Valentine's Day interlude

It's that day again: the biggest holiday that isn't. The absolute most deceptively devastating self-image and self-confidence destroyer known in the US of A. Valentine's Day. This is the day that simply makes losers of us all.

First of all, we don't even really know who St. Valentine was or what he was good for. Second of all, it was the greeting card industry that marketed it, like so many other faux holidays, to increase sales; and yes, we fell for it ... again. And, third, and finally, of it all, how depraved and degraded do you have to be to single out one day a year to allegedly honor "Love". If you have to do that, you don't know what it is to begin with. You're just another loser who bought into the fad.

There was a time, and there have been cultures which have taken the notion of LOVE seriously. No, America isn't one of them: it doesn't know how to take anything that is serious seriously. Let's take the Ancient Greeks ... now there was a love culture. Why? Well, they recognized that there are simply different kinds of "love" and lumping them all together under one "word" is, well, a bit short-sighted. They had and understood different kinds of love, like eros (sexual love or attraction/desire), philea (brotherly love), or patria (love of the fatherland; yes, they were masculine oriented in that one), or agape (divine or transcendental love). But us, we English speakers, what have we got? Nothing really.

We're one of those poor, unfortunate cultures that has one central, therefore rather diluted notion of something -- in this case, "love" -- that needs to be further specified by adding some kind of descriptor, an adjective, if you will, so we end up with all kinds of phrases, like "platonic love", "sexual love", "brotherly love", "love of country", "love of self", but even though we use different words to describe them, they aren't all the same. Love is simply not love. But we've lost sight of that.

So what is it, really, that we celebrate on Valentine's Day. Well, let's examine the prototypical scenario for the day. Mr. I-hope-I-get-lucky BUYS flowers, candy, a card (or any combination, mix-and-match, variations or augmentations (I'm thinking balloons here) of those things, and these are the context for the GIFT (too often, depending on the intimacy of the relationship, something from not-too-serious, but noticeably firmly priced jewelry to intimate attire, or even -- gasp -- an engagement ring ... and tell me that's not tacky on Valentine's Day), and this will all be presented either throughout the day or at, yes, a special, intimate, romantic dinner at a restaurant that is one (or if you're particularly anxious or horny (if there is in fact a difference) at best two) price-class(es) above your usual dinner-date place. Commercialism has never been so venerated. But what does any of this have to do with love?

If you are together with someone and every day is not some kind of Valentine's Day, you've missed the whole point. Love, in particular the love between two individuals, is not expressed through goods and gifts and fancy meals. Love is expressed through sacrifice, most often self-sacrifice; through dedication and stick-to-it-ness when things are tough; through being there when you don't want to be, or even better, when you think you can't anymore; through pain and tears and heartbreak and sickness and building "the other" up when the world is coming down around them.

Yeah, I LOVE Valentine's Day, for it's the perfect day to let your significant other know that you haven't the slightest clue about "love" at all. And what's even better, how many of those "others" expect all that nonsense?

Revolution's end

Whereas throughout the course of the history of humankind, revolutions have tended to be brutal and violent, the most important, lasting, and profound revolution that can ever take place is the conscious change that you undertake within your own self.

I know you all like to think that mere change and revolution are two different things, but when it comes to oneself, a conscious change is the same as a revolution. If you fundamentally, truly, change yourself ... the way you view the world, the things in which you believe; if you consciously decide to be different than you are, to act in a different way, you have most certainly changed the world.

John the Baptist's message was simple: change the way you think (metanoia) and the Kingdom of God will be realized on earth. Jesus' message was the same, only he provided us with a couple of guidelines in which direction we might consider changing in a worthwhile manner. They cut off John's head, according to the story, and we all know what they did to Jesus. Has it ever struck any of you why whoever it was, whenever it was, would have resorted to such drastic measures for such as simple statement: change the way you think?

It's not all that difficult, really. Should we stop talking about how much we love Jesus and believe in him and start acting like he did, the world would change in drastic and radical ways. Or, just for the contrast, we stop talking about Buddha and start acting like he did, we would recognize our true selves and the world would change in drastic and radical ways. Or, just for laughs, if we stop talking about the Tao and start acting like Lao-Tzu admonished us to act, we would change the world in drastic and radical ways. And the same is true no matter who I call as witness. We love to talk about a lot of things, but in the end, we're reluctant to do anything at all.

For you non-believers or atheists among us: you're not off the hook. I, personally, don't care if you believe in God or Allah or Nothing or everything. I don't care if you think religion is a bogus pyramid scheme that needs to be eliminated. If you're so fixated with eliminating the "evil" influences of religion, how about simply acting in a way that others might find worth emulating. Set a good example.

What we think and what we say is all very nice. I would hate to think that those who are saying and thinking nice things should be ignored. But, in the end, when you get right down to it, what you say matters very little compared to what you do. The real revolution would be a revolution of action, of doing: saying what you mean, and meaning what you say; doing that which is necessary to support what you say; doing as you do, not only as you say. If we could get just this far, we'd have taken a huge step forward.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case, there are more than enough folks who are simply all show, and no go; folks who can talk the talk, but can't walk the walk. The final question is obvious: where are you in all of this? Are you the revolution's end, or its beginning?

What happens without a revolution?

The world will change ... or at least our perception of the world will change. Nothing is going to stay the same. Change is inevitable. Being born, growing, dying ... these are all marks of change. That's simply the way of the world.

Conscious change, however, can only happen where there is consciousness, where there is an awareness of what can, needs, or should be changed, when individuals gather like-minded others together to make a difference. Of course, that is next-to-impossible these days since everybody is right and everyone else is wrong, since there's no talking to most people anyhow, and you can't fight city hall.

Toward the end of last year, there was a spate of postings that appeared on my Facebook wall about individual responsibility. You know, things like each of us is responsible for the choices and decisions we make; it's not our parents, our neighborhood, nor our community who's to blame, we have to own up to our own choices and decisions. Some of these appeared concurrently with news reports of protests and demonstrations, the hand-up/I-can't-breathe/Black-lives-matter events. It's sad enough that such "statements" get made for what are obviously the wrong reasons, but while I am all for personal responsibility, if we apply the logic of the statement to the statement itself, we find it collapses into a rather pathetic bleating of it's-not-my-fault.

Think about it: we live in a world run by fear, directed by terror; we're restricted in our freedom by oppressive political and police structures; Americans are personally armed to the teeth to protect itself against everyone who's out to get them; religious fanaticism brings forth sickening violence and horror; there's not talk and discussion anymore, only accusations, claims and contentions, our infrastructure deteriorates before our eyes, illness drives so many to bankruptcy, and nobody can do anything about anything anymore. The logic of the personal-responsibility advocates tells me that since you choose to do nothing about any of that, then your are responsible that things are the way they are. You choose to buy your new car instead of putting the money to better use for the community; you choose to sit in front of the TV instead of getting involved in community projects; you choose to watch Fox instead of getting the facts and informing yourself about issues; you choose to put more energy into rooting for the home team instead of making a difference in the world. These are all choices we make, day in and day out, and each and every one of them contributes to how the world is.

The world is the way it is: unfair, unjust, unequal, inhuman, violent, dangerous, threatening, and deadly because we have all made those choices that end up making the world this way.

The revolution, should there ever be one, will never, ever start with the others. In can only start with you. If you don't consciously change, don't expect that anyone else ever will.

Is there really going to be a revolution?

Though often accused of being terminally cynical, I have, deep within me, quite the optimistic streak. And when I tap into it and think about the revolution I've been going on about, there is only one answer that keeps coming up: no. No, I don't think there's going to be a revolution. It saddens me to say this, believe me, but I have to be honest with you, and with myself. Why? Why have I come to this conclusion? I can sum it up in two words: "conscious change".

Yes, "conscious change" is what I have been talking about for the last half-a-dozen posts. The deliberate, aware, recognized and acknowledged changing of oneself: conscious change. We may do a lot of things in our lives, but most of them -- too many of them, unfortunately -- are not conscious choices. And, when it comes to change, well, let's be honest: that's something for everyone else, not for me.

Let's face it, taking a good, hard, impassioned look at oneself is anything but easy. In fact, it's downright hard work. It requires, strength, patience, endurance, courage, tolerance and the ability to forgive. That's how we like to think we are, but that's how the fewest of us are, really. Most of us put on a pretty good show, but at heart, we're pretty much lost and pretty much overwhelmed by the world around us. So what do we do? We puff up our chests, beat upon them, if necessary, and bluster our way through the everyday. Things would be so much better, so much simpler if others thought like we do, or so we say, and acted like we do, well, as long as those others don't act toward me like I act toward others. Yes, everybody else has every reason to change, every reason to need to change, but me, well, I'm not such a bad person really, I'm pretty much OK the way I am.

Whatever change happens, of course, happens to us, certainly not because of us. The world keeps getting worse, the problems bigger, the threats darker and more horrific, the dangers graver, and the outlook bleaker. We fail to recognize, let alone acknowledge, that things are the way they are because we allow them to be that way, we make them that way.

Oh, we have our lucid moments when we decide for ourselves ... to move house, get a new car, go to the movies or the pub, watch football with the guys, or buy new shoes. But that's about it. Big issues, real-life issues, issues that affect us and everyone around us ... those we leave to others, not because they're more qualified to deal with them, but because we then have someone to blame when things go wrong.

Is the revolution desirable?

We're such strange creatures, we humans. We're so amazing, glorious, astounding, and at the same time we're horrible, despicable, and revolting. We can create artistic works of breathtaking beauty and inspiration, but we can also devise the most hideous methods of torture and depravity.

I know that many of you belong to that school of thought that says we humans are, in the end, merely animals. It will come as no surprise to any of you when I most vigorously disagree. Don't get me wrong. I admire and am awe-inspired by so many of our animal cousins, throughout the entire biological spectrum, but, when all is said and done, when all the evidence is in, and when all the measures are applied, we humans are, well, just a little different. Personally, I don't care if this is because you believe that God created us in His own image or whether you believe that it is merely the chance result of a gazillion gene mutations. I don't want to discuss the cause, I merely want to focus, for a moment, on the effect.

I said it before, and I'll gladly repeat it here: difference obligates. If any creature or entity is capable of something then I expect that this creature or entity live up to its possibilities and capabilities in an optimal way. (Yes, my dear critics, there are a lot of fuzzy words in that last statement, so I'm open to any and all suggestions how one may phrase the idea more concretely and more precisely.) What I'm saying is that should any of our animal cousins change, according to current biological and evolutionary theory, it will be because some gene mutation, not because that creature or entity desired that change to occur. We, however, as humans, as I have been painfully trying to point out over the last few posts are in the rather unique position that we can change who and how we are by merely willing to be different. Now, that, in my own rather humble opinion, is an extremely powerful capability. That is, without a doubt, an awesome power. And if you disagree that difference obligates, you're going to have a much more difficult time convincing me (and many others, I might add) that with power comes commensurate responsibility.

If things are so (and I believe they are), then we have every reason to pause and reflect on how much we want to change and how quickly. We could, perhaps, establish peace of earth. Theoretically, it is possible. On the other hand, we have it within our power to create Hell on earth. That's just as possible.

Is that the reason, deep down, that we are reluctant to change even ourselves, to participate in any larger action that may induce a sudden or drastic change, because we don't really know which way it all could go? Perhaps.

It has always amazed me how fear-motivated we are. We're afraid of consequences, even though there are consequences for being afraid, which are anything but welcomed consequences, but ... how circular and confused our logic can get.

The revolution is only desirable, of course, if the results are desirable. I'm advocating desirable results for the maximum number of people: love and care and be concerned more; hate and interfere and be apathetic less. What's so tough about that? You tell me.

Is the revolution even possible?

Spoiler alert! The short answer is a very sound "most likely not."

Disappointed? You should be.

You see, it all boils down to something very fundamental, very basic, and very personal. We all think that we're all OK, it's everyone else that needs to realize they're being talked to and do something about it. That's why nothing ever changes: because for change (and I'm not talking about any kind of "revolution" here) is only possible within oneself. Things don't change, we do ... as Thoreau pointed out, but even when we do change, we don't admit to it, for somehow we think we would be betraying ourselves.

Change is possible. As a matter of fact, it happens all the time: we get older, more experienced (I'll leave the judgement as to wiser or not up to you), our bodies get weaker and eventually break down completely. This is the way of the world.

Conscious change is possible too. We can decide to lead a healthier lifestyle. We can decide to be more open-minded and tolerant. But we can also decide not to do anything at all. But the one thing that we can never decide to do is not change.

Again, the observant reader will have noticed that since the year began, I have not been advocating mere change. Why should I if it comes about all by itself. No, my focus has been revolution, and revolution is not a slight, gradual change of circumstances, it is a sudden, sometimes drastic, shift in ourselves and much of our environment. But, revolution can also be conscious, desired, willed, and put into motion. The prerequisite for this, however, is that enough of us decide that things shouldn't stay the way they are, that we ourselves should be different.

Do you have any idea how many of your fellow readers just jumped ship? "Oh no, we'll be having none of that!" Others: "We have no idea what might happen," scream others. Why would we want anything sudden and drastic to happen? One reason could be that "sudden and drastic" are, in and of themselves, not all that bad, but most of us have a very negative attitude toward them.

I'm now going to put this into terms that I think everyone can understand: we (all of humanity) are at a threshold. (I know you've heard it before and most of you think it's crap, but bear with me.) It is within our power to change the world. This change can take place within the timespan of a day. However, it is up to you. If you are with me, and if you feel up to it, and I have but two small, simple challenges for each of you: Pick the one person in your life who causes you the most joy, and do whatever you can to make that person more joyful and aware that this is their role in your life (and I'm not talking about a one-time thing, I mean continually). The other half of the challenge is this: pick the one person in your life who causes you the most grief, and do whatever you can to be kinder, more tolerant, more understanding of who they are and what problems/issues they may be facing (and I'm not talking about a one-time thing, I mean perhaps even approaching them and offering to help with the issue).

All of you were with me on the first challenge; I lost most of you on the second. And that's why, my dear friends, I believe that the answer to this blog's question is a very sound "most likely not."

What's the revolution about?

For those of you who have been paying attention since the turn of the year, it should be obvious that the revolution of which I am speaking is a personal, if not private one. We need to start slowly, start small. There's no need to take on too much too fast. The world's a big place and it could take a while to change it. Nevertheless, much of what has been said thus far has been intended on recognizing that there is more to each of us than we may initially suspect. We're not everything, that this for sure, but we are not nothings. We are ourselves and who and how we are affects and has effects on a lot of other people as well. We're not lone, isolated individuals, but the one to whom we are always the closest is simply ourselves.

The purpose of our last little thought experiment, it will be noted, was simply to make you aware that if enough people moved in any given direction -- good, bad, or indifferent -- significant change could occur. We have little to say about how others may or may not move, but we have everything to say about we ourselves will move.

The observant reader will have also noticed that I'm not selling anything, I really have no agenda as I have nothing to gain by you following along or not, I don't have a fancy set of rules to follow, nor am I pushing a particular view of the world. No, I have asked nothing of you, other than you, perhaps, take a bit of step back from yourself and look at yourself again. You can block out friends, family, loved ones, employers, colleagues, co-workers, passing acquaintances, or anybody you happen to pass while walking down the street. I have not asked you to do anything but look at yourself. I don't care what your political leanings are, whether you believe in God and go to church or are an atheist or an adherent of some new-found earth religion. It doesn't matter. Nothing matters ... absolutely nothing matters but you and -- this is the big IF -- whether you're willing to simply take an inventory of your own inner self; that is, of who YOU think YOU are.

Stated most simply: I merely want you to take the opportunity to become just a little more aware of yourself. If you're not willing to take this step, if you are not willing make a serious effort, if you are not willing to go even this far, then I want you to finally sit down, shut up, suck it up (as many of you probably like to tell others), and put up with all the crap life throws at you. If you are not even willing to take a good, hard look at yourself, you aren't willing to contribute to solving anything you think is a problem, for, in the end, you are a good part of the reason we have all these problems to begin with.

How serious is the revolution?

How big, strong, sudden, radical or drastic a revolution is depends on a number of factors. We could go through a number of physics-related metaphors, of course, but at bottom, the answer is going to be that old stand-by "it depends".

Our authoritarian-minded friends of whom I spoke last time are particularly susceptible to this problem. To them, for the most part, even the smallest change is a change of everything, down the last detail. This is, as I think most of you will recognize, an exaggeration, but I would be the last person to maintain that a change of anything (or everything) you once thought to be good and true to even the slightest "maybe" can be next-to traumatic. And this is why I never hesitate to add that the revolution you choose to initiate is always whichever one you think you can handle. This is one of those many, many situations in life where, well, to co-opt a phrase, "size doesn't matter" at all. Who cares how big or small your own personal revolution is? It's yours, not theirs. What is more, who cares how long or rapidly your own personal revolution takes? It's yours, not theirs. In other words, if we were more worried out our own revolutions than those of others, well, we would have probably changed the whole world already.

I'm serious. Just stop for a moment and think what the world would be like if every single person you know -- family, friends, business associates, teachers, students, acquaintances, the cashier in the supermarket ... everyone -- suddenly became more interested in the effect that they were having on others than the effect that others were having on them (and don't forget to include yourself in the thought experiment). Really. Do you think the world would be the same as it is right now? I didn't think so.

OK, we all know that this isn't going to happen just like that, immediately or without any kind of warning. And, yes, we all know that everyone isn't going to (and maybe some people will never) change all at once. But that's not the point. The whole thrust of the little exercise is open ourselves up to new possibilities. We're not talking about a big, individual change: simply paying more attention to one's own effect on others. I mean, how much time, energy, or other resources can that demand. But, simply becoming aware of that effect will have a feedback effect on ourselves. What we do about it is a different issue that we can get to later. My point is that with a very minimal amount of effort, without attracting the slightest attention to yourself, without having to make a New Year's Resolution (public or private), without anyone suspecting anything, you could end up having an extraordinarily profound experience.

I know that most of you think you know what the result of this little data-collection exercise will be, so you won't do it. But I'm here to tell you that you have no idea what the result will be unless you do do it. And I'm also here to tell you that you'll be surprised at what you find.

The fun-seekers, the courageous, the risk-takers, and the desperate will take me up on the challenge. You may like what you find and you may not. It may mean something to you and it may not. But I assure you, if you are open, honest and earnest in your effort, you will have already started your own revolution.

How big is the revolution?

In astronomy, mechanics, or Nascar, it's easy to measure the size of the revolution in question. We needn't even try to think in terms of government or society, for those are entities that are so much larger than ourselves that we can very easily get lost. (Once we have our orientation, however, we can return to these subjects, but for now we'll put that off till later.) But even if we are dealing with just ourselves, just how big a revolution are we talking about?

We humans have the special ability take on a variety of roles simultaneously. We can be parents, children, siblings, bosses, workers, co-workers, friends, lovers, spouses, aunts or uncles, cousins, chairpeople, simple members, co-members, committee members, and who knows what else all at the same time. And what is more, we are fully aware (whenever we think about it at least) of being all these different "people", yet we are still "just ourselves". To deal with this complexity, some of us -- well, a lot of us; perhaps too many of us -- take on the divide-and-conquer approach. We construct our lives into a bunch of different little compartments that we keep diligently separated from each other. We have our "family selves" who are different from our "work selves" or are different from our "free-time selves" and on and on it goes. For those of you who have tried this, you know it really doesn't work. The moment you come home from work and let your frustrations out on the family, you've mixed up the two. It's a nice illusion, and you could start your own revolution but at least dropping this charade.

I have to admit, though, some people are better at this than others. There are people who will maintain the non-interrelatedness of things even when presented with clear, sound evidence to the contrary. These are the people I care about and am concerned about most, and this isn't the first time I mention them. These folks have a particular ability to admit to contradictions without batting an eye. These are people who can have dinosaurs, people, fossils on a 6,000-year-old earth. These are people who can assert that excessive military force is necessary to ensure peace. These are people who think that innocent people who end up being executed simply had bad luck; there's nothing wrong with the system. And there are more of these people than you think. And I'm sure that most of you don't think I'm talking to you anyway. But think again ... just to be sure.

The reason why I'm most concerned about these people is two-fold: on the one hand, they'll just put this change-yourself/revolution thing in just another box; and on the other hand, deep down, we both know that the reason they do this is because they are afraid. Terribly afraid. Deathly afraid. They make a good, sound, brave impression on most of us, but at heart, they're shaking in their boots. They are afraid that if they make the slightest change to anything about themselves, their entire world can come crashing down upon their heads. And that could in fact be.

But maybe it is otherwise.

Where does the revolution start?

Don't you just hate when that happens? When somebody tells you a big change is both needed and coming and, suddenly, you have to do something about it? I know. I hate that too. Unfortunately, that's just one of the ways of the world that we all have to learn to come to terms with.

The world is the way it is because you are the way you are. It's that simple. Now, I hear some of you out there waving this off as the rantings of a slightly less than mentally stable individual, but just stop and think about it. You exist completely and independently of everything else and everyone else on this planet? You have not interaction with anything or anyone outside yourself? Of course not. You might get your electricity out other wall socket, but somebody somewhere made it possible for that socket to be installed so that it would deliver electricity. You don't grow, hunt, or produce your own food, even if you may occasionally engage in isolated activities that resemble it. You have family and friends, some closer than others; you have a job, colleagues or co-workers, a boss or clients and customers; you worry about what money you have and what you're going to do with it or where you're going to get more. And every single one of those relationships, both personal and impersonal, play out the way they do because you are who and how you are. Now, granted, we spend a lot of time worrying and hoping and complaining that others ought to change, but somehow they never do, and that simply bothers us to no end. At some point we have to realize that we really can't (and in most cases, shouldn't) be trying to change others. If you want change, you've got to change yourself.

Of course, it could be you don't want change at all. I know some people who are convinced that there isn't a thing about them they need to change. They are as close to perfect as humans can get. When you talk to their friends and family, however, you get a slightly different picture. There are others who will tell you that they have to be one way in this situation and these people and be different in other situations with other people. That sounds like multiple personalities to me, and that's a sure bet for mental problems down the road. The world has enough mental problems as it is. I'd suggest rethinking this approach. And there are lots and lots of lots of folks who will tell you that it doesn't matter. They're my favorite: the avoiders. If I don't acknowledge a problem or if I place its solution outside my own sphere of influence, I don't have to do anything about it. Of course, some of these folks are the ones screaming loudest about "personal responsibility".

Unfortunately, the world is anything but a perfect place, and every single one of us is confronted with challenges and circumstances that we do not like. There are lots of problems to be solved, at all levels of existence, I would add, and we don't know much about how all those things work or where we should start or what we could possibly do ourselves.

And that, dear reader, is precisely my point: if anything anywhere at anytime is going to change in any way, the only opportunity you have, your only recourse, your only option, is to change yourself. But, is changing yourself a "revolution"?

The revolution starts now

Dangerous words, those are. We hear a word like "revolution" and alarm bells start going off. Yes, "revolution" is one of those words we think about very specifically or not at all.

Were the subject astronomy, it's a mere circumnavigation of one celestial body around another, like the earth around the sun, or the moon around the earth. Perfectly harmless, and most people know little about astronomy anyway, so it's not important. Were the subject mechanics, well, if we're a horsepower fan, revolutions, as in per minute or second, makes our hearts beat just a little faster. Perfectly harmless, and most people don't know about mechanics anyway, so it's not important. Should we simply approach the word abstractly, any procedure or course or circuit that starts and ends in the same place is a composed of revolutions. Nascar is, in this sense, a perfect example thereof. Perfectly harmless, and most of us don't care much about Nascar, so it's not important. But, this is just the I-don't-think-much-about-it part of the word.

Were there a sudden, marked change in how we design and construct, say, buildings, we could talk about a revolution in architecture. Again, perfectly harmless, and most of us don't know anything about architecture anyway, so it's not important. Move the field of observation ever so slightly from the buildings to those who use them; that is, the society; and all of a sudden, an unexpected, marked change in how we design, organize and operate our interactions with one another makes us very uneasy very quickly. We tend to be afraid of such things, and suddenly, "revolution" becomes an undesirable word. Even though most of us don't know much about society and, following the same reasoning as above, it really shouldn't matter all that much. For some reason, we think it does. The only time we really get involved in using or talking about the word, though, is when governments are involved. It's quite clear: revolutions are not nice at all and should be avoided at all costs ... even if one's own current state of political existence is the result of one. That one was OK, all the rest must be avoided. It's an odd creature that can think so differently about the same thing.

Since I don't want to frighten any of you, and I certainly don't want my American friends stocking up on more guns and ammo than they have already, I'm here to tell you that I'm not talking about that last meaning of the word at all. Too often, revolutions end up being violent, and it has been very precisely documented and soundly analyzed that violent revolutions tend to beget violent societies. If you don't want to believe me, try Chenoweth and Stephan for the whole story. I see little point in trying something again that has never really worked before.

No, if there is going to be any kind of revolution at all -- and as I hope I've been making clear for the past 5+ years and hope to continue doing so in the future -- it can start at only one time and in only one place. Now, and with you.

Winter is here again

Many winters have come and gone since I started my Great Journey. Of some of them I was aware, and there are others that have melted away without leaving the slightest trace.

What I have noticed in recent years is that they're getting colder. Well, in the way I'm thinking all the seasons are starting to cool off. Oh sure, temperatures are increasing. Physically, climatologically we're experiencing a global warming, and its effects are being noticed the most in the developed regions of the world. We have the time and opportunity to devote to things like that.

But inside ... well, that's a whole different story. Inside, it's getting colder. Inside, we're getting colder.

This is also in my experience a developed-country thing. We in the West have got it good ... in some regards, too good, in others, there is plenty of room for improvement. But I've noticed a coldness descending upon our hearts. We're too ready to blame the victims for being victims. We're too quick to judge by appearances. We're ignorant of our collective history and when we find out how different it is from what we were told -- in school, at home, in church, wherever -- we distance ourselves and cry foul when we as individuals are asked to accept our responsibility from it. We're lightning fast at generalizing from our own anecdotal experience and so slow and recognizing, let alone, acknowledging the bigger picture.

The detachment from others that comes from individualization has many positive aspects. It is a good and necessary part of our development that we become our own persons, but we become less, not more, of a person when we allow that detachment to actually separate us from others. We can still smell, hear and see far beyond the boundaries of our own bodies and those oders or aromas, those wails or harmonies, those nightmarish images or inspiring visions still affect us ... if we let them. Most people know on the inside how they are affected, even if they don't often show it on the outside. To know more, to use our other senses, to taste or to feel, we'd have to get closer, but we don't ... for fear of becoming infected, I suppose.

And so we distance ourselves from our own world. We avoid being touched or touching. We stay aloof, unmoved, ensconced in our individual little fortresses that we foolishly think will protect us from what's "out there". And we become isolated, and lonely, and cold.

Many winters have come and gone since I started my Great Journey. And they're getting colder.

Beliefs

In Act I, Scene v of Hamlet, Shakespeare has his eponymous hero tell his friend, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I'd have to say I couldn't agree more.

Most of us don't believe in much of anything anymore. Well, I know I still have some pretty firm beliefs, but I'm not so sure about a lot of other folks I know. When I watch the news, surf the net, or simply converse with colleagues and friends, it becomes increasingly apparent that there are just not a lot of things that are believed in anymore. Oh sure, there's the one or the other who profess a deep and abiding love for "the Lord" or Jesus or Mohammed ... but just between you and me, I can't help but think it's more fear than love, but I've always had trouble telling the two apart.

Be that as it may, the hubris of so many people, even those without many beliefs, troubles me even more. If were honest - especially honest with ourselves - we'd admit that we really don't have much of a clue at all. I mean, the universe is a big place and we hardly know anything about it at all. We like to act big and bad and brag about all we know and how Einstein and those guys figured it out and how we're here because of the Big Bang and Darwin clarified how we got here, but the folks who are saying this can't tell you the difference between theory and fact, so they're really making things worse, not better. Their die-hard opponents aren't any better, just pushing all the responsibility on the Creator and maintaining (without even a shred of evidence ... at least the scientific types get a few points for trying) that people and dinosaurs harmoniously cohabited the planet not all so long ago. I'm not convinced there's much hope for these folks at all, though I am surprised at how many seek - and obtain - public office in the United States. Scary thought.

Of course, since we don't know much, I don't think it's a good idea to make a sport out of knowing even less. That's why I find it disturbing when I read tha 18% of Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth, that 63% of young Americans can't find Iraq on a map, 9 out of 10 can't find Afghanistan (even if you give them a map just of Asia), 75% can't locate Iran or Israel, and more than a third of Americans of any age can't identify the continent in which the Amazon River, the world's largest, is located. (By the way, the numbers haven't improved in the last five years, regardless of school choice.) No, we have to believe we can do better. We have to believe that real change is possible. We have to believe that it's worth the effort to try and make that change. We have to believe in ourselves. We have to believe that the society in which we live is worth saving. We ... oops.

Sorry, I got carried away. I forgot we traded in our society for a mere economy. My mistake. And in light of that, and since we all have to believe in something, I believe I'll have another beer.

Togetherness

There are two things about Wade's little ditty, the first of which is the idea of "togetherness".

Of the song's eight stanzas, four of them (1, 2, 5, and 6) are context-setters: they ask questions or make statements about the singer's feelings about life. The other four (3-4 & 7-8) constitute two two-stanza refrains in which he presents his solution to the problem. Unsurprisingly, the "problem" is the sense of pain and frustration caused by loneliness; the "solution" is, in a word, "togetherness". It is by and through others that we become whole. And there's nothing new about this either. So what about the song got me thinking?

The theme addressed in this simple song is one that forms the heart of most modern music (and by that I mean rock & roll, country & western, rhythm & blues, and all their many variations) for as long as I've been listening. This theme has been stated, sung, spoken, crooned, warbled and shouted so often that I'm beginning to think we have simply tuned it out. I mean, how hard can it be? We all feel better when we feel and know that there are others - just one significant other - who care about us. We all feel better when we know and feel that we care about them in return, and even when it involves people who aren't even aware of our feelings. This is, in other words, something I'm sure practically every single one of us have had a some, several, or many points in our lives. In fact, I would be so bold as to maintain that it is a universal human experience, for I've seen it and felt it everywhere I have ever been.

Why is it then - and now we're getting to the reflection part - that the world's still such a nasty place at times? Why is it that so many people too often feel just like the singer of the song? Why are feelings of isolation, solitude, and loneliness so widespread? It doesn't seem to make much sense. In fact, to me it doesn't make any sense at all.

Maybe that's what's so difficult about it: it's so simple. Like the Golden Rule ... easy to say, straightforward as all get-out, and seemingly impossible to put into practice. But, I don't find that such a satisfying explanation. If we simply can't, we won't, and if we don't, there's no hope, and that's what I'm trying to avoid.

But, there is something else about the song that got me thinking, and it's what the singer sees as a pre-condition for the solution. Next time ...

If we ever make it home

OK, so making things up is a big part of our lives, that can't be the end of the story. We do this in many more aspects of our lives than just business or economics. It's actually something that we do more often than not, and like is so often the case, we do it without really even thinking, so let me take another example:

A reported-deceased-but-still-much-alive fraternity brother from long-times-past turned me on to a Wade Bowen song (with the same title as this post) that I decided to share with you, for it got me thinking. It's not that I'm going sentimental on you, rather, there is an ultimate point to all of this. Here are the lyrics (with some help from Weldon B.):

Is anybody out there searching
Has anybody lost the way
Am I the only one who’s hurting
Today

Must have got some bad directions
How’d we ever end up here
All this pain and desperation
And fear

If we ever make it home
They’ll be peace like we’ve never known
Nobody’s gonna walk alone
We’ll be leaning on each other

Every wall that we’ve built up high
Is gonna fall right before our eyes
Love will surely conquer hate
If we ever make it home

There’s darkness in the daylight
As the devil works his trade
He’s the first one to the gravesite
With a smile on his face

There’s a flicker in the distance
Where a single candle glows
And another walking with us
Who knows

If we ever make it home
They’ll be peace like we’ve never known
Nobody’s gonna walk alone
We’ll be leaning on each other
Loving one another

Every wall that we’ve built up high
Is gonna fall right before our eyes
Love will surely conquer hate
If we ever make it home

Oh if we ever make it home

You see, it's just a simple, straightforward, red-dirt text. It's neither high-end poetry, nor profoundly philosophical, nor should it be. It is, like any good song, though, one that should stimulate us to reflection.

The reflections are next.

The show must go on

Yes, the show. Where would we be without the show? Over the past couple of weeks, especially in America, there has been nothing but non-stop show.

I'll tell you, though, what is tough for us ex-pats to explain: why all the show, and why doesn't substance matter anymore? I realize, of course, that the statement/question is a bit oversimplified and something of a rather platitudinous generalization, but it's not completely without merit. After all, as I asked a couple of posts ago: why conventions? they really don't do anything except put on a show.

Well, without thinking about it long and hard - which I'm sure I'll do eventually - I think that the lack of substance that all of sense is a simple defensive reaction. There's too many stimuli in our environment, there is too much noise, too much movement, too many unresolved issues, too many things that just don't seem to work anymore, too many unanswered questions ... and beyond the shadow of a doubt, too many opinions. We're being overwhelmed, we are drowning, in a flood of data, information and issues, too many of which are simply beyond most of our understanding.

There are things that we probably can do very little about without Herculean efforts: global warming (it may not be just humans causing it, but if you don't acknowledge it, you can't do anything about it, but it'll happen anyway); economic inequality (not just personally and individually, but globally); debt and deficits (what can I say); militarization and war (if there is anything that 100,000 years of human history should have made clear: it's not even worth thinking about as an answer). But, in all the conversations that I've had, especially over the past two weeks or so, everyone whom I talked to said the very same thing, almost as if it had been scripted by someone else: "Well, that's just the way things are, there's nothing that a little guy (or gal) like me can do about it."

To my mind, that's the biggest problem of all.

I think one of the reasons we think we can't do anything is simply because we're overwhelmed by it all. There's just too much to think about, and thinking about stuff - whether you want to admit it or not - is a lot of work. There's too much to keep track of, there is too much for me to figure out, there's too much that I don't know enough about, there's not enough time in the day, there is nothing I can do. Same old same-old means we get more of the same old stuff.

How frustrating is that? There is obviously something wrong with the picture.

Pride before the fall?

OK, I hated (at least a little bit) to leave that last post hanging, but how much more is there really to say? We've got some unexplained (but not necessarily threatening) natural phenomena going on, and we've got some sensationalist news folks (almost exclusively American) "investigating" it all. And, we've got the fact that some of what has been going on has always been going on (but we haven't written it down), and some of it is truly a bit odd and in need of serious investigation. But, that still leaves us with what I consider to be the most important, and least asked, question of all: so what?

Let's assume the worst-case scenario: 2012 the world comes to an end. The Mayans turn out to be "right" (though we have no idea why their calendar ends or what they were up to, but no matter: we're dealing worst-case here). The Earth is rebelling, the Sun is overreacting, humankind have overstayed their welcome and are destroying Gaia ... it doesn't matter how we describe it, the world is coming to and end. Again, I have to ask, so what?

Why is this such a big deal? If you're a good Gd-fearing, born-again Christian, you can't help but get into rejoicing mode, because you're about to be taken into the bosom of Abraham. If you're a good Allah-fearing Moslem, you can't help but get into rejoicing mode, because He is about to assert his authority. If you're a good, Gd-fearing Jew, you can't help but get into rejoicing mode, because what has begun must also end. If you're a good, observant Buddhist, you can't help but get into rejoicing mode, because the Wheel is turning once more, and there's a good chance we all get off. If you're just a plain, old, everyday atheist, you can't help but not get excited at all: we're just here by chance anyway, so there's a chance at some point we won't be here.

In other words, just about every group I can think of has all their bets covered. And, if that's the case, why is it that the American news media thinks it can increase its sales (at least until the bottom falls out) and make even more money than it already shamefully does? It's quite simple actually: chances are good that nothing is going to end, except for the way that some people currently think. And that, my friends, is what so many folks are afraid of: they might be believing the wrong things? The big, threatening question is always: what if the other guys are right?

My question is, of course, the same as always: so what? All your believing can't change what is. Perhaps it is simply time to step a bit more slowly, to get a bit less insistant, and to become a bit more open to ... well, faith. The degree to which you are afraid, is the degree to which you do not know. The degree to which you are sure, is the degree to which you have no idea. The degree to which you accept, is the degree to which you are actually free. That's what a wise man once said: you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Home again

After two weeks around where I was born, I know just how right Mr. Wolfe was ... or is. He might have said it a while ago, but it's as valid a statement as ever. Truths, should there be such a thing, are eternal, or so I'm told.

It makes you wonder about concepts like "home". What is that, anyway? Home is where you hang your hat, say some. Home is where the heart is, maintain others. I did notice in my conversations with the family that no one buys a house anymore. They only buy homes. But didn't someone else live there before? It makes me wonder: is "home" a place or a feeling?

I think I'm going to go with the latter. Home is, to my mind, simply where you feel "at home". That sounds more like a tautology than a truth, but how else could it be, really? My kids, for example, were born one place, grew up in another, and are living entirely somewhere else. If you ask them where "home" is, what are they going to say? My guess is that home to them is where they feel most at home. In today's overly mobile society, they are more the norm than those who, like my father, are born and grow up somewhere (that is, within a limited radius of miles) and who will die there as well.

It may seem trivial, but if you go back to where you were born and visit family and old friends, the question comes up more than once; namely, "How does it feel to be home again?" But am I? Am I home or am I simply there where I was born? I can't answer for anyone else, but for me, the answer is home is where I'll be when the vacation is over.