? Did these two hapless souls defy G-d? Did they commit a sin?

I won't be able to answer all of these questions today, of course, but they really are worth thinking about. Regardless of how we feel about the use (or abuse) that has been made of the story, one valid point remains: it is one attempt we have made to explain to ourselves why we are as we are. And if for no other reason, it's worth thinking about. So think about it ... at least till next time.

What does it take?

Some of you may be a bit uneasy about changing the world at this point. It's very easy to do what's right when you don't feel under pressure, but bring up the "boss" and attitudes change quickly. I've seen it happen a thousand times. Now, I would be willing to bet that if I asked 100 of you how your relationship is to your boss, you'd tell me it was just fine. And I would also be willing to bet that in 90 of those cases, that would be a slight to significant distortion of the truth. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing anyone of lying. I'm merely suggesting that they're just being human.

How many of you (and how many of the people you know) are willing to admit they are in a subservient relationship? I don't do it willingly, I can assure you, and I don't consider myself all that out of the ordinary. I've been in relationships – most often work relationships – in which the "other", whomever s/he might be, took more liberties with their "authority", let us say, than was their due. Some people get off on being the boss, but that still doesn't give anyone the right to become abusive ... not even a little bit.

This is not only true of work relationships, but it's true of family relationships as well. How many of your parents demanded that you talk back to them? How many demanded of you to challenge their doling out of punishments? How many expected you to question their authority? Hmmm, I don't see a lot of hands up right now. And no, I'm not suggesting that it need to go that far. What I am suggesting though that each of us, especially those of us who have children or grandchildren, lead our young ones to a healthy degree of self-assertion and self-confidence. This doesn't always – in fact, it rarely – means defiance. It simply means being able to, having the courage to say "no."

This is one of the first things that all of learn, but it is the one thing that most of take the longest to learn how to it right. It's an essential part of growing up, though. And, it's an essential part of adult life as well. If you never learn to say "no", you can end up the abused spouse. If you never learn to say "no", you end up being other people's doormat. If you never learn to say "no", you will, in one way or the other, simply end up somewhere you don't want to be. What is worse, it will somewhere you don't need to be either.

Without aggravation

So now that you're well into giving your speech so much more meaning, it's time for everyone else to get on board. Some of your conversation partners will simply adjust to your new register. The are more people than you think who are sensitive to and even unconsciously willing to adapt to their environment. Of course, there are also the die-hards, those who believe that the only way to drive a point home is to ram it down someone else's throat.

We all know someone like this, don't we? One tactic would be to simply ignore them. You know, go out of your way to not have to talk to them, or at least not any more than is absolutely necessary. As a tactic it may work, but as a strategy, it's pretty useless. You can't avoid everyone like this forever, so it's worth your while to start wearing them down. It's like the old German saying goes: dripping water can hollow out the stone. And that's the approach you have to take.

Oh, right ... that involves patience. Ooops. OK, I realize that patience is really not many of ours' long suits. That's something you have to work at. Remember, I said it was all very simple, but I did warn you it wouldn't be easy. After all, it's difficult enough trying to be aware of the types of words you're using, but to start working on others? Right. But, it's not too much to ask. While you're doing your part to lessen tension in the world, it doesn't hurt to simply remind others of what they are doing to the conversation by their own choice of words. Like everything else we're saying, this can be said as directly and as clearly as anything else, and it really doesn't matter who you're talking to. If you can't ask your boss, for example, to be a little less aggressive toward you, then I suggest you rethink your employment situation. I mean, is your job worth abuse? I know mine isn't and I have no idea why I should voluntarily submit to behavior I wouldn't accept in any other circumstance.

You see, part of this program entails simply becoming more aware of what you do and how you do it and also what others do and how they do that as well. If someone else speaks to you aggressively and you respond, you've already signaled that you felt spoken to. How often are people being verbally aggressive simply out of frustration? If you suspect that's the case, why not bring it up? If we're actually going to communicate with one another, I think we need to realize it's a two-way street, and everyone needs to take just enough time and make enough effort to recognize that.

Without exaggeration

For those of you who are still doubting, you need to take a serious look at -- or better, give a serious listen to -- what's being said to you. It doesn't matter if it's a conversation you overhear on the street, a friend, your spouse, a relative ... it really doesn't matter. Just listen to the words they're using and regardless of the position they've taken, you'll get a feeling for their attitude toward whatever it is they're talking about. We can be secretive about a lot of things, but it's hard being secretive about how we feel.

We may not be able to do a lot about other people's attitudes, I know, but we can do something about our own. It's a lot simpler than you think, but it's not easy. This is one of those easier-said-than-done things. Still, all you have to do is change your vocabulary.

I'm not asking you change what you are saying, and I'm not asking you to change your position on anything. Just change how you say things. You can be just as direct in humane terms as you can by using aggressive vocabulary. Not immediately pointing out another's stupidity may even lessen the tension of the conversation, but it won't decrease it's intensity. If there's something to say, if there's something worth saying, it can be said kindly as well as aggressively. It can be honest without being brutal. It can be to-the-point without being in-your-face.

Of course, this all comes with a 30-day, free-trial, money-back guarantee.

Not only will you feel better about yourself and your contribution to the world (kinder words mean kinder actions), but you will slowly notice that others will notice as well. Your acquaintances, friends, and relatives will all be more than impressed by the new you. But what you'll also notice that your own head will start getting clearer. We have no idea how much aggravation, stress, and frustration cloud our thinking. If what you have to say has value, let the ideas speak for themselves, not the emotions. You should always say just what you mean and, naturally, also mean what you say. But how it's said can make much more of a difference than you may think.

Try it. I think you'll like it.

The language of the market

Have you noticed how commercial, how financial, how economic our language has become? I'm not talking about the simple fact that things like the stock market have their own shows when they really don't deserve to be talked about at all. No, I'm talking about the shift in tone, attitude, and impact that a general change in vocabulary brings with it.

For example, as noted last time, we don't talk about "careers" or even "employment" anymore, we only talk about "jobs". The first two terms has some longevity, some continuity to them, but the last one doesn't. Or how about a phrase like "ownership of learning"? What's owned? What was wrong with motivation? Everyone knows that to get ahead in life or to succeed anywhere, you have to "pay your dues". We no longer ask people to support our causes, we have to get them to "buy in". Goals have become "targets", effort is now an "investment". We don't give up, we "sell out". We no longer have people working for us, we have "human capital"; we no longer have reputations, we have "social capital". The most fundamental reason for something is now "the bottom line". Citizens have been reduced to "consumers". Schools and government agencies now have "customers" too. Is this really necessary?

The words we use, whether we like it or not, say more about us than most of us are aware. Our everyday discourse has been turned into an economic exchange. We have reduced our vocabulary, and consequently our thinking, to merely economic terms. Language, which was once considered a social medium, is now more of an economic medium: as I've said before, we gave up our society for an economy. I don't think it was a "good deal", it wasn't a step along the road to progress.

There is more to life than just money, and there is more to the interactions among human beings than the market. When we forget that, we run the risk of reducing everyone and everything to an object of exchange ... yes, an object ... a commodity, something that can be bought and sold like anything else. I once took silent and humble pride in the fact that I belonged to the species homo sapiens, the one creature on earth who not only knew about instinctual interaction but higher, nobler, more meaningful interactions as well. The biologists did their best to reduce us to just clever animals, but what's even worse is our degradation to the simplified, somewhat crippled homo economicus.

Our lives aren't the richer for it. There may be more money floating around than there once was, but there's no real indication that most of us are happier or really leading better, higher quality lives because of it. If it didn't work in economics where it had its greatest chance, why would we think that chasing after that less happy model in the other areas of our lives would have more success? Oh yeah, I forgot, we dropped that sapiens thing, didn't we?

2012 Reboot

Here we are, a week into the new year, and what has changed? Nothing really. Why should it have? We don't do the holidays like we should. We've forgotten some of the most important lessons we ever learned, or at least repressed them. I can't say we're all the better for it either, but we must make do, even with what we've got.

By all appearances, 2012 is going to be a challenging year. The Americans will be having elections; the Germans are squabbling over their Federal President; the English are trying to save their last "industry" financial services; the French are trying to save their banks; the Russians are trying to have a say, as are most of the Arab world; the Chinese are finally realizing capitalism isn't all it's cracked up to be. Oh yes, I think we've still got a lot of excitement in store for this year ... and we'll have to figure it all out fast if it's coming to an end next December. Those feisty Mayans ... what'll they think of next?

I was reminiscing this morning – a prerogative of folks my age – about the "old days". I'm not sure they were all that good, but they had one thing going for them: people used to work for a living. Remember that? Oh, it's not what you might be thinking. I'm not talking about the evils of the welfare state, on the contrary, I'm talking about the time when people were employed, maybe even had careers, and were halfway secure in thinking that they could support themselves and their families (i.e. live) from their work. There's not a lot of that around anymore, is there?

No, we traded in employment for "jobs": something we're required to do, for which we expect to get paid, but those who do the paying think this should be as low as possible. It doesn't matter if you can live from it or not. That's not the job-provider's problem, is it? I was wondering because in most of what I have to do at the training company I work for is to ensure that when people have taken our training, that in the end, they have a job. Our job, if you will, is to make these people "employable" ... whatever that means.

When I was growing up, even the service-station attendant could live a modest life from what he earned. Not only don't we have service-station attendants anymore, if we did, they certainly couldn't live from what they earned. That "lowest rung" in the worker's hierarchy has been raised above the reach of a lot of young people these days. Is it really because the "market" doesn't need them or want them, or is because we, "society", don't want them anymore? Or, who decided that it's OK not to be able to live even a modest life when working full-time? Was that the "market", too? And if it was, who put the "market" in charge?

A Christmas mystery

Our season of Christmas has now come and gone.
The mystery of thirteen that's twelve still belongs
to that which goes with us from year unto year
and the mystery inspires us to true hope and good cheer.

Today is Epiphany, the Day of Manifestation. It is a special day of the Christmas season, in fact a holiday in many places (like Spain where they exchange gifts today). According to the tradition, it was on this day that the Wise Men arrived at Bethlehem bringing their gifts to the baby Jesus. In more general terms, an epiphany is an awakening, a sudden perceptive insight into the true essence of a thing, usually triggered by some mundane, everyday event or situation.

Oddly, if we start counting on Christmas Day, which I've done, today is the 13th day, so why is it still part of Christmas. The connection with the Magi is clear, and which doctrines the Church has derived from this are well known, too. There's a bit of a mystery here, is there not? Since we started with the astronomical facts of the sun's descent into darkness, it is only fair to tell you something astronomical at the end of the season as well.

We're all aware there are twelve months in a year, right? That is twelve solar months. It takes the earth this long to revolve around the sun one time. Marking time by the sun is not a given, however, both the Jews and Moslems base their calendars on the moon, and given that Christianity itself is an outgrowth of Judaism, it seems only fair to include the moon in our thoughts as well. Truth be told, the moon only requires about 29.5 days to revolve around the earth, and that is the duration of a moon month. In other words, twelve solar months is equal to thirteen lunar months. Every year, astronomically, and mythologically, the thirteen becomes twelve.

This number symbolism is reflected in each of the three Western religions: we have the twelve tribes of Israel plus Moses, their leader; we have the twelve apostles plus Jesus; we have the twelve imams plus the Prophet Mohammed; that is, a circle of thirteen. One of the group always departs as well: Moses isn't allowed enter the Holy Land; Judas hangs himself; and one of the imams is hidden. The circle of thirteen manifests in the world as twelve. This same symbolism is reflected at this very special time of year as well.

This is a mere reminder of our own existence as well: we have a bright, external appearance as well as a darker, hidden internal nature. We are all truly part of the cosmos, a part of the world around us. How we function and what is hidden, what we share and what we retain is up to us. What we do and the impact we have resides in us. Since time immemorial we have been given the opportunity to figure out how things are and what part we are to play in the cosmic drama. Another round has passed. Are you better ready for that world?

Twelve drummers drumming

On the twelfth day of Christmas, endless joy does abound
and those we hold dear, we should gather around
to praise and be thankful for the blessing we live
and resolve in our hearts this to others to give.

So, who is ready to make the leap? Who is make the effort to just get back to basics? Though today might be the (almost) last day of Christmas, it still isn't too late.

But perhaps I should ask the real question: who has the courage to make the change? It is easy to sit back and talk about getting together, and it is not the biggest challenge we face to be a bit more open and communicative with our families. It's a nice start, but it's just that: nice, and a start. Yes, it's technically true that even the smallest change is movement toward change, but such small, individual, even familial changes are not all that enduring. Bigger change needs a bigger effort, and bigger efforts require a bigger dose of courage. It's not enough that we decide to change for ourselves, we have to take that change out into the world.

Why is it that most of us are too hesitant to bring this kind of change to the world? Why do we shy away from suggesting, perhaps even insisting on, cooperation instead of the standard, brutal, self-defeating competition? Each one of us needs to answer this question for him or herself, no doubt about it, but I think it has something to do with simply being afraid.

Most of us know the bully, the loudmouth, the cocky, self-convinced "winner", the alpha-types, the … well, you can fill in the blank. And most of us know at least one, if not more, of these types who is simply acting that way to cover over a terrible inferiority complex. In the "game" (where all this competition takes place), it's easy to be someone else: the go-getter, the doer, the mover, the shaker, the one always chasing after the "prize", however we may imagine that prize to be. But the more time you spend looking for other things, the less time you have to find yourself. Anyone, with a little effort, can play a role, what takes much more confidence and self-assurance to be yourself. As they say, you just can't talk the talk, to be you, you have to walk the walk as well.

One of the by-products of this time of year is the opportunity to go within, to take a deep, hard look at ourselves, not in terms of pre-set goals, hopeful ambitions, or personal accomplishments. All of those are changing and fleeting. The only prize worth claiming, in the end, is your True Self, and it was this admonishment that was inscribed across the portal to the Temple of Delphi in Ancient Greece: know thyself. By the way, and just in case you were wondering, you're not going to find yourself by just looking in your head. No, instead, look deep into your Heart. That's where you'll have a much greater chance of succeeding.

Eleven pipers piping

On the eleventh day of Christmas, we yearn even more
for the wonder that's coming, that approaches the door.
We make our hearts ready, and hope we're prepared
for the gifts that the Other again with us shares.

The Christmas season, the time between the years, is a wonderful opportunity that most of us let slip by year after year. It is too easy to get caught up in the hectic, the commercialism, and the celebrating. Let's face it: resisting is practically futile, given that the advertising and marketing assault starts earlier and earlier each year. If there ever was "proof" that we have exchanged our society for an economy, it's Christmas. Of course, it needn't be that way. Oh sure, it takes a good deal of effort, but I'm sure there is not a one of us who has not uttered that plea of desperation: "It just can't go on like this!" at one time or another. But to do that, we are going to have to change and therein lies the rub.

Who wants to change? We think it's great when others do. In fact, we're generally very much in favor of that. One of the points that I've been trying to get across the past two weeks, though, is that we're in this all together, and because we are, each of us has to do our part to make things different. Nothing will ever change if we refuse to change ourselves. And, we can never change ourselves until we change the way we think.

In the English-speaking world, we learn that John the Baptist, the precursor to the one whose birth is the center of the celebrations this time of year, admonished us to repent. What most folks don't know is that in the original Greek text, that's not the word that he used. No, good ol' John was crying metanoeite which means more "change your mind", "change the way you think". Now, as then, we are being called upon to re-evaluate just how it is we are looking at the world around us. We are being asked to re-examine whether what we think is the best we can do. We are being challenged to not just take care of business as usual. No, if we change the way we think, we actually change the world.

I know you have all heard all of this before. I never claimed to be saying anything new. My job, as I understand it, is simply to remind us of what it is we already know and what we may have forgotten in the hustle and bustle of everyday life. And it's because of that turmoil that we should really make the effort, at least once during the year, to stop, look, and listen to what is going on around us, to slow down long enough to engage someone else, to talk, to be together, to reflect, to reconsider, and maybe even re-think a few things. This is what the turn of the year, the end-of-year celebration, should be about.

Ten lords-a-leaping

On the tenth day of Christmas, our thoughts look ahead
toward the end of the season, and what has been said
about goings and comings and why there's a time
in each mundane year that may still be sublime.

If it is so obvious that "we" is more important than "me", and if it is so apparent that no one really gets to where they are (positively or negatively) without lots and lots of help from others, and if it is clear that the very notion of a self-made person is fundamentally flawed, why do we insist upon believing it? These are very strong, very pervasive and very persistent fictions, but we as a society, that is, we in the West, particularly America, have absolutely not problem accepting them not only as "true", but as givens, as if this is how the world actually works. Don't you find that strange? I do.

On Facebook and in my browsings elsewhere, I see a lot of ranting and raving about how silly it is to believe in things that are patently not true (like Santa Claus) or that have been "utterly refuted" (whatever that means, like the myth of Jesus or religion). Could it be that we have simply exchanged on "religion" for another? What I have also noticed is that there are widespread, impassioned pleas for rationality, as if this were a value in itself. How many of us have stopped to ask what "rational" really is?

The word derives from the Latin ratio, which has something to do with procedures, systems and ordering, but fundamentally it is a manner of separating, of dividing one thing from another. We see this in our English word "ratio" which expresses a proportion (e.g. ¼, that is one part of four). While dividing, sifting and sorting are extremely helpful skills, they are not the only ones that we should develop. We need to be even more adept at putting things together, of synthesizing, generating, and creating as well. If we extoll the dividing side, the ratio, we neglect the producing side. We become – pretty much as we are in general – unbalanced.

No, what I would make a plea for is creative-reasonable thought, or reasonably creative thought. Rational thought is not the epitome of thought, it is simply one of many kinds of thought. Over the course of human history, we have had other dominant types of thinking, to be sure. Rational thought is merely the last in a long line of them, and not necessarily the most advantagous generally speaking. You see, at times, it may be worth our while to even think about thinking itself.

That's another reason why this time of year is not only special but important. It is a time for us to exercise our minds in other ways, in positive, other-oriented, creative, and even magical and mythical ways. All of these kinds of thinking are part of who we are as human beings, and it seems such a waste to devote our time and energy to such a limited part of who we can be. But, you have to be open to it … to the possibilities these kinds of thoughts can bring and to the Spirit of the Season which is just another way of saying the same thing.

Nine ladies dancing

On the ninth day of Christmas, it's time to begin
reflecting on what gifts the new year may bring
but reflection is one thing, another to care
what gifts that we have and with others will share.

What I hope has been becoming clearer over the past week or so is that what is important to us was important to our forebears, that what is essential for us has not changed all that much over the years, that the intangible, feeling-based parts of life are just as existentially significant now as they have ever been. What has changed over the course of human development has not been so much our needs, wants and desires, but rather how we express them and how we think about them.

Though people have generally always been people, how we see and understand the world around us has changed. The early stories surrounding this time year were clothed in stories of light and warmth, in myths of sun-related, larger-than-life figures, but most of that has faded into the commercialist background of Santa Claus and economic stimulation. The meaning that those stories was held has become pale through lack of use. In other words, as the expression of what lies beneath and behind the stories has changed, we have changed the content itself. We moderns feel we have outgrown the childish stories of the path, but all that has happened is that we have cut ourselves off from our roots and prevented that we ever really grow up.

This time of year was established to remind us of how much we need one another to survive. And that hasn't changed over the almost two million years of proto-human and human history. There is no lone wolf, for wolves are pack animals. There is no individual apart from the group of which s/he is a part. We don't succeed on our own – though we have to do our part, no argument there – but rather through the help and support of others. These are human universals and it is time that we started admitting that trying to eliminate this part of our nature is not making us more human, rather it de-humanizes us.

We are confronted with a number of existentially serious issues: the climate/environment, the destabilizing of the eco-sphere; the exhaustion of resources, the overproduction of waste; the divide between the have's and have-not's, the dangerous inequality between rich and poor; the proliferation of violence on all levels (not just war, but crime rates, child abuse, mental disturbances, brainwashing, and more); the spread of disease and inhuman living conditions (it should matter if anyone starves to death on this planet). These affect us all, regardless of their causes, regardless of how they came to be issues. They are all issues in which we, human beings, have had a hand in creating. And it is for that very reason that it is up to us to do something about them. Yes, US, not the people across the street, or some foreigners in some faraway place, us. You, me, everybody you know, everybody I know, and everybody that they all know and beyond. Once again, it becomes clear: "we" is more important than "me".

Eight maids-a-milking

On the eighth day of Christmas, the year becomes new.
We wonder, resolve what we're going to do
in the time that's before us, how little we know
that the fire now within us will be barely a glow.

Happy New Year! The Eighth Day of Christmas is a new beginning. The new year has begun. Oh, how we love new beginnings, a fresh start, another chance ... . And we should. It's never too late. Old dogs, new tricks, it doesn't matter. You're never too old to learn, to grow, to change, to start over.

It comes at an odd place, though, two-thirds of the way through the season. We humans like symmetry, so why not have the new year start in the middle? Why is it off-center? Given that the solstices (beginning of winter and summer; shortest and longest days of the year) and equinoxes (beginning of spring and fall; equally long days and nights) all occur about two-thirds of the way through their respective months perhaps it is just fitting that the change of year be placed there as well. Or could it be that the last in the long line of figures whose birth is honored at this time of year, Jesus, is of Jewish descent and consequently would have been circumcised on this day? Oh, I know thoughts like that make some people uncomfortable, but this day would be, as it is for us today, a day of celebration. That's all I'm saying.

OK, it's not all I'm saying. My intent throughout these past few days has been to get you thinking differently about something as everyday as Christmas. Let's face it, Christmas is a pretty secular holiday and the ideas of having and money abound around this time of year. It wasn't the original intent of the holiday, as we have seen, and it could do us just a little good to stop and reflect on the state of things, perhaps because it would be worth shifting our attention just a little. As it is, we're on autopilot most of the time. We are so full of ourselves and our own cultural and social norms that we fail to recognize that others can and do see the world quite differently from us. Sure, we know that Asia starts their year at a different time and that certain religions have selected other days for their new year, but ours is the one that starts now and it is this one we would be best served to devote our attention to.

What all cultures have in common though, and what is probably the human element of it all is that new years mean new chances. We can't and shouldn't just drag all our shame, guilt and misdeeds with us forever. We should have the opportunity to be just a little sorry for our behavior and maybe, just maybe, to ask those we've offended for some heartfelt forgiveness. If we did, the new year would truly be new. It's not so much that we should add an additional burden on ourselves, say, in the form of some new year's resolution we know we won't keep, but rather, we should maybe just try being a little more thoughtful, a little more considerate of others, and a little kinder to those who share the world with us. You'd be surprised how much of a difference it can make.