A Discussion About Debate

I feel it's important to keep this subject in mind, especially during such emotional and challenging times as these. I am letting go of needing to be "right" or "bright": of finding the answer everyone should abide by or saying the witty, pithy thing everyone admires. I am stating my feelings here without expectation; I am stating here my desires without attachment. You choose to listen and/or hear just as you choose how to interpret my message. There is no goal I have in mind or ultimate "me" I need to become, only the pursuit of becoming more clear. In that pursuit, I want for us to talk about important subjects with the intensity in our hearts, with truth and reason in mind, and with compassion.

I am consciously not commenting on the many tragedies occurring right now, those that have been reported in the past couple weeks, or any potentially looming. I am focussed instead directly on the meta-conversation and meta-debate. I am drawn to the value-indeed, necessity-of holding and reminding ourselves to hold discussion of how and why we have discussion.

I, like you, have opinions. I feel things much as you do. I have wishes and dreams and believe you do also. I am imperfect, and think we are similar in this also. Most of all, I have questions. We are similar enough that I think you have questions as well. I even have a favorite question: "What Is It?" This is the shortened form, compressed and distilled into a purified reminder. It means to ask about reality, about what is true, and what is behind what we see. What moved behind, what motivated, what "caused" that which I see? It's my favorite both because I ask it all the time and because it covers so much of what I'm interested in.

Why am I sharing this and why should you bother reading it? Because I think it's the same question you are asking.

Why are we talking to others if not to understand? Why are we being open and vulnerable to one another if not to be understood? Recognise that we are all very similar and want similar things. By this I mean shelter, food, clothing, friends, a sense of fulfillment, a legacy, and fun. We are not so different that we cannot understand and be understood. We are not enemies that cannot coexist. We are not so alien we cannot communicate.

Therefore, in the interest of understanding and being understood, to realise the goal of knowing what is real, valuable, and true I ask you to commit to debate. We may be rivals, even opponents at times, but only to the extent we choose to be. Let us choose to value differences and allow for them. Let us acknowledge common needs and work together to meet them. Let us discuss with the intention of reaching the end together rather than separate.

Are You a Spectator or a Player?

My sense is that we are comfortable thinking of this in terms of sports, that when we hear the word "spectator" we think of an observer of some sporting event.  Just that notion can be provocative, despite how commonplace it is.  It brings up ingroups, preferences in contact versus non-contact sports, and notions of gender ability/equality. However, none of those are the focus of this post.  As soon as we begin a conversation around "our" sport, we either have a rival or ally: is this person with us or against us, do they wear our colours or not?  First we have those spectators, the persons watching in the stadium or on T.V.  Then we have those whose professions orbit and are in close contact with the players and games.  This includes jobs that describe, analyse, promote, and plan strategies to win games.   Finally, we have those doing the difficult work of hefting the ball, running the distance, stopping the opposition; those people who make a living playing and being "on the field (track, pitch, etc.)".  So we have three categories: those who actually play, those who act as support staff to the players, and the many more who pay to watch the players.  However, I think this applies to much more than sports and that it indicates something more than just "people like to watch."  I get a chuckle out of the terms "Team Edward" and "Team Jacob", for example.  It is the fetishism around or commodification of another activity into this mold.  Given that we are in the throes of an impending national election in the U.S., I think the relation to politics should be apparent.  There are a few who are actually involved in politics-the elected and appointed officials and candidates-who are "in the game", the support staff-think tanks, P.A.C.s, lobbyists, and news coverage-and then there are the majority of the population who watch what these "players" do.  The problem here is that in a Democratic Republic, that's not what is supposed to happen.

We are not spectators to our government, it is not something that happens without us or in spite of us.  We don't just show up "for the game" and spend the whole time "filling the bleachers", passively observing what others are doing.  Nor is it sufficient participation to "cheer for our team" and say "we won" when our party's candidate is elected.  The very words Democratic Republic have meaning because they are a definition of what this nation is and how it's supposed to operate.  The truth is that an election is only one small part of the process.  The same is true of laws, court appeals, hearings, committees, etc., these are all parts and not the end-all or be-all of this form of government. It's also not a money-making enterprise for the elite who exploit their position to extort money from "fans" and "advertisers".  This is the travesty it has become: a spectator sport for the masses to feel vicariously empowered by instead of participating in, complete with the panoply of money, advertising, fabricated drama, and hyperbole of any major-league sport.  Actually, it reminds me mostly of the former W.W.F., with made-up backgrounds for caricatures of "good and bad" that never really lead anywhere because it was just entertainment instead of an actual sport.  Fun to watch, but in no way suitable to government.

A Brief, Nonprofessional Opinion About Discrediting Science

It occurred to me that the way I have heard science attacked lately takes one main form.  What I hear is folks saying that science is not factual, that all science has to offer is theories and "guesses".  In turn these people are arguing that since science does not claim to be absolute, it is just another belief system.  In short, the way religious individuals are criticising science is by claiming that it is not any better than their own religions.  Therefore, ironically, they are actually supporting and even proving that religions are less valid than science.


Just because scientists do not claim to have "The Truth" does not mean that science is flimsy or disreputable.  Certainly the inability of laypeople to understand hard science has no effect on the validity of it.  In reality, scientists get into some pretty far-out areas of the universe.  Places where our everyday thinking about things like "water is wet' no longer apply.  These are things we just can't say we understand completely.  We still have microwave ovens and P.E.T. scans, G.P.S. and cell phones, refrigerators and genetically-modified foods.  That's all science-based, not running on faith.


I will state this as simply as I can:

1.  Belief systems (read: religions) are not rigorous and objective but are only as valid as the people who believe them.
2.  Religion precludes your involvement and testing; there is no way to go about "knowing" anything.
3.  Science is a series of observations, conjecture about what happened, followed by testing, and re-evaluation to make sure.  Repeat ad infinitum.
4.  Anyone and everyone can participate in science: make observations, hypotheses, test them, and show your data to others and you are a scientist.

My Very Own New Word!

Disneed: a self-destructive or harmful pattern of thinking, doing, and/or interacting.  The prefix dis- is used as in a dis-ease, dis-function, or dis-order whereby an actual need is sabotaged to result in a counterproductive outcome.  My disneed for being helpless led to us getting lost and missing the dinner.  The underlying drive may be to not be responsible; so as to bring down others expectations of me to such a minimal level that I won't be asked to do anything in the future.  It could also be a sense that I am not fit to make these decisions and so I force others to take control and make decisions.  At any rate the term disneed describes the underlying motivation.

Since it is self-destructive rather than productive or generative it isn't actually a need.  It would be too easy to say "My need to be irresponsible..." where it is not an actual need.  What I want is to accurately diagnose and describe what is happening, and that starts with recognising an error in thinking.  As language has power and the words we use will shape our thoughts and beliefs I feel that making this distinction is important.  It allows me to point to my self-destructive habits and know/show how the result was not what I really wanted nor needed.  It can call attention to where I need to focus-on the problem-rather than on blaming and belittling myself as the "uncorrectable source of the problem".  I do not believe in condemning people; it is the internal issues-which can usually be corrected-that should be the focus.  I hope that this tool helps with that goal.

Action V Intention

A while ago (Do what you want to the girl... 26Dec06) I said: Since it is the actions that count, rather than what we claim we will do, then it is our actions which indicate who we truly are.  It is past time that I supported and explained that.

I once heard an aphorism that stuck in my mind: in the end you are what you pretend to be (evidently this is not a direct quote from Kurt Vonnegut). What I mean by actions demonstrating who we are is that our intentions or promises do not make something happen. It is only when we fulfill our promise that it becomes truly meaningful. I can intend to ask someone out on a date or intend to apologise for hurting someone, but unless I follow through it won't matter. I do not discount intention in saying this, because I do not see this as all/nothing, either/or. It simply means that unless I actually go to that person and apologise they will never know if I'm sorry; meaning to say, "I'm sorry" doesn't matter to them, they want to hear me say it. Actions are also linked back to intent and mean more when done with purpose. If I save a life on accident it indicates less about me than if I set out to do so. The person whose life I've saved doesn't much care, they're just happy to be alive and I've still done a great service. Do I deserve to be called a hero, though? Think of a firefighter rushing into a burning building and rescuing a baby. Now think of someone who trips at the bottom of a stair and, unintentionally, is the soft landing place for an infant who fell from a great height. Both have saved a baby, but which should be thought of as "heroic"? This example can work in reverse as well: a firefighter who accidentally kills a child while performing regular duties versus a criminal who shoots a child to escape the police. Which should be judged more harshly? The focus here is how others see us and feel they can best judge us. Actions are observable while thoughts or intentions are not. We choose what we will do, while we may not always be in such control of our thoughts and emotions. Furthermore, actions can change and different choices can be made even in the last instant. These factors mean our actions have more of an impact on others. As social creatures, we mostly determine who we are in the context of others.  We get feedback from others, which shows us what is desirable and what isn't. This influences what we do to fit in and will colour our future choices. We "live up (or down) to" people's expectations of us, mostly to those whose opinions matter to us. For all these reasons, "who we are" is made up of family, friends, peers, strangers, and idols. It may be simple and attractive to say that people's actions are their own responsibility, but it is so much more complex than that. Rare is the person who acts in a vacuum of influence and is totally independent from others. This is why our actions, and by extension who we choose to be, are important: because they are formed by and impact those around us while being refracted through the prism of our being.

Communication Breakdown is Inevitable

I said previously (in my post Apart-ment of 21Dec04): It doesn't matter what I'm here to say anyway, because you might not understand it, what matters is what you are going to get out of reading it.  This is the constant limitation of communication and an issue which we come up against every day: the division between what is said and what is understood.  Our own thoughts are often a mystery, as when we find ourselves laughing hysterically at grave news, so it is difficult enough to be clear with ourselves.  Add to this the notion of communicating these garbled and convoluted notions to another who has the same problems.  The other person has to be able to listen through their own limitations and interference.  They need to be able to get out of their own preconceptions, judgements, and emotions to reassemble the ideas they are hearing.  Say we're making plans for a trip, "We'll get up early, clean up, and go for a short hike."  What do "early", "clean", and "short" mean in this context?  Certainly different things if we're camping out than when at home.  Yet somehow we end up taking for granted that others know what we're saying.  One of the most annoying things to me is the phrase "you know", mainly because it completely counterproductive.  If someone uses "you know" in recounting an experience there is very little chance I will, at any point, actually know what they are talking about.  As a verbal tic it is rivaled only by the word "like", when this is used outside of comparisons.  As I don't mean to turn this into a rant, I will not belabour the point.  Suffice to say, since I wish to be understood I use as many adjectives, nouns, and complete sentences as possible when talking.  I still remember the example I heard as a young child in class, which was to think of a chair and describe it.  Just the simple concept of "chair" evoked so many different types!  Amplify that to include the myriad nuanced peculiarities in our everyday discussions.  Unless we're painfully explicit when discussing these things, we can't be understood.  I think this is why it is so remarkable and memorable when we feel listened to and heard.  We know how difficult it is and we value it when someone else gives it to us.

Trying Their Fuedal Best

I'm interested in fantasy and people's choices in what they like to imagine.  As creatures capable of untruth what we choose to lie about can be very informative.  In this case, a popular area of fiction is devoted to the collapse of civilisation and the resultant aftermath.  It further seems a recent trend, one divergent from past fictions of isolated disasters, local terrors, and removed tragedies.  I don't know of many post-apocalyptic stories from history.  The only ones that come to mind are myths about floods, sinking islands, and the retribution of the gods.  The stories nowadays revolve around technological collapse, resource exhaustion, biological threats (zombies and super-viruses), and large meteorite strikes.  I recall a time when jargon like "extinction level event" was practically unknown.  This trend may have started in the 1980's with widespread concern about nuclear warfare and the resultant fallout.  Nowadays regular citizens are concerned about space debris and genetic manipulation.  This sort of threat, while incomprehensible in scope, effects everyone.  It feels personal because there is no way to escape it and so we would all be effected by it.  What happens after everything we know is destroyed?  What is left after our technologies fail?  Finally, what does it mean?  The farther we rise, the higher we have to fall from.  This seems to be a central concern of this new genre.

As a tenacious species we look for ways to overcome all obstacles to our survival.  It may well happen that we exhaust the Earth's energy reserves and survivors are reduced to pre-electrical/pre-petroleum technologies.  What could we then do?  How could we, as a species, continue?  I know a group of people who engage in the real-life re-enactment of the Medieval period (Society for Creative Anachronism or S.C.A.).  This is the other half of my inspiration for the post.  The S.C.A. was founded and continues as an educational group, and I understand their mission to be that of preserving history as a living thing.  I am not suggesting these good people are delusional or preparing for the collapse of civilisation.  It is fun and enjoyable to study and participate in these things for those individuals.  There is the possibility-however remote-that the skills and knowledge preserved by them would be needed, not that I wish to find out.

In the end, I think these two, unrelated things simply indicate a certain amount of dissatisfaction with present circumstances.  I think these and other factors demonstrate that people don't feel comfortable with all these technologies and just the amount of stuff.  If that is the case, I can certainly agree with the notion.

Occupy Your Democracy

Okay, granted I'm a late arrival in commenting on the movement, but I've been an armchair cheerleader this whole time. I support all those out there, in various countries around the world, who are taking their time and energy to stand or sit against the 1%.  I am also writing to urge everyone to not lose focus or energy around this issue.  Real changes can only be realised if we keep pushing, even after they say we've won or that they can't give any more.  I look back at indentured servitude, slavery, serfdom, rule by divine mandate, physical or financial force and wonder what could arise from a real change in our system. Can we eliminate the inequality? Is it possible that we might only take back some of the ground we've lost in the past 30 years?  Either way, it would be better than leaving it in the same hands that have limited and controlled us all this time.

My suggestion in this case is that we "act as if" instead.  Rather than only getting those things that we are allowed by the "powers that be", we should create our own system and act it out.  If your business requires that you cover piercings and tattoos or wear a uniform, don't.  The 99% reaches down to management, it reaches down at least to the upper offices and echelons of large companies.  Don't fire those under you for stupid rules that even you don't agree with.  Take back your time.  Be more human and allow yourself to enjoy life free from the oppressive tyranny of work, work, work.  As long as the majority can agree on these things, we can implement the changes we desire!