Wrong? Wrong.

Once again, it all seems so very simple. Most of us don't know who we are, who the others are, what they want or what we want. We have our heads filled with other people's ideas and lose sight of who we are ourselves and why we might even be here to begin with. Granted, all of these "problems", if that's what you want to call them, are not of the simple kind, and the answers to the questions they raise are not always comfortable either.

Some psychologists say we're simply running from ourselves, and while it may not be absolutely true, there is a certain relative truth to it still. We all lead overly hectic lives, lives of non-stop whatever: work, activities, events, lunches, social events, home repairs, car repairs, children's activities, parents' night, Sunday school, church, sports events ... the list just goes on and on and the fuller our lives become, the emptier everything seems to be. We go off in search of more and more, never satisfied and never content. We're tired, worn out, run down, stressed, and in the end, depressed. Oh what a wonderful life we've made for ourselves.

The simplicity of the solution is baffling: we've fallen victim to quantity, we have no understanding of quality; it's not just that less is more, rather at bottom we have to be different. And there we have the rub. That's what we ultimately fear the most (other than death, I suppose, but we'll leave that to Heidegger): ourselves. I think we're so adamant about what we "believe" because we know, deep down, we don't know what to believe anymore, we're simply afraid that what we've been led to believe really doesn't have the value we were told it had. Welcome to modern life.

Yes, in the end, it's all so very simple. There is no leader, no political party, no company, no organization, no club, no group, no movement that is going to save you from yourself. What the deluded rugged individualists have right is that when all is said and done, it's just you; you are all you have to fall back on. What they have absolutely wrong is that it ends there. The fact that in the end there is only us is what each and every one of us on this planet have in common.

What we have in common should bring us together not drive us apart. We should find comfort in the fact that everyone else is really not so different from ourselves. If we don't - and apparently we don't - all that's holding us back is fear. Fear that we're not who or what we think we are. What we should know, however, is that we are not really different than anyone else. If you ever want to get over your fears, you have to face them.

Wrong? Right.

Did you give it any thought? Did you take a moment and think about what you really think about other people? I doubt it, to be perfectly honest, even if I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's face it: we don't like to think about what we think, most likely because we'd realize what it is and how silly it is as well.

Aristotle once quipped that the unexamined life is not worth living, but we've spent millennia trying to show him he had no idea what he was talking about, but to no avail. If our lives were all so worth living, why are we obviously trying to kill ourselves in so many slow and painful ways? OK, the world-war thing was a bit more active, I'll grant you that, but when that didn't work, it seems we resorted to more torturous means.

For you humanists out there, the behavior we see is that of the most highly evolved creature on the planet; for you fundamentalists, we're talking about the pinnacle of Creation. In either case, it's a pretty sad state of affairs. Really. The world we've made around us is the best we can do? We're (and I mean each and every one of us) all being all we can be? I don't think so. I think we're making a pretty sad showing. We'd better hope their aren't aliens out there observing us. This is pretty embarrassing behavior we putting on display.

Yes, you are perfectly correct in observing that I'm not sounding very optimistic about us as a species. I'm not. I think it's sad that the best we have to show for ourselves is envy, distrust, anger, and aggression. Oh ... sorry ... I forgot greed. Can't forget greed, you know. Or maybe you can: what is most obvious is what we take least notice of. We just assume that's the way things are.

Which brings me back to last-time's Menschenbild: did you think about it? I doubt it, to be perfectly honest, even if I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. No, that would require effort, to begin with, and what would happen if we found out that what we think of others isn't in line with everything else we think we believe? Right: that's the guaranteed beginning of a psychological crisis, and we wouldn't want another one of those now, would we? No, I don't think so.

No, the world is simply a terrible and violent place; one we'd like nothing more than to get away from. Our own interests are OK, those people we like are OK, most of the family can be tolerated, but other than that, well, there are just too many people thinking too many weird things. At least I'm different, you are thinking. And you're glad you're just you ... even if you are like everybody else.

Right? Wrong.

Was the last post a little depressing for you? Good. It should have been. We're the only species that knows what a free lunch is, but we can still screw it up. Why is that?

I suppose the answer to that question depends on what you think we are - as a species - or why we might even be here, or whether there's a purpose to all of this, or perhaps whether it doesn't matter in the end at all.

The Germans have a word that I just love (well, they have a number of words I love, but this is really one of my favorites): Menschenbild. A Mensch is a person; a Bild is a picture, so in simplest terms its a picture of persons; that is, it's our view (and understanding) of what a person really is, what makes a human being a human being. It's our view of what people essentially are.

Be honest. Most of you have never stopped to think about it. Oh sure, I'm convinced that every single one of you has a Menschenbild, and I'm guessing it's pretty much your own. I'm also just as sure that you have no idea how you got it, when you developed it, or why it is the way it is, but you have one nevertheless. What's so fascinating about taking a foreign-language approach to something you take for granted is the fact that it can get you looking at something quite everyday in a new light. Having a word, a concept, to describe it, it's very simple to ask someone, So, what's your Menschenbild? Have you ever thought about the answer? You should.

Why? Because no matter what it is, that Menschenbild of yours, it determines, forms, shapes, colors, and influences every single action you take when dealing with another human being. Now, I'm not talking about some grand or grandiose image of the meaning of humanity. No, I'm simply talking about what you think makes a person and why. We all have such an image, but we don't all know how we got the one we have, nor why we have it, and most importantly, just what an important role in our lives that image plays.

For some of you we're all sinners, for others selfish, greedy grubbers; for some we're all deep down fundamentally good, for others fundamentally bad. If you've never thought about it, maybe you should. You'd be surprised what might come of it. Your Menschenbild lies behind all your dealings with every other human being, and for that reason, it's worth knowing what it is. More importantly, though, whatever it is says more about you than anyone else.

Right? Right.

It's fairly obvious that there are a number of things that bother me. Little things perhaps. Or, maybe, not so little things. I think you'll have to grant me that I do think about a number of things, and this perhaps more than is really good for me, but it's hard not to.

For as long as I can remember, I've wondered why we have so many problems. For longer than I care to remember, it seems that things are just getting worse. To be perfectly honest, I don't know why. I have my suspicions, and I'm sure a lot of other folks have their suspicions too. Yet, in the end, it's just damn hard finding someone you can actually talk to about anything. I think that's sad.

Let me phrase the "problem" a little differently. If we're so smart, if we're so advanced, if we're so technologically savvy, if we're so insightful, if we're so on top of things, why do we have so many problems to begin with? Everywhere you look things seem to be broken: banks, schools, politics, government, law, corporations, work in general, child rearing ... and the list just goes on and on. Why is that? Why can't we get anything to work?

Is it really because life is so complex? I don't think so. Complicated ... I might be able to buy that, but complex? Nah. Is it because crazy ideas are being propagated at an frightening rate; that is, ideas like radical, religious fundamentalism, neo-liberal economics, or neo-conservative politics? There have always been differing ideas on how the world should be interpreted and understood, so why should it be different now? Granted, we have tools and instruments that can cause a lot more damage than those of by-gone days: biological and chemical agents, nuclear bombs, high explosives that people are willing to strap to their bodies, drones, fragmentation rounds, chemical and biological agents, and people willing to strap this stuff to their bodies. A bit extreme, don't you think?

No, I suspect we cant's get our stuff together is simply because we don't want to. We're tired of it all and just can't seem to get out of it. Last century, we tried violent mass suicide - twice (the two world wars), and when that didn't work, we tried to deep freeze ourselves (Cold War), and failing that, we've tried poisoning ourselves (pesticides, GMC, pollution), ruining the climate (global warming, crop failures) perhaps hoping to starve ourselves to death, and we even sabotaged the financial system (I think in the hopes there would be enough personal suicides to get the wave really going). And nothing seems to work. We're still here, we've still got the same old problems, and we're not one step closer to a solution to any of them than we were when we first came down out of the trees.

You know what I think? I think we're simply a pretty disappointing species ... as far as species goes. What do we really have to show for all our supposed talents and abilities. Not a whole helluva lot, if you ask me. I think we're right to want to pack it in. The trouble is, we can't even get that right.

The courage to be foolish

Yes, I know, I'm being foolish. Expecting folks not to be afraid is just plain silly. I know most of you are saying to yourselves, "I have no idea what he's talking about. I'm not afraid of anything." You couldn't be more wrong. Take this scenario:

In just under three weeks Americans are going to go to the polls. Most of you, I'm sure have already made up your minds how you're going to vote, simply because - as I said before - you're afraid to vote differently. Seriously. I know there are a lot of you voting for Romney because you don't like or want Obama. Mitt, however, is heartless, cruel, mean, deceiving, conniving, and ruthless. He has no idea what he's talking about, I have no idea what he stands for (other than money and moneyed interests) and his running mate is every bit as bad, if not worse. I also know there are a lot of you voting for Obama, because you don't like or want Romney. Obama, however, is weak, ambivalent, misguided, deceiving, conniving and, in domestic policy, at least, ruthless. He does know what he's talking about, but I'm only sort of clear on what he stands for, and his running mate is harmless. I don't think I need to remind you all that neither of these descriptions are reasons to vote.

Granted, the Republicans are trying to make an unreasonable voting system even more unreasonable with this whole ID thing that has no basis in reality, and there are some of you who are even contemplating - perish the thought! - voting for a third party candidate, just to protest. And that, my dear friends, is about as courageous as the American voting public will become. In the secrecy of the voting booth, they'll pull the lever for someone else. But to what avail? None.

Regardless of how the election turns out, it will be the people who "wasted their votes" that will have screwed everything up, just like Nader was accused of in 2000. First, we have to realize that the very concept of "wasting a vote" only exists in America, and it is far from the concept of "democracy" as you can get. So, here's my suggestion, here's how you make your wasted vote count:

Vote for Mickey Mouse. Write him in on the ballot. It's that simple. Let's face it, he gets votes in every election anyway, but never enough to get electoral votes to really make a difference (because, remember, Americans aren't even trusted to elect their own president ... how insulting is that!). So here's your chance. Forget the Greens, the Libertarians, the Socialist Workers. Rally for Mickey Mouse! Take a stand, show the system how silly it really is and for once in your life, cast a vote of which the system is worthy. Why? Because if you all did it, you'd finally get the much-needed discussion started to get things sorted reasonably. Maybe, just maybe, you could even turn your electoral system into a democratic one.

But, I know that most of you just don't have the courage, so you'll bow your head, lower your eyes, "do the right thing" (which in this case is wrong), and pull the lever for who you believe is the least of all evils. But remember, that's still choosing evil. You need courage to face up to evil ... or are you just too afraid?

Mongers

I'm sure there are some of you who are upset right now. Good. I'm sure there are some of you who don't feel you've been spoken to. Not so good. And, I'm sure there are some of you who don't know how you feel about any of this at all. Bad. Sooner or later you have to wake up and put the old brain in gear.

Don't get me wrong. I know exactly how difficult it is to be courageous when faced with the violence that civil authorities can bring to bear. And more importantly, what will the neighbors think if you get picked up somewhere for dissenting? Yes, we shouldn't forget the neighbors.

As far as I'm concerned, the biggest cause of violence in the West -- especially in the US, but elsewhere, like Spain or Greece recently -- is fear. The government is afraid of the people. The people are afraid of their governments. How sad is that in 21st-century, allegedly democratic societies? The problem in America is compounded by the fact that there are almost as many weapons in private hands as there are private hands. There are a lot of guns and a lot of potential for violence, even if it may be in some way in self-defense. No, with so many guns and so many people on edge, I think everyone has every right to be just a tad uneasy. No, they have every right to be downright afraid. Fear is our biggest enemy.

I'm not the first to say this (nor will I be the last) and a friend of mine recently nailed it in his blog, too. We're being told to fear everything: authorities, others, strangers, illegal immigrants (legal immigrants will soon follow, believe me), radicals, extremists (especially religious ones), and the list goes on and on. Why? It really doesn't take all that much effort to turn just about anyone or anything we don't particularly care for into some kind of bogeyman. That's that way were raised, I suppose. Be afraid of whatever it is you don't know. We didn't do anything else our parents told us, but that ... well, we probably learned that lesson all to well. The one lesson that wasn't worth learning at all.

Most often, we're afraid of whatever we don't know ... the unknown. The easiest way to overcome that particular fear is to get to know whatever it is that is unknown to us. Instead of simply rejecting things out of hand because we're afraid of what we might find (what happens if what we envision to be so "bad" turns out not to be bad at all ... or even worse, what if we find out we like it?). The solution is easy: stop, look, listen (just like crossing the street, remember?) and when in doubt, ask. It really is time we got serious about being critical. The only thing you have to lose is your fear.

Courage? Right.

There are a few brave souls out there who will think seriously about thinking critically, but they are a dwindling majority. Most of you are thinking to yourselves, "Yes, what's wrong with those cowards who won't take a stand for tomorrow?", whereby you who are thinking this may be the most to blame. Just how critical is your own thinking? Have you ever really tested it? And if you have, have you done so publicly? I think most likely not. Don't get me wrong: I'm not accusing anyone of cowardice, but I know how most of you are feeling. Yeah, but ... and it's always the "but" that gets you and it's where you end up getting kicked as well.

Take this freak show going under the guise of a presidential campaign: How many of you have already made up your minds? Good. Now how many of you have thought about something substantial in making that decision? Right. Now, for all of you who have made substantial decisions, have you seriously investigated any of Romney's policies? I doubt it, because if you did, you'd find out he really doesn't have any. He campaigns well enough against Obama, but he is as backhanded as they come. Or, for you Obama fans: have you seriously thought about his policies or are you just against Romney? Probably not. Our proud Nobel Prize winner has as much guilt on his conscience as the war-mongers of Bush II & Co. Why is none of this an issue?

It is an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person that the best you can do is put up these two guys and then expect that the world take you seriously. Is that the best you can do? Obviously, because that's who you've got. The only folks who got close to getting it were the Occupy crowd, and we all saw what happened to them. Legitimate dissent will be crushed - literally crushed - by the powers-that-be. Police departments ... yes, police departments ... are buying mid-sized armor and drones, for crying out loud. The police, mind you. Bloomberg even brags about having one of the world's largest armies, and he's talking about NYPD. Tell me that's not downright bizarre.

And every single one of you who found a rationalization for this, everyone who thinks that you have do something before things get out of hand ... well, you guys are not thinking critically. In fact, you're not thinking at all. All that America seems to know anymore, all that America is being seen for anymore, is the amount and intensity of violence they are willing to perpetrate on themselves. We already know they are not overly sensitive to inflicting it also on others.

Might does not make right. Never has, never will. What is right can only be determined by thinking people debating serious ideas, and you can't get to serious ideas without questioning what is. I hear a lot of saying, but as good as no questioning at all.

The courage to educate

Picking up on the theme from the time-before-last, let me just say that school choice is a red herring. All that I can advise any of you is to follow the money. I mean, if you want you children to be a certain way and you find a school that will make them that way, well, then I suppose you are perfectly free to put them there. But it's really just a form of child abuse. Harsh words? Not really. Think about it.

Let's say you're one of those parents who believes the Creationists. It's your right as an adult, but at some point, whether you like it or not, your child has to go out into the world and live on its own, makes his or her own living. You can hide the child away until well into their 20s, maybe even 30s, but then? OK, you're safe if you stay in America where such nonsense is not only tolerated, but promoted, and then? Whether we like it or not, we live in an increasingly globalized world and sooner or later your child is going to have to face the world. What have you done to prepare them for that? Nothing. In fact, you may have lessened the child's real-world survival skills, and why should you get tax dollars for that?

Or, what about you supposedly upward-mobile types. You're betting the bankers and rich folk are going to get away with it in the future like they have in the past. I have the feeling that this isn't where the smart money is. No, those with the money are doing everything they can to ensure that you folks are firmly entrenched between them and the unwashed masses. When it gets down to it, they'll be in the Caymans, you'll be here and your kids ... well, they won't know how to think for themselves or do much of anything for themselves because you've just brainwashed them a different way.

Personally, I think we should give kids a chance, the chance to be themselves, to become what they might be able to be, not what we want. The leading cause of screwed up kids is screwed up parents. Period. But it takes courage to be a real parent, just like it takes courage to be a real teacher, but we're doing everything in our power to ride those types out of town on a rail. If we want to have a chance in the future, and if we want our children to have a chance at all, then we have to have the courage to raise them to be able to survive on their own ... not just physically, not just socially, but mentally as well.

We need to be teaching our children to think, and the most effective way to do that, IMNSHO, is to teach them to question. They need to be able to ask the tough questions that need to be answered if we're going to get anywhere any time soon. But, as the story of Socrates shows us all too well, those who question will question authority, and authority, by and large doesn't like being questioned. This is so because at bottom it knows that it is in place not because it deserves to be but because it exerts enough force to be there. Questioning people tend to unmask force's inadequacies, and we can't be having that, can we?

True parents, true teachers allow their authority to be questioned because they know that the only true authority is that which can withstand the scrutiny of the most penetrating questions. They are not afraid of what might be found. They have the courage to educate.

A brief pause for peace

You'll forgive me if I switch the subject briefly. I'm not generally one to follow current events in detail, for nothing all that out-of-the-ordinary ever happens, but now that something has, I think I should at least acknowledge it. The Nobel Peace Prize has only been awarded to organizations 24 times; that is, it is not an everyday occurrence. (You can find a list here.) This year it was the European Union. Being a resident of this Union, I'd like congratulate it on its accomplishments.

It is clear to me that many of my fellow country-people will be scoffing at this. (If the awardee is an American scientist (or in a pinch, a foreign-born scientist working in America), the committee is spot on; if it isn't, well, they just hand the damn things out to anybody, right?) This is because, like so many people, they don't understand what the EU is nor what it means.

There are those who maintain that it has been the American military that has brought peace to Europe, but this is a superficial and rather meaningless assumption. Ever since the fall of the Soviet Empire (brought on more from within than without) there's been no need to have that military here, nor does NATO serve any reasonable purpose anymore. You can't fight ideas with bombs and bullets, though you'd never know that looking at current American foreign policy. It is also not the EU which is the object of abhorrence envisioned by extremists. Why might that be? Let's face it, Europe, the EU, is far from perfect, but what do they have, what ideal do they embody that might have moved the Nobel committee to make the decision.

Think about it: currently 27 member countries plus 5 already approved for entry plus 2 who have asked to be considered; 3 countries in the EFTA working in close cooperation; 23 official languages (growing to at least 28 in the foreseeable future, of which German is spoken by more people than any other single language (approx. 18%) and the biggest working language, English, is used in some form by just slightly more than half of the 300+ million population); and currently no "government" in the traditional sense of the word. What is more, there is every indication that more countries would like to join than leave: 47 countries have signed up to the Bologna Accords providing guidance to higher education, and 52 countries participate in the annual European Song Contest. Europe, it would seem is simply in the process of being "defined."

It may sound strange to those countries who are much more monolithic in culture, language, and political orientation, but what makes Europe Europe is not a geographic definition, nor an imposed political doctrine, nor a strong leader or government, and especially not a flag or hollow other symbols of a forgotten unity. No, Europe is a shared ideal. It is very different from person to person, that's for sure, but that only contributes to its richness. So, how do we manage to get it to work at all?

In my mind, there's only one way and it's the one I see every day: togetherness. Yes, an appreciation of diversity and a willingness to share, a larger-than-life portion of tolerance, and a shared belief that a cooperative future has much more going for it than a strictly competitive one.

I, for one, am very pleased with the Committee's decision this year. I think it was an excellent choice.

Better schools?

The question that immediately springs to mind in response to the critical-thinking dilemma is whether schools are the answer ... or at least the start toward a solution?

The short answer is "no". The somewhat extended answer is "no, not in their present form". Well, the answer then must be simply more choice in selecting schools, right? No, wrong again.

Though some of even labeled this the "paradigm shift in education", it's nothing of the sort, because this pseudo-answer is that other schools are by nature good. They aren't. Charter schools, elite schools, prep schools, expensive schools ... it doesn't matter what you call them, in the end, they are just schools and the quality of a school is not to be found in it's tuition price tag, nor even in its reputation.

As long ago as 1906, William Graham Sumner, in his seminal work, Folkways clearly showed that schools tend to serve the rather uncritical function of social indoctrination. He wrote:

Schools make persons all on one pattern, orthodoxy. School education, unless it is regulated by the best knowledge and good sense, will produce men and women who are all of one pattern, as if turned in a lathe. An orthodoxy is produced in regard to all the great doctrines of life. It consists of the most worn and commonplace opinions which are common in the masses. The popular opinions always contain broad fallacies, half-truths, and glib generalizations (p. 630).

The only difference school choice may make at all is regarding which particular flavor of social indoctrination you prefer. But, then, we are simply back to the "yes" answer to question 3 of yesterday's quiz.

No, we do need a paradigm shift (if not more) in education, but I'm not sure we're ready for it. And one thing is particularly clear: those who think the revolution is in the choice, really don't want a shift at all.

A little quiz

Time for a little quiz, if you're game. It's simple, just answer the following five questions with either "yes" or "no":

Do you ...

1. consider yourself reasonably well informed?
2. get most of your news from trusted sources?
3. prefer talking with people who think like you?
4. believe a good many of our problems can be solved?
5. feel fairly sure about what our problems are?

There, that didn't hurt did it? So what's the catch? Oh, yes. Well, if you answered either question 1 with "no" or any of the remainder of the questions with "yes". You're part of the problem. You exhibit sheep-like tendencies, or, if that's too harsh a judgment, you have underdeveloped critical-thinking skills. (Better?)

One of the reasons why things these days see one-sided or simply out of balance is because that's exactly what they are: one-sided and out of balance. It never ceases to amaze me how, say, prior to an election, and even prior to the actual candidates having been selected, for example, people know how they are going to vote. How does that work? If things are that predictable, hasn't it crossed your mind that perhaps the whole voting exercise is not all it's cracked up to be?

This isn't a purely American phenomenon, don't get me wrong. Oh sure, as in so many cases, the Americans like to be #1, and they're probably doing it best at the moment, but there are just too many people who aren't doing their share of thinking. There's too much acceptance, not enough questioning.

Ah, yes, questioning. We certainly don't do a lot of that anymore, and from what I can tell, it's not being taught in a lot of schools either. Information is king these days, not asking whether the information being funneled into our heads or the heads of our children is worth anything.

It's going to come back to haunt us, I can tell you, and I'd be willing to bet sooner, rather than later, and we're not going to like it when it happens.

Maybe we've got it backwards

It has struck me over the last couple of posts that I may be onto something, but unfortunately only why all of this may be so hard to get. In my mind, it's all pretty clear. We've got to do things differently from how we normally go about doing them. We sometimes need to say "no" instead of "yes", and we simply just can't take everything that's thrown at us. More importantly, though, we also need to get away from saying what it is we want, to talking more with others about what we don't want.

If how we've been brought up is wrong, and if the way we're trimmed in school is not right, and if there is something to the notion of the via negativa, then it would seem to me that, well, we've simply got it backwards.

Almost 30 years ago, I had what some would call a peak experience. I was studying New Testament theology (in Germany) and we were discussing the accuracy of translation. The passage we were looking at was when John the Baptist was running around admonishing everyone to "repent". Luther translated this into German as "kehr um", literally, "turn around". It was like someone hit me with a ton of bricks.

What John was harping about and what Luther apparently was trying to get across is that we have to go about things differently than we're used to. The word in Greek that we have to deal with is μετανοεῖτε (metanoeite), which literally means as much as "change your mind", that is, change your way of thinking.

I'm sure this isn't the first time the idea has appeared on the human scene. What got me, though, was just how long it's been around. OK, it was new to me when I stumbled across it, but it wasn't new in any absolute sense. Granted, there are any number of possibilities regarding what is the precise translation of the word, but this is one of those places I'm going with William of Occam: simpler is better. Drop all the theology, the religious overtones, the club that's been used to beat in I don't know how many heads: change your mind, change the way you think ... if you do, the world will change.

Oh, I know. It's hard to break old habits, but everybody has to start somewhere. Start small. Start with yourself, above all. Don't expect of others what you're not willing to do yourself. If you want others to be flexible and open, start being open and flexible with yourself. So, here's my suggestion for getting started: stop telling folks what you know, stop making statements about how things are, stop lecturing. Instead, just starting asking questions. You'll be surprised how liberating it is.

How do you get what you don't want?

We're brought up wrong. We're told from as early as we can remember that we should learn to please others, to obey, to conform, to fit in, to not make waves, to ..., well, you get the picture. This is not to say - and I'm back to that either-or thing - that we should tick others off, disobey, be non-conformist out of principle, make waves. No, it's not either one way or the other. The Golden Mean lies somewhere in-between.

Life's analog, not digital. There are shades of pleasing and displeasing ... there are decisions to be made like obeying authority or one's conscience ... if the range of acceptability is wide, conformity loses some of its edge ... there may be more similarities than we think between wave-making and peace-making. No, life plays out in the gray areas, not at the edges.

That's what makes all so difficult, isn't it? How do you know? The answer is, you don't (and, by the way, nobody else does either, regardless of what they're telling you). That's why simply acknowledging what you don't want, avoiding what doesn't contribute to our feelings of happiness, success and the rest, is so effective. But you can't do that if all you can say is "yes".

Our upbringing teaches us, more than anything else, to simply say "yes". Yes to what others want, yes to authority, yes to so-called standards, yes to not making life too difficult for anyone else. All of this, however, does eventually lead us to making more trouble for ourselves. Balance is what we are seeking, though. The Golden Mean is all about balance, and there is only one way to head in that direction: we have to learn to say "no".

I have nothing against pleasing others, if they deserve it, but not on principle. I have no problem obeying if the order makes sense, is ethical, and isn't harmful. I have no issue with "standards" that aren't absolutes, that allow for individual variation and diversity. There are some groups and clubs to which I don't want to belong. There are times when some folks simply need a wake-up call. All of this is only possible, however, if we can simply say "no" when we have to.

We don't like hearing "no", I know. But it's every bit as important, if not more so, than even saying it. It takes courage to say it, and you need integrity to hear it. Neither are in overabundant supply these days, but they could be, if we learned to say "no" when it counts.

What we certainly don't want at all

Regardless of what we may think we want, I'm pretty sure that one thing is certain: we don't necessarily want others telling us what we want. I can understand that. I'm on your side. What most of us don't realize, though, is that sometimes the slightest change of perspective can open up previously unsuspected possibilities. That's the real value in the via negativa.

Let's be clear on one thing: you're not off the hook for thinking, and sometimes I think deciding what you don't want can be more challenging than deciding what you do. The disadvantage to having to make such a decision is that you have to do it all on your own. Deciding what you don't want is almost by definition a communal obligation. You need others to decide what to leave out. Anyone can say what should be put in. This is what may be most challenging when getting used to taking this new course of action. You've got to do it with others.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that you don't have to do a lot of persuading. You don't have to convince the others you know what you are talking about, you only have to explain why you don't like something, why you don't think that something should be included. The pressure, in a certain sense, is off. It's like our idea of "home" that we talked about a week or so ago: we all know when we don't have it, even if we can't say what it is we should have. In other words, the way is open for exploration, experimentation, open-endedness, tentative solutions, and more. The pressure isn't on to get it right the first time, but to find out what works and what doesn't, what we can live with and what we can't. But, the comfort in it all is in knowing you don't have to do it alone.

If our little excursion into the notion of "home" brought us anything, it should have been the recognition that if you're home alone, it's really not home. It may be the place you live (or the circumstance in which you find yourself), but it's not home. You can't be home alone, regardless of what Hollywood may think.

One side effect of all of this is that if we're not alone, we will, inevitably and unavoidably, not feel so lonely. We will recognize there's more than one of us wrestling with the issue, that it's not up to us to save the world all by ourselves. We can start developing a feeling of togetherness. The next thing you know, you could find yourself in a community. Who knows what might happen? The possibilities are endless.

Even more of what we don't want

You'd be surprised at how many situations can be dealt with via the negative. In just a little over a month, my fellow countryfolk will be playing democracy again, and I have the feeling that most of them (at least most of those I know) will simply be voting against the other guy. That's not what I'm talking about at all. Voting for Obama because you don't like Romney (or vice versa) is not the via negativa, it's good old-fashioned avoiding.

The via negativa is never just either-or. If you've got a system that really only allows for that, well you really haven't got much of a system, and it's time to start thinking about what kind you want ... at least you've made a first step when you recognize that only either-or choices is not what you want. That's closer to what I'm talking about.

As it is, either-or's are out. I mean, who really needs them? When are they really applicable? Why don't we have more third, fourth, fifth or hundredth choices. OK, maybe 100 candidates for President may be too many, but you get the point. Why is it that it's either Windows or Apple? White or brown sugar? Peas or corn? Diesel or unleaded? Why do we just settle for the choice of two? We've come a long way as a civilization, what with our industrialization and technological advances, but somehow we fail to see the real advantage in a little diversity, a range of options instead of a simple either-or.

To get more choices though, you have to know that you don't want just two, and you have to say it. My point is that if you want more than two, then you're already allied with all those folks who want three, those who want ten and those who want a hundred; that is, with everyone who doesn't want just two either. Sometimes I figure we're simply getting in our own way because we are so used to things being this way or that. It's time to get over this limitation, expand our horizons and maybe even get something done.

After all, whether we decide on three, five, or more choices for anything, we at least have the option to try them out and see how they work. It all starts with not wanting two. What we end up agreeing on can come in the course of talking, discussing, and even debating the various options we have. And one of the biggest advantages of all is the fact that it might just get us talking to one another again. Not a bad side effect, if you ask me.