St. Martin's Day

The 11th day of the 11th month of the year was for the longest time and for the shortest of times, reason to celebrate, (I'll come back to the other reasons next time,) but there was a time when today was a much bigger deal than it is today.

Oh, I know, we're (post-)moderns now and all that mumbo-jumbo, hocus-pocus religious superstition has all been superseded by ... well, by what? rational, objective, de-mythologized ... nothing. Yes, the emptiness we feel so strongly these days has something to do with the so-called "detritus" that we sent to slag heap some time ago. Old "holidays" and (what's worse!) Feast Days are well-deserved, forgotten relics of a by-gone age ... or are they?

We live in a post-industrial -- and as many like to claim, a new, information-based society (though, actually I should say "economy", since we even banned the ghost (read: spirit) of a society some time ago). All those once-important autumn, or harvest, festivals are no longer important, even though once, at a minimum, they marked the passing of the year, and above all, the passing of our consciousness from one temporal phase to another.

Today is St. Martin's Day, which I'm sure most of you don't know, so I'm here to remind you.

Saint Martin (of Tours, who died in 490), a former Roman soldier is known once cutting his cloak in half to share with a beggar during a snowstorm, to save the beggar from dying from the cold. The beggar was allegedly Jesus. Not unsurprisingly, he's the patron saint of the poor (and hence more relevant today than ever). In his honor, the medieval church mandated fasting three days a week from today till Epiphany (which I've mentioned before); that is a period of 56 days, but mandating 40 days of fasting (cf. Lent).

Here in Germany, goose is the traditional dish. (OK, OK, my vegetarian and vegan friends will have to close an eye, but I'm still working from the top of the food chain and still have my -- in your eyes -- "weaknesses".) This is because -- as the legend tell us -- when trying to avoid being ordained bishop he had hidden in a goose pen, but was betrayed by the cackling of the geese.

My goose dinner will have to wait a few weeks for other reasons, but the point of all of this is that we have a day that was meant to inspire us to stop, reflect, and acknowledge the Christian "truth" that it's good to help those less fortunate than ourselves, and to stop, reflect and give thanks (it is after all, harvest time) for all that we have.

You can think what you want about the "evils" or "redemption" of religion ... it doesn't matter, really. Any time -- and for any reason -- that we can stop and reflect on what might be good not only for ourselves but for others or that gives us pause to give thanks for all that we have is time well spent.

We used to be reminded of these things as a matter of course. It seems today that I have to keep reminding us. But, that's OK, the reason for pausing is irrelevant. That we pause, that we reflect, and that we give thanks is all that really matters.

The time game

There a quite a few people I know who yearn for the "good old days", you know, those times when the world was still OK. Most people are referring to their childhoods, and for those I've known since then, I can tell you that the times then weren't all that great.

But, we think they were (or at least like to think they were). Our perception of them over the passage of times makes them appear that they were. Most of all, we wish they were. Hindsight is 20-20. Time heals all wounds. Or, as Heraclitus noted, Time is a game played beautifully by children.

We are, however, no longer children. The relentlessness of the seeming endless march through morning, noon, and night. Our continual obsession with the past, our total ignorance of the present, and our self-induced fear of the future haunt us mercilessly. And we think that somehow time moves unerringly from some point in the past toward that most-feared point in the future, death. Then we remember, sometimes only fleeting, how beautifully we played the game of time when we were children.

What bothers most of us and what bothers us most is the fact that it seems to be moving faster, that it seems to be slipping away from us. We invented clocks to mark the hours and somehow know that a minute then was really no different from a minute now, but it certainly seems different. We all know that as we grow older our sensation of time accelerates, and given the fact that our lives are now driven by the clock, it seems all the worst. And then we find ourselves wasting time, even (ruthlessly) killing time ... how sick do we have to get before we realize that we've that we no longer have any idea how the time game is played.

So here we are, all grown up; our own persons; doing our own thing and making our own decisions; pretending to be large and in charge, bragging that we've paid our dues and know how to play the game ... but that's a much different game we think we know how to play. Sure, there are lots of folks who can play the get-what-you-want game, the pulling-the-wool game, the talk-big game, the act-brave game, and many more besides. But the real game, the most important game of all is the one we forgot how to play.

Too bad, too sad, it was the most fun game of all.

The power of questioning power

Most things come full circle ... well, they do if you allow them enough time to take their course. The question of power and the question of questioning power is one of those things.

When you get right down to it, "power" -- whatever it is, whoever is exercising it, in which form it comes or in which systems it disguises itself -- has one, and only one, "tool": fear. Power is powerful, because you are afraid. It is that simple.

One of my biggest heros, one of the individuals who walked this earth for whom I have the greatest and utmost respect, used to preface many, many things that he said with the simple words, "Fear not, fear not ..." In modern phraseology: "Don't be afraid ... ". Yes, yes, yes, we have gone through all the trivializations of this simple idea, and so we haven't come to realize just how trivial the idea is. And now, we return, after such a long diversion, to the root of the problem. How can you "speak truth to power", or question, even challenge, authority without real risk of repression? It's quite simple, really: ask questions.

Although I grew up in an age that scholastically lauded the Socratic method, questioning authority was simply something "you just didn't do". It was impolite, cheeky, pushy, cocky, and downright, insulting. Still, there are ways to simply "ask a question" that is none of these. What is more, when asked in the proper way, in the proper tone, at the proper time, a question can, and most often does, appear as a simple quest for knowledge and wisdom from someone who apparently and supposedly "knows". It is one thing to rebuke a claim, an assertion, a statement, but it is quite another to not respond to someone who is early seeking "to know".

Power always has the responsibility to answer a well-meant question, even if it may not want to answer at all. Power cannot simply reject a question, for to do so would expose it for what it really is: power for power's sake. Yet, we can learn from the three-year-old: keep questioning until the questioned can no longer answer, until his/her own power-based logic simply collapses upon itself. And, believe me, it will eventually do just that.

While fear is an extremely powerful tool, if not a weapon, it suffers from a significant, inherent weakness: it cannot stand in the light of Truth. I may not know the "truth", that is certain, but I believe (and Power believes) that Truth can ultimately be found. The way to the truth is questioning: pursuing the path, via the method, of perhaps the greatest philosopher who ever lived, Socrates.

Power knows how to utilize fear to its own advantage. Of that much, I am sure. However, Power is not immune from fear itself. And, if there is anything that Power fears, it is the power of the question ... the simple question. So, never, ever be afraid to ask "the next question", for it is always, without doubt, the most important question to ever be asked.

Question power before it questions you.

Question power

Power can be all-powerful ... well, at least it can be conceived as such. Most folks that I know would rather avoid any association with power, let alone a confrontation with it. As the Germans put it, "offering your forehead to power" (Macht die Stirn bieten), can reduce your height by about twelve inches (30 cm) and your weight by about 11 lbs (5 kg) very, very quickly. That is a tried-and-true method that power employs, but, as we saw, over time, as the shift from the merely physical to the more ethereal has taken place, a shift in "execution" of power has taken place as well.

In most places around the globe, we don't lop off people's heads anymore. Most peoples and nations have come to the realization that the same effect can be achieved with a lot less visual vividness. Sure, you can still imprison folks for long periods of time, knowing full well that "out of sight" (that is, not in the daily press" means "out of mind" (that is, forgotten). Or, you can simply "talk louder". The volume of mainstream media is always higher than anything an individual can offer. Another approach is to discredit the questioner: given enough money, I suppose, everybody's missteps can be found out and exposed, especially in the days of the Internet. What all of these "methods" have in common, however, is fear. You could be charged with a crime, even if you didn't commit one; most people are tried "in the press" before they ever get to trial. Convictions are then merely insurance. The mainstream media, since it is privately controlled, is more interested in profits than truth, so they can afford to make you a case instead of making a case for you, and they will benefit (i.e., profit) from it, in the end. What is more, given the lax security and the reluctance of most "good citizens" to challenge the "status quo", innuendo, even in cyberspace, can literally destroy an individual before s/he has a chance to defend him/herself. I know very few people who would be willing to risk going through any of that for any reason. You don't have to chop off heads to instill fear. At least, not any more.

Still, as long as fear dictates our lives, as long as fear is our primary motivation, whoever or whatever is in power will succeed. It has always been this way, and it will continue to be this way, unless we change. And, I'm pretty sure, that's really far down on the ol' priority list.

It's too bad, really. One doesn't have to start a rebellion, a physical, military, violent, armed revolution to initiate change. The most effective change is never public, it is private. Here's a very simple thought experiment: imagine that you had no fear of anything any more: what would/could you do? Think about it. Because we hang on too many "things" (our house, car, savings account, possessions, you-name-it) we are afraid that someone can or will come and take it away from us. It could be a thief, but it could be the "government". Why the "government" would want it, given that it extracts exorbitant taxes from you, often without you even knowing it is doing so, and it has you regulated, legislated, controlled, and subdued by the mass of legislation you have to live with. You are allowed to "talk a good (maybe even "tough") game", but if they decide you're done, for whatever reason, you're outta here. And that, dear reader, is the price you pay for (alleged) freedom.

And that's why I say, quite simply, question power, before it questions you.

The question of power

Lord Acton, who most of us have never heard of, once said something that just about everyone of us has not only heard, but said: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That's not a direct quotation, but it is a direct expression of the sentiment he wished to express. This is one of those old sayings, those "wise, old" adages, that we let slip from our lips without a second('s) thought, which may be why we don't really get it; that is, really understand what the good Lord was trying to say.

As I confessed last time, questions really got to me. But if there ever was a concept that occasionally rivaled that enthrallment, it would be the notion of "power". Here is another used and abused notion that everybody talks about, that everyone thinks they understand, but that is, without a doubt, one of the most illusive notions that we've ever come up with.

First, we have the concept of "enabling things to function". We need power to drive the steam engine and power to run our computers and keep the lights on. Power is what is talked about when we think of any kind of machine or gadget. We also relate "power" to "authority": those who can tell us what we may or may not do, what is permitted and what is not. And, we also use the concept to describe whoever or whatever can ensure that certain things happen, as in legislative power, or "the power of the pen". OK, in the latter instance there is no ensuring, but potentially a lot of influencing. When it comes to physical power, we have lots of good science to "explain" to us how it works, why and how machines are efficient or why some people can benchpress hundreds of pounds and others can't do a single push-up. When it comes to other kinds of power, though, we're pretty much lost.

Again, Shakespeare's Macbeth is ready at hand: it exemplifies Lord Acton's statement, hundreds of years before Lord Acton expressed it. It indicates that this is not a new problem we are dealing with. In the meantime we know (probably more than we want to) about the "power of the sword", "power of nuclear weapons", the (fire)power of the American military, the "power of the 'almighty dollar'", the (alleged) "power of the press", even the "power of persuasion", and many more. We quickly begin to realize what a complex and intricate concept "power" can be.

All of these phrases show examples, to be sure, but none of them, and certainly not any one of them, defines the notion of "power". Why? Because "power" is always the same and never the same, all at the same time. There was a time when "physical power", in any of its forms -- strength, superior weapons -- played the dominant role. There was a time when "political power", in any of its forms -- diplomacy, alliances -- was most important. And now, we live in a time, when the "power of perceptions" plays the dominant role. We all still have to deal with the same, old same-old, but it comes in ever-changing guises.

It doesn't amaze me at all that most folks feel powerless in the face of power.

The power of questions

Anyone who knows me knows there is one "confession" I must always make, especially when I meet new people or have the opportunity to work in new groups: I absolutely and unequivocally love questions. I do. I am fascinated by them ... mesmerized sometimes. They stir my imagination and unlock secrets. They are, without a doubt, the most powerful intellectual and analytical tool -- if used properly -- that I have ever had the privilege to use.

These days, I believe that questions are terribly underestimated and their true power has never been properly recognized.

All of this started, of course, when I was going through teacher training at college, oh, so many years ago. In "my day", there was only one, accepted pedagogical (teaching) method: the Socratic method. Lesson plans described a topic, a digestible amount of material, and the way to get the students from wherever they were to wherever the lesson was to take them was to be achieved solely through the use of questions. It was frowned up that the teacher provide any "answers", be it information or -- heaven forbid -- interpretations or declarations. It was up to the teacher to guide the students to discover knowledge for him or herself, solely through the use of appropriate questioning techniques. This is considered more than old-fashioned these days, but, truth be told, this was a very old method when I became exposed to it. If you want to see brilliant examples of how it works, I recommend reading Plato. His writings are nothing other than Socratic dialogs (for Socrates always plays the main role), and they are every bit as informative and didactic today as they were at the time they were written. Some things simply refuse to change. (And anything that does, and anything that stands the test of time like questions do, deserve a second, third, or even an infinite number of looks).

And when did this fall out of favor as a teaching method? I don't know. I suspect, however, that it was about the time that "somebody decided" that the results of standardized tests or the regurgitation of factual knowledge was more important than the ability to think, to explore, to discover, and to search (for the truth). Oh, I'll be the first to admit it: questions can be uncomfortable, as any parent on the planet will tell you. There isn't a parent alive or dead who hasn't been exasperated (positively or negatively) by their 3-year old who will not give their questioning a rest. Once you fork down that "why" path, there is never an end in sight. Nor should there be. What we don't do as parents, or what enough parents don't do, or what most parents do not encourage, is that they continue asking those questions. If there is one ability in our children that we should never, ever discourage, it's the asking of questions. I firmly believe that the world would not be in the shape it is, that we would not be confronted with all the challenges that we have to deal with, if we had been encouraged as children to question more.

To me, it's never really been a priority to just "keep on trucking". No, for me, it's important to "keep on questioning."

Resurrection

Back in February, I took a break from my train of thought at the time for a brief Valentine's Day interlude. If I was willing to take a break for a pseudo-holiday, I should be willing to do the same for a real one, so today, is our Easter break.

Easter is, without a doubt, the most Christian of all holidays that we (pretend to) celebrate. I mean, without Easter, there's no Christianity, pure and simple. You would think, and it still amazes me, that Easter isn't a bigger deal than it is ... for Christians, that is. Could it be that they really don't understand what the holiday is all about? Perhaps. It's a great kiddy holiday, though, even if you're an atheist: what's not to like about chocolate, in whatever form it comes in? Valentine's Day may mean chocolate for the sweetie, but at Easter, it's chocolate for the whole family (as well as those disgustingly artificial and chemically laden marshmallow chicks, but, hey, haven't I been harping on the fact that there's an upside and a downside to just about everything?).

What Easter has in common with just about every other major religion on the planet, is what most people just don't get. The focus, the theme of this particular holiday is life after death (put in most mundane terms) or eternal life (in a more spiritual and uplifting sense). Now, I don't want to go into detail about or have an argument about who has the better heaven. Every religion talks about what happens after we die and the common thread is that if you were "good" (whatever that means in the given religious context), what comes next is good, and if you were "bad" (and the same caveat applies here), what comes next is, well, literally, hell.

Who's right and who's wrong is not important. Whether anyone is right or anyone is wrong isn't important either. What is important is the fact that throughout the entire course of human history, recorded or archaeologically discovered, this has apparently been a subject that has been on our minds. The Neanderthals took great pains in burying their dead; the Egyptians made a civilization out of it; there hasn't been a time, place, or people who didn't try to come to terms with the fact that we're only here for so long and then ... . Yes, Easter is the holiday at which we think about death - as natural a part of life as there can be - as well as life, in particular life after death.

I believe that Easter is as good a time as anything to think about such things. Americans like to avoid the subject; other cultures apparently can't get enough of it. Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, you need to come to terms with it anyway. You can believe that you can blow yourself up and awaken to six dozen virgins or that you'll walk streets of silver and live in houses of gold, or that you don't wake up at all and just rot in the ground. It really doesn't matter. All that's important is that you give it some thought.

Having said that, though, and in keeping with the current flow of posts (apart from this interlude), there is increasing interest in the topic by lots of people. One of the more interesting approaches, I would like to add, comes from the world of hard science, believe it or not. The philosopher of science Jim Beichler has written a number of articles and books on the subject. He has developed a theory of physics which he believes shows, scientifically, that individual consciousness survives death. He's part of a growing number of scientists who are refusing to be silenced by the "accepted wisdom" of the scientific community and are demonstrating in rigorous and scientifically acceptable ways that there's more in this area too than meets the eye, or we'd like to admit.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. If you're interested in Bleicher's ideas, you can find him on academia.edu. Open your mind. Expand your horizons. Take a new lease on life.

Groundhog Day

Today's a special day for the denizens, and those who hail from Western Pennsylvania. In a little town, known for nothing other than a cranky rodent, each year on this day, Phil, as he is affectionately known, comes out of his burrow after his long winter's sleep. If he sees his shadow, I suppose he's happy, because that sight sends him back underground to wait another six weeks for winter to end. And so the legend goes, year after year, time and time again (which was the inspiration for the movie of the same name).

Over the course of the movie, for all the wrong reasons, the main character, played by Bill Murray, does the right thing(s) in order to become a better person and win the heart of the leading lady, played by Andie McDowell. How touching (and humorous) it all is, but how true as well. Einstein -- no slacker in the thinking and intelligence department -- is credited with saying that doing the same thing over and over again in hopes of a different result is a sign of insanity. If Uncle Al is correct, then I guess we're all insane.

OK, I may not do the same thing over and over again, but it has come to my attention that I say the same things over and over again. It's not really that I expect different results, but any result would be OK with me. Still, I can't help but feel that what I do, and what Al was talking about aren't really all that different.

Today, I included a picture -- a word cloud, to be exact -- to show you what I keep talking about. The cloud is a visual rendition of the frequency of key words or labels for my blog, from the very beginning to the end of January this year. I sort of like the picture, it tells me a lot.

I wonder if it tells you anything.

The meaning of life?

The controversial, yet nevertheless fascinating, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote, "He who has a why to live can endure almost any how." If you've been following the most recent posts, you'll have little trouble understanding that I think the man was onto something.

Another German (language) thinker, Viktor E. Frankl, survivor of the Holocaust and psychoanalyst, said, "Challenging the meaning of life is the truest expression of the state of being human." Those of who you've been following the most recent posts will have little trouble understanding that I think this man was onto something as well.

There is no lack of "good" advice as to what you should or should not be doing at any point, at any stage, at any minute of your life. Most of this advice is naturally well-intended, but we all know about how the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. While not necessarily being so critical of such intentions, in the end, what really matters is not what think or believe, but what we decide to do about it. Frankl also informed us that "A human being is a deciding being." At this point, I also feel compelled to remind us all that deciding not to do something is still making a decision.

There is no book on the face of this planet, nor has one ever been written, that contains the answer to question regarding the meaning of life. The only person who will ever be able to answer that question is you. And, you can only ever answer it for yourself.

No one is more surprised than me at how many words I can find to throw at this one particular topic, but given the magnitude of the question, the importance of the answer, the consequences of decisions made on that basis, I feel justified in trying to get this horse up on its feet again. You see, when I look out into the world, at the state of affairs, at the news -- from shootings in Ferguson to the Ukraine to Iraq (again), through all the political posturing going on in both East and West, to what we're doing to our home (the Earth, in case you were wondering) -- or merely at my fellow commuters trudging to work everyday, I have to ask myself repeatedly why we make life so hard on ourselves? If there were such a thing as aliens and they were "checking us out", they would have to be confused by the sheer degree of contradictions we foist upon ourselves each and every day.

And so, I can only encourage -- admonish -- each of us to take a step back from the brink, for the edge of whatever abyss (actual, psychological, emotional) we've driven ourselves to and reflect for a while on the "why" of your own life.

The meaning of life

Taking the time to come up with a reasonable, considered answer to the question "Why am I here?" is worth the effort because it provides you, quite simply, for your own personal reason for living.

People with severe depression, terminal illnesses, who are imprisoned, being persecuted and tortured, starving to death, or worse often lose (at least sight of) their reason. I am saddened deeply when I think that so many will leave this place without ever having the slightest inclination of why they were ever here. But you, dear reader, are in a very privileged position: you have the time, the ability and the wherewithal to do just that: find your real reason for living, for being on this planet at this time, in whatever place you are. But as I never hesitate to remind you: it's not just about you, it only starts with you.

You may discover "a" reason for your life, but is it "the" reason? How would you know? Remember, you are not alone here. There are plenty of others around you all the time, some close physically, some genetically, some psychologically or socially ... your mileage will vary. How does your reason stack up against theirs? How compatible is it with theirs? How much in conflict is it perhaps? Is your reason better/more important/more worthwhile than theirs? What makes you think so and what do you think you ought to do about it? My guess is that you'll come up with a pretty significant number of reasons along the way to finding the "real", the "true", one.

One of the things that both amazes me and simultaneously disgusts me at the same time is how lightly we take such questions and how ready and willing most of us are to assert our reasons over and at the expense of others'. I think it's all too clear -- and even a casual look around you or at the news on any given day will confirm -- that way too many people think their supposed reasons are much better/more important/more worthwhile than others'.

What entitles me (or any of us) to more water, food, shelter, clothing, natural resources, security, happiness, recognition, or love than anyone else? Why do I think I should have more of any of these and that others should simply have less? How did we come up with the idea that coincidentally being born at any given place at any given time should determine what I may be allowed to even expect from life, let alone justify the reason for my existence? That's never really been clear to me and no one has ever explained it in any reasonable way. And so I continue to wonder, to be amazed, and, of course, disgusted.

I'm not foolish enough to think that many of you will take up the challenge. It's much easier to dump a bucket of ice water over your head (or not) than to stop and ask yourself what is the real meaning of your own life.

Take a step back from the brink

The last couple of posts were a bit of an excursion, a slight diversion. They were, if you will, simple exercises in what I was implying in regard to knowing oneself.

If we're honest, most of get up in the morning, go about our daily business, find fleeting moments of happiness, others of frustration and aggravation; we chat with others about nothing in particular and wish the world were a better place, but are, for the most part thankful, that we live in a pretty good part of that world. And that's it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not faulting anyone for that ... the phrase "most of us" implies at least that I'm part of that group, though I have my days when I don't really feel like playing the usual game. (On those days, I generally write this blog.)

But here's the thing ... well, two things actually: first, we're not here just for ourselves; without others there would be none of us individuals. But, second, the deeper, more important question is why we're here at all? I know, I know, you're thinking, "he's finally lost it," but I haven't lost anything at all.

Seriously, did you ever really stop to think about it? Why are you here, where you are, why do you even exist?

Any quick-and-dirty answers you might come up with ("because I was born", "because my parents had children", or any other nonsensical statements) are not answers at all. They are things we say so we don't have to think. Materialistic science will tell you that we -- any and all of us -- are here by mere chance; we're accidents of nature; there's really no reason at all. Some people may be satisfied with that, but I would bet that if they took some time to seriously think about the question, they wouldn't be so satisfied anymore. Fundamentalist religion will tell you that you are here to participate in some Grand Scheme in which a select few will live forever and the vast majority of others (mostly because they didn't say the right things at the right time or didn't do the right thing when told to by someone who had said the right thing at the right time) will be tortured forever and ever. Sounds more like a Sadistic Plot than a Grand Scheme if you ask me. It also sounds like a useful way to dupe a lot of people so that they can be controlled more easily. In other words, even some of the alleged, thought-through answers aren't answers either.

No, the only person who can answer the question for you is you. You are the one who has to take some time, stop and think, and come up with your own personal answer. It won't be easy, I can assure you, but it is worth the effort.

Over the brink

The observant follower of the discussion is certainly starting to think that our ideal community is going to start degenerating rather quickly. Not everyone is equally talented, tolerant, capable, or willing. The group being bigger than any single individual represents a new order, a higher order, an hierarchical order which means that some will start wanting more for themselves or those closest to themselves and others will start feeling entitled to more for whatever reason.

I agree that this is precisely how we think these days. And I would hasten to point out that this is precisely the root of most of our problems, both individually and collectively. Implicit in this reasoning is that some are somehow "better" or "more deserving" than others. But it is at this point that we may just have things backwards.

Let's look at this from the other way around. In any given group, there are going to be individuals who need more help and support than others. Babies need more of such than children, who need more of such than young adults, and while adults should be generally close to self-sufficient, some aren't and once one passes a certain age, we start needed more and more help and support from others. What is more, someone will always be sick or injured or mildly or seriously impaired in some way. In other words, by turning the viewpoint around we see that we don't start from the strongest, we start from the weakest. If we can provide for them we can certainly provide for ourselves as well.

In the almost 1,000,000 years of proto-human and human activity on this planet, you would think that by now the "accepted" view of things is questionable. We don't live in anything like an ideal world and we certainly don't appear to be getting any closer to one either (rising income inequality, number of people without enough food and clean water, global warming in the name of profit, suppression by radical religionists, perpetual violence inflicted by alleged lovers of liberty ... the list goes on). There are many who maintain it is simply not in our nature to be otherwise, but the mere fact that even one of the species (say, me) can imagine things being different by means of a simple shift of perspective (and I am certainly neither unique nor alone), we can safely assume the ability to imagine is our true nature, and our ability to act upon that imagination is a part of "who we are" as well.

The shift is a simple one actually: it is away from having power over others to using ones' own powers to help and support others. The energy, the resources, the effort, the time is probably the same regardless which way we work, but the direction makes all the difference in the world. It would be a different world, and I believe a better world.

Of course, we can just continue on as we have, but it's only a matter of time -- and not all that long, I would guess -- that we'll simply be over the brink. It really is our choice.

Over the edge

We are not alone. We are never alone. Well, unless we have become an anchorite, eremite, hermit or recluse.

No matter what all those post-Enlightenment, neoliberal, self-centered individualists try to tell you, it has never been, nor will it ever be, simply every person for him/herself. We have evolved, we are built, we are programmed, and we are by nature social beings.

Yes, the family, either nuclear or extended, is the starting point, and I know that not everyone's family life is all that ideal. Family can be a blessing or a curse, but there are so many factors that play into that, both individual and genetic/collective. In extended families, or even small communities, there is the possibility that one always finds a "parent", a "sibling", someone who is there for one and for whom you can be there for too; others with whom we can share, both good and bad times, happy and sad feelings, who can provide advice, encouragement, or, when necessary, admonishment when we need it.

But here's the thing: everything that I've said about the individual up to this point -- his or her fear of confronting themselves, of needing to take up the Quest, of embarking about the Hero's Journey -- all of these things apply to the family/clan/community as well. Collectively you must establish who you are, what you believe, what is important to you, what you stand for, and what you want nothing to do with. You must seek and find your collective identity.

This will never be as firm, as grounded, as your individual identity, but it also need not be. The group, more than the individual, will change over time. Young ones will be born, partners will be sought and found outside the core community, so compromises must be made, perhaps expansions or contractions of long-held ideas. Who knows? Like every individual, a group, too, must develop, grow, adapt, and, hopefully, gain in wisdom as well.

The picture that is developing is rather simple. I extend as far as the other and the other ends at me. With those with whom we share interests, viewpoints, ideas, thoughts and desires, an overlap exists and the edges of our selves become slightly blurred and permeable. They are not so sharp and distinct. The commonalities bind, the differences enhance. In the group, we each become more than we are individually.

Sounds a bit too ideal doesn't it? Maybe so ... but maybe not.

Over the threshold

A lot of things can force you over the threshold, whether you want to go or not. Thirteen years ago America, as a nation, was pushed over a threshold, but we were ill-prepared for it, so we've made a mess of it. We made it about "having" (liberty, power, might) instead of about "being" (free, wise, right). The same thing could happen to any of us, especially if we're forced to cross. It's always better to go voluntarily. Take charge with that very first step. It makes a difference.

What we have cannot define us. We're not our cars, our houses, our jobs, our bank accounts, our titles or anything like that. What others have about (or on) us cannot define us. We're not the gazillion of data points, bits of information or emails the alphabet agencies or commercial enterprises have collected on us. All these "have" things can only, at best, be rather arbitrarily combined, mixed and matched to create a picture, a perception, an idea of us. But, in the end, that is not us. If we, on the other hand, know no better, we believe that we're the picture, the perception or the idea. When we do, we become slaves to the picture. We didn't make it and we have no command over what it does or how it is seen. We can say all we want that "that's not me", but who should care, and how would you convince them otherwise? What is more, anything you "have" can be taken away from you. Lose your car, your house, your job, and what is left, as experience and life has shown us, is a broken, lost, forlorn individual. A miserable wretch, or maybe even a suicide. Yes, it can be existential.

What you are, on the other hand, is what you are. What you are cannot be taken from you and only you can change it. You are free to decide if you are generous or stingy, compassionate or cruel, kind or abusive, loving or hateful, helpful or hurtful. We should also recall that we like some things and dislike others, but too often we don't know why. The Quest that I have been dwelling on for the past few posts is there, primarily, to discover these what's and why's; your strengths and weaknesses; your inclinations and aversions; what fills you with joy, what with despair; what you believe and how you have come to believe it; whether life is meaningful or meaningless, and more. To glean these insights, though, you have to be prepared to take a good, hard, honest look at yourself. It takes courage. Truth be told, getting past the Terror of the Threshold is the easy part.

And for as ephemeral as it all sounds, this you is the one that can withstand all the onslaughts, distortions, and vagaries to which it is subjected. It is only when you Know Thyself that you can expose the pictures, perceptions and ideas of us for the illusions they are. When you do, you make your insides like your outsides, so to speak -- toku k'varo, as one tradition puts it -- you exhibit existential integrity, you become transparent (not invisible), in a sense, a what-you-see-is-all-you're-ever-going-to-get person. Take the chance. Cross the threshold. Pursue the Quest. Find out who you really are.

Be all that you can be ... be you.

The terror of the threshold

The reason that most of us never undertake this all-too-human Quest -- the Hero's Journey -- is quite simple: we're afraid. I'm not going to go so far as to say we're cowards, but we're afraid nevertheless. What might we be required to do? What tasks might we be charged with? What happens if you fail? And, one of the biggest fears: What if I find something I don't like (or can't stand or am ashamed of or embarrassed by or ...)? Nope, better not risk it. Better stay right here where, if it isn't safe and warm, at least I can distract myself by pretending I'm a fire-breathing dragon and acquiring riches and hostages I can't do anything with, but at least I'll be able to fool some of the others.

Within the Western esoteric and spiritual tradition, this fundamental fear has been personified in a figure known as the Terror of the Threshold. Crossing a threshold, of course, is a metaphor for a significant, deep-reaching change, like when a groom carries his bride over the threshold, or when you go from the safe, protected environment of your childhood home and go out into the big, bad world. And that Fear that keeps us back, from taking that first step, from embarking on our Quest, is the Terror of the Threshold.

Most people don't know (or won't admit) that there is a threshold, let alone that they might one day have (or want) to cross it. Most of us (falsely) believe we know ourselves, we think we know who we are, we think we know what we want and how we have to deal with the world around us. Most of us, of course, are simply full of crap. We have no real idea of who we are, what we really want (out of life), or what we should be doing with our lives. Most of us are caught up in the propaganda of consumerism: the bigger house, the faster car, the smarter phone, the prestigious job ... oh, the list goes on and on. But, when you stop to look at all those things that we think are important in life, we soon realize that they all have one prominent feature in common: they are only things that we can have.

"Having" is not in and of itself bad. We need food, clothing, shelter, security ... all good things to have; and we'd like recognition, acceptance, love ... all things that make us feel complete. But this is only part of the story. What we are is much more important than what we have. (And if you're having difficulty distinguishing between the two notions, I highly recommend Fromm's To Have or To Be?) Like the dragon mentioned above, it's easy to have things: all you have to do is take them. Whether they are good for us, whether they have meaning or make sense is, at least to the dragon, beside the point. The point is having, pure and simple. Ahh ... but what you are ... now, that's a whole different story.

Of course, there is more than one of you who are asking themselves just what all this romantic blather has to do with anything substantial, and I can only answer "everything". And next time, I'll tell you why.

Invisible heroes

There was a time when we could still be invisible. There was a time, not so long ago, when you could just blend into the background and nobody really knew you were there. You didn't have to be seen if you didn't want to be. The masses that surrounded you provided a degree of anonymity that we simply took for granted. Oh, sure, everybody was pushing you to "get out there", to "make yourself known", to "be your own person". That's what a competitive society expects, at any rate. And Warhol's dictum about everyone's 15 minutes of fame brought a few out of the woodwork that didn't necessarily have to be center stage. But, it was possible to stay out of the limelight, out of the spotlight, if you really wanted to.

Those days are long gone. There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. More of you is available to more people than you ever dreamed possible. Oh, everything out there is not all accurate, to be sure. There are contradictions and changes and reversals and who knows what else, but there's no real way to put it all together in a coherent picture. You're exposed, but you're incomplete. It all adds up to a something-like-you, but not really you, if you even really know who you are. More and more, that chaotic mass of perceptions and details and factoids is you ... and you for all the world to see.

If you can't get away anymore, what do you do? Like I said before, you have to be aware and take care. But the last time I mentioned that it was all about what's going on outside, out there, in the public -- and, as the FBI and NSA have so often reminded, almost public. The same tactics apply inside, in here where it's just between me, myself and I. Truth be told, that's the far more crucial realm, and it could be the last great frontier, if we had but the courage to go for it.

For all the chaos and mayhem most of them tend to cause, one of the fundamental tenets of all major religions has been this not-to-be-taken-lightly inner journey. The charge inscribed across the portal to the temple to Apollo at Delphi stated it about as simply as it gets: "Know Thyself". Throughout most of our history as human beings, this Quest, I'll call it, has played a central, constitutive part of our mythologies. Campbell's Hero With A Thousand Faces was part and parcel of our understanding of ourselves. Alas, we demythologized the world, became advanced, made progress, scientized and sanitized ourselves, and now our lives have become rather empty of meaning, but full of things and gadgets and opinions and attitudes, or whatever else it is from facing ourselves.

Back in the late 80s, there was a glimmer of hope that we might pick up the torch again, for example with Bly's Little Book on the Human Shadow, but the Wall fell and Capitalism allegedly seized the day and we were able to get intoxicated once again on things and progress and money and burning more oil and heating up the planet. If you're consumed with getting ahead, you've simply got no time for getting into yourself. Your Ego, sure, but the rest? Not so much.

After all, it's a risky endeavor with an uncertain outcome, and what is more, it could demand an heroic amount of effort, or even be, heaven forbid, dangerous. What kind of fool runs an errand like that?

Ask Shakespeare.

And just who am I?

Too much is too little ... too little is never enough ... less is more ... how much is enough? We live in confusing times. We're somehow caught between overexposure and invisibility. Not everybody needs to know everything, but where does one draw the line? Where can you draw the line? Facebook. Linked-in. But I need the loan. And then there's the telephone company, the insurance company, my healthcare provider, my doctor, when does my employer get involved? Yep, there we are -- all of us -- right there, between a rock and hard place.

Nobody's perfect. Nothing we make is perfect. No system is perfect. What's the difference between Jane Doe in Kansas and Jane Doe in New York? Well, obviously where they live. My Ms Doe in Kansas moved to New York City and shortly thereafter one Ms Doe moved to Kansas from New Mexico, to avoid the police, it turns out. And, as fate would have it, Ms Original-New-York Doe gets arrested because of a mix-up in the search algorithm. By the time she gets it sorted, her reputation is in the trash and she's unemployed. The true culprit is eventually brought to justice (Americans like happy ends), but the collateral damage is great and due to the publicity, Ms Original-Kansas Doe really can't go home anymore. Sure, none of us has anything to hide, but that may not matter.

What's the point? The same one I make time and time again: we need to be aware and we need to care. It's not just enough that we look out for ol' #1 and not worry about the rest. What can happen to Jane Doe can happen to me or you or anyone else. Mistakes are not only possible, they are made all the time. We need to be aware of who knows what about us and who we share our information with and what those individuals can and may do with that information once they have it. We need to be aware of what we let others know and when and how. We need to care about having rules in place to protect ourselves and others and we need to take care that those whom we entrust with providing us protection are doing their jobs.

Of course, if you live in a world of mistrust and suspicion, in a world where the greedy are free to take advantage of the needy, a world in which competition is fierce and winning makes all the difference, in a world of enforced conformity and toeing-the-line, well, you may have a bit of tough going over the mid-term. The horse may be gone and you may discover that your barn doesn't even have a door. What's worse, you may not even know you had a horse, or a barn for that matter. Sometimes it seems like others know more about you than you know about yourself. But that raises the question as to what do you really know about yourself to begin with?

Do you really know yourself or do you just know what you want to know about yourself? It's not a trick question ... it's a deadly serious one. And today, it's a more important one than it has ever been before.

You may find out anyway

Not knowing or not wanting to know ... looking life in the eye or burying one's head in the sand. These are commonly accepted options. Unfortunately -- or fortunately, depending on how one looks at it -- these aren't as clear-cut as they once were. Oh sure, there is no shortage of indivduals who would love to just close their eyes and make it all go away, and not being able to do that, they tune into their favorite propaganda/news channel and simply see and hear what they want to anyway. As we saw last time, we do it in regard to the past, so why not also in the here-and-now. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but this approach is getting less effective each and every day. You're probably going to find out what's going on anyway.

It's getting harder and harder to keep a secret, have you noticed? President 29 (Harding) fathers a child in the broom closet of the White House and writes heavy-breather letters to his mistress and who knows about it? President 35 (Kennedy) turns out to be quite the ladies' man and when did we find out about it? Sooner than we found out about Harding. President 42 (Clinton) gets frisky in the Oval Office and the torches and pitchforks are out because we know about it while he's still in office.

We suspected for years that "Big Brother" was watching us, and the reaction the Manning and Snowden revelations unleashed was so strong because no one had wanted to believe that it was as all-pervasive and detailed as it is. This particular issue is complicated by the fact that Americans -- not exclusively, but in particular -- are not so sensitive about such things when they are happening to others (What's the big deal about tapping Merkel's cell?) but are overly sensitive when they are affected themselves (What do you mean they're listening to my phone calls?).

The point is that everything, sooner or later, gets out, becomes known, is revealed. The Internet never forgets. Sure, technology has made all this more possible, but it's not the only reason that we get access to more than we sometimes want to know and it becomes increasingly difficult to keep anything to oneself.

The flip side of this is, of course, that there in an increasing amount of information we're not allowed to keep to ourselves. Apply for a mortgage or any significant loan. Get yourself a passport. Gee, get on an airplane and have yourself scanned. For Americans, who are most often content telling a commercial enterprise anything they want to know but get freaked when we find out it's the government, this may all seem normal. But, for Germans, just as one example, the notion of the "glass citizen" (der gläserne Bürger) is somewhere between disconcerting and downright frightening. By contrast, they may be willing to tell the government more, but they get very, very uneasy when this information gets into private hands. And rightfully so. However, the ability to restrict the divulging of information, the capability to protect one's personal, private sphere, is becoming ever more difficult.

I know, I know ... all of you are perfectly honorable, responsible, and open individuals who have absolutely nothing to hide. That may well be, but that's not the point. The downside is that not everyone who has access to you will treat you as such. The more of us that's "out there" is all the more over which we have little influence and absolutely no control. At what point does our publicly available self become "more real" than our own private person?

This is not only something to think about, it is something you need to think very deeply about. And, if nothing else, it is something that we certainly need to become more aware of.

It's not clear that we know where we've been

The American philosopher George Santayana once noted that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. What he failed to note, however, was that when you're doomed, you end up taking a whole lot of others with you. And, that's pretty much the case right now.

There are others who will tell you that history is written by the victors. There is certain more than a grain of truth in that one, even if conscientious historians like Howard Zinn strove to face this truism head-on. In other words, you have to search far and wide for one that isn't.

Taken together, we're faced with something of a dilemma. One reasonable conclusion seems to be that since we're reading a distorted history, we're learning all the wrong lessons (if in fact we're truly learning at all). It is especially problematic when different victors with different histories meet. The confrontation is too often volatile.

This, in turn, should make us aware of at least one thing: we need to be careful with the histories we believe to be true, and when in doubt, it doesn't hurt to do some checking to make sure the one you're using is worthwhile. More often than not, people choose to believe what they want to believe and only use the "documentation", if you will, to "prove" their foregone conclusions. What our friend Wm. James said about thinking in general is just as applicable to histories in particular.

In the course of my life, I have come to discover that most of what I was taught about history in school and those entertaining and dramatic depictions of history that flowed across the TV screen were, almost invariably, not just false, they were downright dishonest. I'm not so naive as to think that there are no dark sides to any nation's history, nor am I gullible enough to believe that what others are pushing as their own official versions might have "conveniently" left out those less savory parts. But, if I have learned one thing from the Germans in my time living here, it's that regardless of how painful it might be, it is absolutely essential to confront your history, to deal with it, to come to terms with it. Some are still struggling with it, to be sure, but at least it's on the table for discussion.

I'm no big fan of the idea that the past is the best predictor of the future for the simple reason that too often the past we are looking at isn't the one we should be looking at. Consequently, I'm making a plea for getting the real one and taking a good, hard look at it. If nothing else, it can provide a view of a whole lot of mistakes that we would do well to avoid in the future.

For example -- and it is only one, of many -- I have searched far and wide but simply can't find that example where waging war was a good thing, that it actually solved a problem or that it lastingly made the world a better place. But, as recent events have shown, it is still an awfully popular "answer" to some as yet not clearly formulated question. I simply don't get why we don't get it. What's worse, instead of coming to the realization of its futility, we're actually expanding it, turning it on ourselves, so to speak. (Or what is all that militarization of police forces all about?)

At bottom, for me, then, is the question: don't we know or don't we want to know?

How do we know where we're going?

Back in the 90s, comedian Steven Wright did a stand-up routine which included one of my favorite paraprosdokians that went something like, "I woke up the other day, and everything in my apartment had been replaced by exact replicas." How did he know? Though funny, it's bizarre, but like all good humor, it contains within it, some grain of truth. Sometimes things change and we're not quite sure how, or everything seems to be as they always were, but they're different, or ... well, you get the picture.

Just yesterday I was having a chat with a friend over lunch. As so often, the subjects were world events, breaking news, the situation in the world ... nothing out of the ordinary. It struck me, though, as he spoke that all the key words he was using -- the government, politicians, training and education, society, the social order -- were all common, everyday, familiar words, but -- and this makes all the difference -- none of them meant what I once thought they meant, nor what I was taught that they meant, and most poignant of all, nor what he was implying that they meant. All of the concepts had changed, but I wasn't immediately quite sure how, or though it all seemed to make sense, it was somehow very different.

No, I didn't stop him and tell him I was having a Wrightian experience. In fact, we both went on as if nothing had happened at all, but I'm convinced that I'm not the only one who has such feelings. I would be willing to be that every one of you has, at one time or another, in one situation or another, have felt that everything was cast in a quick pale of doubt, that nothing is as it once was, that though you understand each and every word being said, they're just not making sense.

None of us is going insane (or if we are, this isn't the reason), nor are we simply feeling our screws loosen, nor is there anything actually wrong with us at all. We're not lacking in any particular way. These feelings, these experiences are perfectly normal, at least they are these days. I can't speak for past ages, I can only speak for my own, but we are going through (a) a great number of changes (all at once) that are (b) radical (in the true sense of the word; that is, going to the very root of things) in nature, and that are (c) I believe, unavoidable. There are times (as history has shown us) when things can change in a really big way -- like the "discovery" of monotheism, or the emergence of argumentative discourse, or the "discovery" of perspective, or the acknowledgement of time as a dimension -- but none of these changes -- all of which we, today, simply take for granted and accept as givens -- happened overnight. What history also shows us, however, is that each of these great changes took less and less time to accomplish and each change was far more subtle than the one preceding it.

The time in which we could firmly and unerringly rely on our five senses has gone for the most part. Crassness has been superseded by subtlety, directness by innuendo, details by implications, and the clearly marked lines between fact and fantasy, between news and commentary, between reporting and advertising, between investing and speculating, between service and exploitation, and more are becoming increasingly blurred. We need to be aware, not only that such changes are taking place, but also in which directions these changes are taking us. What is more, it is imperative that we find ways to help make others aware as well.

There are days when I'm convinced we all live in Mr. Wright's apartment.