700 posts in 7 years

The title's merely an expression of fact. I've been at this for that long, and this is as far as I've got. Hmmm. Does that meaning anything or not? OK, that's a loaded question, for we know that meaning is, in many ways, personal, and whether the number 700 means anything at all is an open question. There are a lot of folks who won't hesitate to tell me that a number is just a number is just a number. But, I happen to think that people who think that way just aren't thinking at all.

Seven. It plays a big role in our Western religious traditions: 7 days of the week, 7 arms on a menorah, 7 deadly sins, 7 virtues, 7 works of corporeal mercy, and 7 works of spiritual mercy; 7 miracles in the Gospel of John, 7 sacraments of the Catholic Church; 7 times 7 that you should forgive your brother for offense against you; the Sabbath Year, the Jubilee Year; 7 heavens of Islam, or the number of required circumambulations around the Kabba; 7 openings in the human head, 7 colors of the rainbow, 7 seas, 7 chakras, and 7 rings given to the Dwarf Lords in the Lord of the Rings; 7 points on a sheriff's badge; the 7 flies the little tailor killed with just one swat ... 7 upon 7 times 7 ... but who cares? Our atheist brethren shun the stories; our fundamentalist brethern shun the meaning. And in the end, it's just a number, so what? It could be that numbers may mean more than we think, just like myths (true myths) may be more real than we would like to admit.

Seven, when seen this way, appears to open the field ot every possibility. And is it not possibilites that give us hope? Anything is possible is a statement of hope. And that was the case: I had hoped to reach others, both like-minded and not, and I've spent the last 7 years trying.

Any number times 10 in numerology is the raising of "whatever" to the next level, hence 70 would be a kind of hope for hope. There's no 70 in the current equation except for the fact that my own name, reduced theosophically (those who want to know will have to ask), equals 70. I've used that as a moniker in other, more relevant contexts. In keeping the with the interpretations just offered, 70 would be something like "actualized hope", which would be me; that is, the guy who's been trying to hope for the best.

But this, as the title tells us, in my 700th post. Now, 700 is taking the previous level to the next level. I like the metaphor because it makes Life seem somehow like an adventure game ... which it, in many regards is ... and taking our logic of 7 to the next level, we're left with a kind of general priniciple, namely the Principle of Indetermination: everything's open, anything can happen, anything's possible ... the great hope that something good might come of all this in spite of everything else.

Yes, yes, I know: this is a mere intellectual, if perhaps slightly creative, exercise. But that's the point. Thinking numbers are stupid and just numbers is pretty unimaginative. What the world needs now (besides Love, as the song told us), is a good, healthy dose of imagination and creativity. I'm not narcisstic enough to think that I'm going to provide this impetus. I would like to think that I'm doing my part, no matter how small it might be. What remains is the fact that I'm confronted with a situation which I can imbue with meaning or merely ignore. Being the meaning-seeking person I am, I have chosen against ignornance. But, creativity means change; it's inherent in the concept.

In a sense, then, I'm opting for a Sabbath year, a year of rest (of sorts). Yes, for the bean-counters amongst you, it should have been last year, but that is really not the point. This post, as I have tried to explain, is the point of change. The current rhythm of posting is every three days (a matter I could address at another time), but it seems fitting, for a lot of reasons, to change the rhythm to 7 days, which is what I'm going to do. (Whereby I certainly reserve the right to violate this rhythm whenever external events or internal stimuli dictate the necessity to do so. And, who knows, I may be tweeting more, even if I'm enjoying it less.)

As of now, I'm going to post but once a week. I want a bit more time to think about what I'm going to say, and I want to think more about what I'm saying. I want to get a bit away from the mundanity of everyday life and politics and get a bit closer to the things that matter: the not-so-mundane and the what-are-we-going-to-do-about-it. I want to delve a bit deeper into self-reflexivity; that is, thinking about what we think and why, rather than making comments on the nonsense of too-much-everyday. I would also like the option of not just blogging, but also actually writing, but to do so takes a bit more time than I have had so far to devote to the words I post online.

Put another way: a regular blog cannot be much different from an editorial in a daily newspaper: a few words of "opinion" are thrown at events and circumstances on a rapidly regular basis. The Sunday paper, however, is a lot thicker, for the simple reason that it includes a lot of things that are worth (or should be worth) thinking about. We don't take enough time to think these days. Admit it: you run through your daily life, trying to make ends meet, striving to do the best you can, hoping that it's all working out, but you never really take the time to reflect. What I would like to do for the next year, at any rate, is provide you, perhaps, with reasons to reflect.

It's time to slow down. Not stop. Not reverse gears. Not turn around, just slow down. Take some time for yourself. Take some time to think about things. Take some time to act, not just react. Take some time to figure out what matters and what doesn't, what makes sense and what doesn't, what is important and what can be ignored.

I know that I need this time and want this time. My hope is, of course, that you need this time and want this time as well. The world's not getting any better. The nonsense and insanity that we call everyday life is getting harder to take. The decisions we make and the things we choose to believe now are going to impact our world, our children and our grandchildren for years to come. I don't think it's wise to merely make decisions. It is important, at least in my mind, that we decide: what kind of a world, which values should be in that world, how many others can we include in that world, and how rich that world may be. Please join me. I would love to have you along for the ride.

So how was the first month for you?

Well, here we are, the first month of the new year has passed. Technically, it's not the new year anymore, it's been demoted to just "this year" now. And I'm sure that all your resolutions, hopes and yearnings are shaping up just fine. Or not.

So, what have we got to show for ourselves thus far: increased tensions between the factions of the Syrian conflict and no signs of easing (still a lot of grunting going on around the oil hole, but this or that innocent bystander its being offed just so the other guys know we're serious); the stream of migrants and asylum seekers hasn't slowed, but we've got a new scapegoat, Greece, so we're good for distraction for some time to come (give a country an forced, impossible and unalterable economic program to fulfill then compain that they're not spending money on the right things apparently doesn't count); the circus called the primary election run-up in Fantasyland is getting downer an dirtier (and less amusing for those of us who will only feel the effects of the insanity); financial markets are reeling the world over (but that capitalism thing is still being touted as a sure bet); the climate's getting worse (even if most folks still don't know the difference between climate and weather, and yes, they'll vote in the same yokels next time around to take care of the problem); the snackless, clueless American rebels in Oregon have managed to get someone killed (but as always, he was too little a pawn to become a martyr); and we've got a new epidemic spreading against which we have absolutely no defense; and, if I had to pick the most-heard phrase for the month, it would either be "I'm afraid ..." or "You know what scares me ...". Looks to me like we're probably a bit worse off than when we all took a break for the end-of-the-year holidays.

As the observant reader of the last few posts will have noted, we've got a lot going on in our minds, but hardly any of it has anything to do with thinking, in the generally accepted understanding of the term. We've got our bones and rattles out, we're doing our haka thing, and we're churning out propaganda at an all-time high, but notne of it appears to be helping. Of course, none of it can help because none of it has anything to do with what actually needs to be done, which is to get a clear idea of what needs to be done, then do it. No, that would mean getting off the couch or taking your offspring along on some activist endeavor instead of showcasing them for your friends at the next little-league event or taking a stand in public and not only in the livingroom, and it would mean that you'd actually have to think about what you are doing and why, and have an understanding of time that goes beyond next weekend.

Yes, as painful as it is for me to say it and as painful as it is for you to have to read it: maybe, just maybe, it's time for all of us to use more of our brains and less of our brawn to address some of the things that have to be done.

A house built on sand

Our new year is not off to a very good start.

• Heads are rolling in Saudi Arabia, and they're our friends.
• The Saudis are chairing the UN Human Rights Council, but they're beheading people publicly.
• Oil is flowing from ISIS, but they're our enemy.
• Arms are being provided to the Kurds, because they're fighting ISIS.
• The Turks are attacking the Kurds, because the Turks are fighting the PKK.
• NATO tolerates the Turks' attacks, because the Turks are our allies.
• Foreign and foreign-sponsored militias are waging a war against a government, but it's still talked about as if it were a civil war.
• The Poles have lurched dramatically to the right, but they're still our friends.
• Freedom of the press is being squelched in Poland and Hungary, and no one raises an eyebrow.
• Individuals running for the candidacy for president of the US openly spout hate and racism, and are cheered on.
• Negotiations on major, international trade agreements are still so secret that our elected representatives have no access, but we're supposed to trust the negotiators.
• In Europe legislation took effect to unprotect people's savings essentially declaring their deposits bank property, and no one even questions the concept of "bail-in".
  

Oh, there's more ... but these are the first few that immediately sprang to mind.

And this is our foundation for a better 2016? 'Fraid not.

A new look at the new year

Resolutions and New Year's go together like milk and chocolate. To be honest, though, I gave up on resolutions a long time ago. The intentions were there, the intentions were good, they were, well, well-intended, but let's face it: we don't, won't and can't just flip a switch and change. That's not how we function.

As I noted last time, 2015 was pretty much a waste in the grand scheme of things. I know that every individual in every generation for as long as there have been humans walking this planet has looked out at the world around him and wondered if this is as good as it gets. Figuring that it probably is, everyone opts for making the best of it for themselves, and we end up with the same, old same-old. If you always think what you always thought, you'll always get what you always got. Simple. And accurate, if you ask me.

It's not just the cynic in me that figures the coming year won't be much better. It's like the cartoon I recently saw on Facebook:

The speaker asks the audience, "Who wants change?"
All the hands go up
The speaker then asks "Who wants to change?"
All the hands stay down.

Yeah, change is good, as long as it is other people who are doing the changing. And that's why I'm not all that excited and hopeful that 2016 will be much better.

So, even though I have no formal resolutions for the new year, I am plotting a course for change. Things just can't go on as they have the in past. It's time all of us starting thinking about the kind of world in which we want to live. For my part, I'm tired of the all the ignorance, hypocrisy, intolerance, selfishness, and self-absorption I'm forced to deal with. I've had enough of opinions for their own sake, of uncritical judgements, baseless assertions and unjustified statements. And, I've certainly put up with unreflected, unthought-thorough, simplistic, and prejudiced positions for far too long.

But, maybe I've picked the wrong year for all of that. After all, the Americans are going to pretend they're still a democracy and have a presidential election this year, so I'll most likely be inundated with all that I'm tired of, had enough of and don't want to put up with any more.

It's not shaping up to be much of year, is it?

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.

Resolutions or revolutions?

Here we are, once again, at lots of people's favorite -- and for others, their least favorite -- time of year. Sweep out the old, usher in the new. The problem is, the new isn't always that new, and it's astounding how soon the new starts looking a whole lot like the old.

Today's the day of resolutions, too. Most of us may pooh-pooh them, play them down, say they don't matter, but I'm always surprised at how many people still make them ... to themselves for the most part. We don't need to hang our failures out like the rest of our dirty laundry that we too often air in public. Sure, we'd like to be better persons, we'd love to take off a few pounds, we wish desperately that we got along better with friends, lovers or spouses, we think we can do something, but in the end, we only end up disappointing ourselves. Why? Because resolutions are revolutions.

Nothing in the history of the world has changed because someone, or even a lot of people, thought, "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if ..." It doesn't happen that way. For every progressive, life-altering change that we experience, there's a lot of agony, pain, suffering and resistance that precedes it. Sound, profound change has to be smelted in the fire of resistance, hammered by the force of will, and tempered in the waters or renewal. Change is just that: change, not merely a-lot-of-the-same-with-a-little-bit-of-difference. That's not change, that's accommodation. We love that change best that affects everyone else and not ourselves. That's why resolutions don't work. We'd like to, but we're not really willing to; we mean to, but we're not going to; we want to, but we just can't bring ourselves to it. Forget the resolutions.

Change comes by revolution. That's just how it is. Oh, it may be political, it might be personal, it might be violent, or it might be benign, and it might involve others, or it might just involve ourselves. What it does involve, however, is energy and actual change. A revolution, it should be remembered, is a full turn of the wheel. It's going all the way around, not just part of the way. It's the bringing forth of the new, not a reestablishment of the old. You want change? You need a revolution.

Our new year is an arbitrarily chosen date (there were lots of other, more meaningful ones available, but we chose this one ... so be it), but it's as good as time as any to at least reconsider. Arbitrary or not, it is an opportunity and it's up to each and every one of us to embrace it or reject it -- in the end, it's all our own choice. I can only encourage you to go for it. What have you got to lose, other than that which you really don't want anyway ... or you wouldn't be thinking about changing it in the first place.

New year, new chance, new start, or just more of the same, old same-old? It's your call.

In a bind or facing a dilemma?

Some of you have probably asked yourselves at some time or another, "Just what does he do with all his time everyday?" It's a legitimate question, and it deserves a legitimate answer. It's very simple, really: I wonder. Yes, I wonder a lot.

Obviously, as anyone who has read even a small selection of these posts will tell you, I wonder about a lot of things. But the thing I probably wonder about more than anything else is whether "things" (whatever they may be, or whatever you may perceive them to be) are ever going to really change. Oh sure, there are little things here and there: the distribution of parties in Congress or parliament, the price of fuel, the weather ... everyday, normal, things. No, I'm talking about significant changes, like saving the planet, stopping global warming, invoking a more equitable economic system ... not-everyday, big things. The more I wonder, the more I wonder why I wonder.

Most people who are in a position to read these posts don't really want to change anything at all. They've got a little bit of whatever that allows them to at least think that things aren't all bad and that, basically, they're doing OK, and they're concerned that if anything fundamental changes, the world as they know it will come to an end. I can understand that. Really. I think it's unjustified and unnecessary, but I understand how someone can come to think like that. In fact, in the course of my wondering, I believe I know why it is so easy to start thinking like that: fear. Yes, simple, basic, fundamental, existential fear.

The life we lead, the lives we live are tenuous at best. They can drastically change or end suddenly, without warning, for no apparent reason at all. Just ask anyone who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness without having even suspected they were ill, or someone who lost a loved one in a traffic accident or plane crash, or someone comes down with a major illness and sees their life savings flushing down the drain. There are more than enough of these people around, and there is not a thing that any of them ever did to "deserve" their fate. It was simply the luck of the draw, bad luck, if you will. It wasn't their "fault". They didn't do anything wrong. They are not being punished by any Higher Power. Whether you like it or not, and whether you want to admit it or not, lots, if not most, things in life are simply decided by pure chance. Or are they? We know all that rags-to-riches, Horatio Alger crap is no more than that: just crap. If working hard translated into financial success then practically all the women in Africa would be billionaires, but they're not.

And that brings me to my bind, or dilemma ... I haven't yet decided which: how do I get any of you to see that things really aren't the way you think they are? You, I, we all live under the delusion that those simple platitudes we were fed as children, those inspiring Bible quotes we get at Sunday school, those "authoritative" descriptions of how things are are, well, untrue. And if that's too strong a word, how about inaccurate? inadequate? irrelevant? impractical? less than factual? I don't care. You choose.

Oh, I know that there is a good number of you who know that you need to sit down and seriously re-evaluate a lot of things you believe. I also know that most of you will give it a bit of thought and then you'll put it aside. At some point, though, what we think and what we believe has to line up with what we do. It's this latter part that is so often ignored. It's about what we do.

And that's what I wonder about more than anything else: when are we going to actually DO something?

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.

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.

Saving private me

It should be obvious by now that we're not in good shape. And by "we" I mean all of us -- every single human being on the face of the planet. Yes, other people in other cultures have other pressing problems than the (let's admit it, rather high-level, comfortable) problems that we in the modern, industrialized, rich West are confronted with. The vast majority of people are the planet are still struggling with ensuring the basic necessities for themselves, so anything that we "complain" about simply pales by comparison. Still, I acknowledge that those reading this post are in a very fortunate position, even if they don't know it, recognize it, or acknowledge it themselves. It is only a matter of time, I suppose, until those "behind" us will have caught up to us, and what is more, all of us who have come as far as we have at least know what lies ahead of the others. If we wanted to, we could make their path less arduous than the one that we -- as a civilization -- have had to tread.

If ...

I stress this point for the simple reason that our wonderful Enlightenment thinking has condemned us to individuality. We think of ourselves as individuals, independent of and free from others. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

We like to think that we are free and independent, but as the example with Mr. Bush showed and as we experience every day in our own little, individual lives -- from the golden handcuffs that some of us wear to the this-job-or-no-job decisions that others must make to the desperate struggle for survival that still others are confronted with -- we don't always have the choices available to us that we would like to have. No one does. We're simply not as free as we would like to think. And our everyday existence constantly reminds us that we will never be as free as we would like.

The soothing ointment in this injurious drama is more available than we think as well. Having been forced into thinking of ourselves as more individual than is necessary, we have a way out. We don't have to be rugged, completely independent individuals. (Truth be told, there are none ... this individual is every bit as fictitious as unicorns.) We are not only allowed, but at bottom we are required, to be members of communities, but only if we recognize the value, worth, and pure existence of "the other".

There is a world of difference between members of my own club or fellow fans. The Other is the one I chose to recognize and acknowledge as being like me in the most basic and essential way imaginable: as another human being. That person's culture, language, customs, mannerisms, or attitudes toward life are irrelevant. What we share is our humanness: our being lost, our having feelings and desires that remain unfulfilled, our basic needs and wants, that we share the same physical space at the same time. You are like me, and I know it.

The time has come, for any number of reasons ... be it the impending environmental catastrophe, the suffering and deprivation caused by war, the denigration suffered at the hands of political or financial interests ... to simply assert our humanness, not our individuality, for our own sakes, but, more importantly, for the sake of The Other.

The power of the unconscious

We've awakened to a world that has no meaning. Nothing really makes sense anymore. As a result, there is a (I must admit, misguided) tendency to revert to what we think we know. We think the Enlightenment thinkers knew what they were talking about. They did, I suppose ... then. But, now we have, well, now. Too much has changed in the meantime.

Whether we like Freud or not, whether we think he was correct or not, we do owe him this much: he made clear that there are "forces" at work in our lives that we can neither see nor consciously control. There is, in a manner of speaking, a good portion of unpredictability in the most reasonable and rational decisions and courses of action. This unsettles most of us. It is a cause for anxiety, and the most common reaction to this anxiety, since we really don't know where it is coming from, is to simply ignore it.

We've become experts at ignoring (or is it ignorance, I'm never really sure).

With the proliferation of media, particularly social media, we can pick and choose what we what to be confronted with. We seek out like-minded thinkers, people who share our attitudes and opinions, we look for those who are like us, not different. Sometimes they root for the same teams, brandish the same colors, or simply use skin color as a criterion of distinction. Yes, these kinds of choices run the gauntlet from harmless to destructive. It is now easy for any of us to simply get lost in the mass, to be part of the crowd, to stay below the radar of individuality. But isn't this really a problem?

On the one hand, we like to think of ourselves as individuals, of free-thinking, self-choosing and deciding persons who are the captains of our own destinies, not mere pawns of Fate, as it once was. At the same time, I don't see a lot of these independent, individual free thinkers actually standing up for anything. Social injustices, for example, are simply beyond their control. There is nothing that any of us can do about a lot of things. The economy is just the way it is ... what can we little people do about it? There are other groups (clans? tribes? ... has only the label changed?) who aren't pulling their weight, contributing their fair share, but we only pick on those who we think we're better than.

It would seem that we're right back where we started from: no, this is all not a matter of Fate, but (truth be told ... or just believed?) there's nothing that I -- as an individual -- can do about anything. Have we given up? caved in? yielded? surrendered? What have we done to ourselves? What's wrong with us? Has the unconscious risen to take the place of the fate we once displaced?

To be perfectly honest, I don't know for sure ... but, I do have my suspicions

The Enlightenment's (no doubt, well-intended) emphasis on the individual has led us to believe that everything in life is up to us as individuals. We know, however, from everyday experience, that there is too much going on, too much at stake in the world for any one of us to deal with it adequately. We're lost. We felt we've been left alone. We feel isolated and alienated. And we're right: we're all of these things. What we have lost, more than anything else, is the awareness, the knowledge, the assurance that there are others just like us, that we have more in common with others than we have certainty only within our own selves.

The promise of redemption through individuality has shown itself to be little more than the threat of our own demise.

What's really at issue

So, what's really at issue here?

It would seem that we are confronted with a number of interrelated conundrums: are we individuals or are we not? are we responsible individuals with free choice or are we not? may we be judged by our actions or only by what we say? do we get passes if we're in a high enough position and act against our own beliefs? can you do something that causes widespread grief and destruction and still be considered honorable? are we truly solely responsible for our own decisions? are there no mitigating circumstances?

These are not easy questions to answer. And there is no reason that they should be.

One of the real issues with which we are confronted at denizens of the modern, industrialized, consequently rich, Western world is that we no longer know what is right and what is wrong. There are so many mitigating circumstances with which we are all confronted. When they happen to us, they are a tragedy. When they happen to others, well, they should just learn to suck it up and deal with it. Why is that? One of the reasons, I believe, is our misunderstanding of the notion of "individuality" which was bequeathed to us by the Enlightenment.

There are some of you, I am sure, who wonder what it is that I have with the Enlightenment. I admit, I mention it quite a lot. It was an important period in our development as a species (homo sapiens, that is). It was the Enlightenment that gave us the free-willed individual. It was the Enlightenment that dethroned God and promoted Science to the arbiter of what is "true". It was the Enlightenment that introduced the "Rights of Man" (and I have purposely chosen to phrase this as the Enlightenment thinkers phrased it, not what some these days think it should be, namely "human rights"). It was the Enlightenment that demythologized the world, exalted Reason above Belief, and that displaced the human from the Center of Being, just as the Renaissance had displaced the Earth as the Center of the Cosmos. For Americans, this is a particularly beloved time, it would seem, for America's own (sacred, if not holy) Constitution is a product of the Enlightenment as well.

My concern is more mundane: it's 250 years later ... has nothing happened in the meantime? It would seem a lot has.

Just for starters, how about: the rise of the nation-state, the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the rise of capitalism and the counter-effect of Marxism, the consolidation of European powers, the introduction of evolutionary theory, the development of Freudian analysis, the discovery of relativity and quantum theory, the two-time attempted suicide of Europe (WW1 and WW2), the destruction of meaning (via post-structuralism and deconstructionism) and much, much more. All of these things have transpired, yet our thinking remains every bit as much rooted in what came before, as if none of it had happened at all.

It would seem that we've cherry-picked what we like and tried to discredit the rest. As I see it, however, that which we so gleefully discarded is now coming back with a vengeance.

Not Fate, but Free Will?

There are a couple of consequences that follow on from our elimination of -- or stated perhaps somewhat more modernly -- our supersession of Fate. For us in the West, it has meant the development of and the focus upon the individual. An individual is one who makes his or her own independent and free decisions about just about anything, from what to eat to what to become in life. We in the West love the Individual, because the very notion itself seems to endow us with unlimited freedom. And, if there is anything that Americans, in particular, love to claim that they love, well, it's Freedom. But just how free are we? Just how free can we really be?

Let's go back to Mr. Bush and his little war that I was so bothered by ... after just a little background (to explain why what I have to say is not "political"). Mr. Bush chose to run for the office of President of the United States. Mr. Bush chose a career of what used to be known a "public service". In other words, Mr. Bush -- of his own free will and accord -- chose to subject his decisions, his opinions, his actions, and the consequences thereof to public scrutiny. And, it is for this very reason that we can look at, think about, and discuss his actions independent of any political persuasions that any of us have. His defenders, of whom there are many, would maintain that he had no choice: given the events of 9/11, given the growing threat of terrorism around the world, given the increasing hostility toward America and all it may or might be perceived to stand for, he had no choice. (This is not something I'm making up hypothetically, it is an argument with which I have been actually presented.) Of course, the question arises, in light of the fact that we are free, unique and independent human beings, why he, in this particular situation, had no choice. What do we call it when we have no choice in what we do? Yes, Fate. But, (I'm pretty sure we agreed last time that) we've superseded Fate. It is our choices that determine who we are and how we are perceived.

We all should remember that I was quite open about the fact that I wouldn't have wanted to be in his shoes at the time of making that decision. On the other hand, we may also not forget that he -- as a consequence of his own free and independent choices -- did want to be in that position. Do you see the contradiction? How can you want to be in a situation of your own free will and accord and then claim that you have no choice? Either you believe we have the will to choose, or you don't ... and if you think there are degrees and shades of whatever that color our ability to choose, then it only seems reasonable to grant others that same concession.

Anyone, not just the (alleged) most powerful person in the world, can be in a position in which s/he actually has "no choice.

(And here's the political statement, and then I'll drop it: this is not a state of affairs allowed for everyone. If it were, we wouldn't have a general attitude that the poor are poor by choice, or that they stay poor by choice, or ... I think you get the point.)

So again: either things are a certain way or they are not; either individuals are free to make choices (and if the most powerful person in the world is not in such a position, then who, might I ask, is?); we are either masters (or mistresses) of our fate, or we are not. What are we?