How I am not Unique

When I was a child, I lived with what I now know was an unbearable amount of shame. I believed there was something inherently wrong with me. I was separate, and unique. This belief meant both that I could never be a good person and that everyone else must be-since they could not be contaminated in the way I was. This shame lead to me believing that because others were better, they were also smarter than I; it followed, in this flawed logic, that I was only capable of a narrow understanding contained within the broader knowledge that others had. In addition, I believed they could see and think the same things I did; again, because they had access to better and more in everything. I had to spend my my life hiding my brokenness, because if I were found out then I would be rejected and ostracized. It took a long time to discover that I was not that different, and that others were not "better". However, for all those years, I had to make sense of things from the perspective outlined above.

In the time before I was aware of this tendency, it was a tremendously antagonistic world that reinforced my shaming beliefs. Because I thought everyone was seeing the same things in the same ways as me and drawing the same conclusions (because "it is just obvious given the information at hand"), I assumed that every act contrary to my own thinking was an intentional insult. It was as if someone were pointing out my faults through the circumstances. If there was anything wrong in a situation, it was because of me (being that I was the broken one) and everyone was going to see how wrong I was. Every error was a chance that someone could find out my secret: that I was semi-human and a danger to others. It is an incredibly complex dynamic that I am simplifying here in order to focus this discussion. There were compensatory mechanisms whereby I would point out the mistakes of others in order to bolster my own ego, or pretend indifference to avoid rejection, or many other methods to combat the central belief around being broken.

The impetus for writing this, and the title indicating that I am not alone in these things, comes from an understanding that not admitting it is part of the problem. I was convinced that anyone who found out the "truth" about me would expel me from from society; however, I have learned that is not true. Secrecy is the lie that shame uses to shield itself from discovery, because exposure is the event which leads to recovery. At this point, I will recommend the work and writing of Dr. Brené Brown for more on the topic of shame. My own efforts here are a further exposure of my shame in order to continue to diminish it while empowering more helpful beliefs. Moreover, I think that you, in reading this, have underlying assumptions which guide your own thinking. It may be that you have shame, or another harmful dynamic, at work keeping you from even contemplating the possibility of connecting with others and of being vulnerable with those important to you. Or of sharing with those who are seemingly different from you.

Given how divided and divisive these times are, I am hopeful that this brief story can introduce the idea that we are all not that different. None of us are so unique that we cannot connect with others. Others likely saw an egotistical, aloof, solitary, belligerent, and angry man when they looked at the younger me, yet all that came out of pain and self-hatred. No one is so far gone that there is no hope. Consider only that it may be our own shortcomings, or those issues that others are facing, which get in the way of attempting to bridge those divides.

Mental Illnesses and How to Treat Them

First, because litigation has replaced dialogue as a form of communication, this is not medical or legal advice. This remains the blog of a layperson who expresses a perspective in order to challenge and support others to explore various topics which concern us all.

I will propose that we are still in a Dark Age of understanding mental health; even though we have gone from chaining patients in cells to giving them pills, it is only a first step. Let's briefly review some history of medical knowledge to draw some analogies. Even though intricate knowledge of the human body has been available since ancient Egypt, how to treat diseases was subject to debate and misapprehension. Most people know that prayer, bleeding, and trepanning were all considered actual medical treatment at various times in history (and many discredited 'treatments' still have adherents, sadly). Only in the last 200 years have necessary items like antiseptics, anesthetics, and antibiotics been understood and used generally. Out of thousands of years of recorded history, only the last couple centuries have contained advancements we now consider fundamental to restoring physical health. We still cannot regrow limbs, treat genetic diseases by altering DNA, nor even repair nerves to correct paralysis. Our medical knowledge has finally reached an adequate level; most people, most of the time, can be treated and restored to a physically functional level.

Similarly, our understanding of mental health has advanced. Whereas what has been seen as insanity (or aberrant behavior) must depend upon the surrounding culture, history does have records of various conditions. What we call schizophrenia, for example, shows up reliably; it may be supposed that religious figures who heard, saw, and/or felt things no one else did could have had it. This actually leads to my point: what is a mental illness? In the history of modern psychology, sexuality was grouped in with mental illnesses. Until about 50 years ago, anything other than heterosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Again, some still hold this absurd, dangerous, and disproven idea. PTSD was recognized by the mid-1900s, and has only seen significant treatment in the past 20 years. This, I think demonstrates that we are subject to the ongoing discovery of how our minds work and how to treat disease and injury of the mind. This is not to denigrate the advancements or profession of healthcare, just to recognize the limitations.

Now, I will suggest that some things we do not currently consider mental health issues could be, such as prejudice, conspiracy theories, and procrastination. Even if it turns out to be inaccurate, possibly using the model as laypersons could be helpful in our everyday lives. For example, rather than thinking of someone who is racist as a 'bad person', just think of them as struggling with a mental illness. Just as we can have compassion and sadness for someone with an anxiety disorder, we could think of the conspiracy theorist as deserving empathy. Additionally, this allows us to separate ourselves from those peoples' conditions. Just as I can acknowledge a persons' cancer, lupus, or other self-sustaining pathology, I can put aggression in its proper place. It is something that they suffer from and I can only see the outward signs of, but it is not contagious and I can take precautions to prevent being harmed by their disease.

Controlling the Narrative

There are things you don't want anyone to know, for fear of judgement; they may be things you're struggling to understand and are uncertain of how to address them. How far can this be taken before it is harmful? Can it ever be healthy? On a basic level controlling (or attempting control of) what is known is distorting reality-also known as lying. If every part of each aspect of a situation were known to others as I know them, there would be no mystery or deception. When I work to keep information from others-in part or in whole-then I want to shape another persons' perception. I do not want them coming to their own conclusions; rather, I want to control what they think. This may be an extraordinary interpretation, but it is not an irrational one. It is commonplace, and often unconscious, to tell only part of the story-even to tell the story which places us in the best light. Whether it is malicious or harmful is separate from the fact of it happening. Note that I will use "lie" as the root word for this discussion for the sake of brevity and simplicity.

Positive public relations in business puts a "spin" on things by only giving out particular information. It is a recognized form of public affairs, and can rely on claims of "intellectual property" and "trade secrets". This can move from complete and factual statements about something into "cherry-picking" only positive aspects, even to suppressing vital 'negative' information that consumers would need in order to make a fully informed decision. The need for private companies to be seen as beneficent entities leads to dubious statements. Naturally, this has extended into advertising, with companies making claims about products that are rather ridiculous lies. Similarly, individuals in the public eye (i.e. celebrities, politicians, and spokespersons) can have personal and professional needs around public image and control of information. We can see this in various campaigns and agencies. However, sometimes "staying on message" can be a form of disinformation-a special kind of lie. Again, we return to the idea that not everything is exposed; there are some things that those advertising their wares are scared of coming to light. These examples can have a far greater impact than those of an individual. I skim over this aspect because it is not the focus of the post, and deserves more exploration another time.

When it is an individual controlling or seeking to decide what is seen or known, we may call it 'privacy', 'secrecy', or 'confidentiality'. We may have select friends we tell all things to, while others receive only cursory or superficial versions of events in our life. Social media is an excellent example: the struggle to always appear positive and likable, as having it all together. It may go beyond "polite" topics, and become a neurotic competition for approval. However, in these situations the harm is fairly restricted to a few individuals around the liar. While it can lead to fervent defense, shame, and "family secrets", it will not have widespread impacts. There's more going on, and as much denial as is put into it, a person cannot succeed at 'spin' and remain authentic.

This is where the topic becomes more intriguing, because an unintended effect of lying is one of denying authentic connection. Rather than letting ones' mistakes and limitations be known, one chooses to obfuscate and deny their existence. This places a barrier between parties, known on one part and sensed by the other. The liar must guard against the lie being found out, for fear both of being judged for the original action as well as for covering it up. The other party begins to place the liar out of reach, as being 'other' in some way; they may not suspect lying, but know that somehow the liar is different. We all know that we are imperfect, and either we have a damaged self-image and think we're alone in that or a healthy self-image and recognize that everyone makes mistakes. If others don't own up to mistakes, we have to suspect something is wrong somewhere.

Finally, it is this social aspect that is at the heart of the matter. Because we are social creatures, and require connection, how we achieve that connection is vital. Basically, either we can connect to others through control or through vulnerability. There is a part of being around others that involves the challenge of judgment. The fear of rejection is the most common motivation for lying. Yet losing connection is the biggest risk of lying. This is an inherent tension of willing to be known by others. Additionally, others cannot struggle with their own judgements if I am not putting who I am in full view. This-again-is part of being human: to experience judgments. Here it is both judging others and being judged by others. The opportunity to be challenged by differing judgments or facts. These judgements are separate from truth or self-image; however, they matter because a healthy human requires the acceptance of other humans. That challenge of facing a difficulty and encountering it directly builds a more solid individual; we could say that it builds character.

How Seeking Identity Sucks

While the push for individuality is prevalent and seen in diverse media throughout daily life, it is juxtaposed with the fundamental refusal of self-reflection within the U.S. culture. Briefly, this refusal is demonstrated by the constant blame of "others", denial of wrongdoing by "me" (whoever is speaking), and lack of transparency in discourse or dialogue. This dynamic becomes an inauthentic parade to display for others rather than actually express ones' individuality. Without the ability to find and accept who one is, the result is the suppression of self and taking on of roles. This can be seen in the way people talk about each other, as family, friends, coworkers, etc. Labels like "my rock", the "fun friend", "Blanche to my Dorothy" (substitute your own pop-culture reference), or the "go-to guy" are prevalent. One may seek to 'live up to' a reputation, or to use one of the above labels in order to be unique or, more precisely, to have value. Believing one only has value as an individual because of being witnessed and judged as being an individual does not indicate a healthy self-image.

 

A part of the pursuit of 'The Good Life' is the futile flight from conformity. Individuality can be an internalized form of domination when people are trapped by thinking that their value only has to do with money. The fear of being seen as the same as everyone else (especially potent in an individualistic society) means that wealth is the only way to be oneself since the wealthy are the ones seen as expressing individual flair (and deserving of the label 'iconoclast'). The Lego Movie shows us the danger of conforming, and how forgettable Emmet is before becoming 'The Special'. Even Wyldstyle disdains him openly for not being a Master Builder. The initial message is that anyone who has no discernible outward or visible difference is nothing. It is only at the end of the movie that we find the concept that every individual has something to offer as themselves. This mirrors the reality that people can feel and see, where social media and popular culture are filled with sensational, odd individuals and stolid, sensible people are dismissed.

 

The question of self can also be found when I blend in to various groups and don't seem to have a solid "me"-sometimes people will say they are a 'chameleon'. This is actually an example of humanity, universality, and commonality amongst all of us. It is not a problem or suspicious to be able to relate, since we are all more alike than we are irretrievably different. It also relates to the concept of code-switching, an important ability to act appropriately in different situations.

 

Finally, what would it mean to have an identity? If I do accept myself, does anyone else? Is the essence of who I am only valid without influence from anyone else or despite those around me? We are a social species, and depend on the social environment we swim through everyday to offer cues as to "how we are". What this means is that prejudice is learned through our surroundings, just as oppression is internalized. Contrarily, celebration of differences and equity for all can be learned through exposure to others. My ability to find and celebrate myself is a prerequisite for doing the same for others, so I hope we can make this process less daunting with time.

Further Confrontation is Required

It seems to me a number of posts that I have planned are contentious in nature. I will be expressing ideas contrary to popular opinion and potentially even to what I have written before. This is in order to expand the conversation, or to highlight areas I believe need further exploration.

I am declaring this because – much like my previous series on capitalism – I expect there to be a theme and for people to struggle with it. This is not a "trigger warning", this is to assure you that I recognize what I am doing and that it is intentional.

Insidious

This is a follow up of What is a Lie? (13 April, 2015). I mentioned briefly that jokes are lies, meaning they are not reflective of reality. A horse did not walk into a bar, and muffins do not talk. The intent to deceive is tempered with the intent to entertain. However, even jokes can be malicious and harmful. In ways greater, such as bullying, or lesser, as with 'fuzzy logic'. For example,

A man rolls through a stop sign.

A cop, seeing this, pulls the man over.

When asked, the man says, “I paused!”

The cop begins smacking the man on the head.

 The cop asks the man, “Do you want me to stop, or pause?”

As a child, this joke held a number of messages: personal safety, police violence, consequences, others' pain can be funny, hurting others as male 'explanation', surveillance by authority, and the importance of word choice.

The issue I want to focus on here is that the joke that leads to illogic. The man's actions did not warrant physical violence, nor is being beaten an analog for not fully stopping at a traffic sign. To compare potential harm with actual harm is wrong. It would be akin to saying I am justified in locking up a person who accidentally swept up another's checkbook in a pile of papers. There could have been malicious intent, but actually, there was none; furthermore, the harm is only a bit of worry before the confusion is sorted out.

Why is this worth mentioning and exploring? Many of the consequences to faulty logic are real-life and contemporary. Scams require victims to be oblivious to logic or susceptible to making erroneous conclusions. Malicious individuals rely on victims to not make logical choices and connections. This is not cause-and-effect and I am not claiming that laughing at silly jokes will lead to losing all your money to a con artist. I am supporting awareness of the ways we are fooled, and to be conscious of those patterns or instances in order to choose when to be on guard.

The Stake That Sticks Up is Hammered Down

The title of this post is taken from a Japanese proverb (see end of post). The reason I'm repeating a 'tired and misunderstood' aphorism is this simple: special people are ruining the world.

I believe this is the precise meaning and original reason for the saying. Not that every individual must conform or is prescribed a narrow role to fulfill. Rather, I take it to mean that those who "stick out" do not fulfill their obligation to the structure in which they reside. I see ubiquitous examples in a hyper-individualistic society like the U.S. From the person at a stop sign telling others to "go", sociopathic commodities traders, and the lobbyist/elected official 'revolving door positions' to entitled socialites, self-righteous Social Justice Warriors, and privileged children. These are all examples of persons who - by exempting themselves from common rules - cause havoc and unhappiness for others. As they are self-absorbed, it seems likely they rationalize by concentrating on the desired effect to themselves and ignoring the harm to others.

What would be the goal or underlying motivation for such seemingly diverse groups of people to behave so similarly? The simplest explanation would be fear. I could expand or de-emphasize it by using words like scarcity and insecurity. In the end, I am still talking about a belief that if one does not 'bend the rules' then one will suffer or 'lose out'. That belief is simply a story that intellectualizes the basic human emotion of fear. However, and more importantly, this belief confuses a want with a need. If I am willing to trample another person to get to a sale item, I have confused priorities. A TV on sale is not the same situation as boarding the last life boat on the Titanic. Not that I agree with trampling someone even then.

I will state my own opinion here: the minimum expectation to which people could hold themselves is of 'not taking my own stuff out on others.' In this case, eliminating or soothing my own fear at the expense of another is not acceptable. My emotions, even intense ones, are solely mine and for me to grapple with. If I require help, I am able to make requests. I cannot - in good conscience - use controlling behaviours to force others to get what I want.

Another reason why these are 'special' people is that they are not fulfilling a culturally necessary role through these actions. Even 'rebels' and 'deviants' have a place in society: that of questioning or challenging authority and complacency. This is noble and necessary. However, selfishly disrupting the harmonious functioning of culture by interfering with others for ones' own benefit is not. This is not conscious or peaceful protest of unjust laws, it is blindly acting out habitual, feal-based patterns. I will suggest calling it selfishness.

According to http://dictionary.reference.com:
selfish
1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself.

So, in the end, these 'special' people are just selfish people. It may be time to use the hammer appropriately on the selfish, for the benefit of all.


The following links are discussions about the meaning of the proverb:
Reddit
Wikiquote
Cultural Blog

What is a Lie?

I think this seemingly simple question needs to be asked from time to time because attitudes and perceptions change. However, just because one thinks it is "not lying" to not declare certain things on a tax form, to 'keep from hurting feelings' by reassuring someone they are attractive when they are not, consider an act not to be "sex" just because it does not include a penis inside a vagina, or even because "I was the only one there, no one will ever know different."

A lie is inherently and totally a lie. It isn't "half-truth" or even "stretching the truth", it is just a lie. To say otherwise is to lie. The point being that this practice of ignoring small examples of lying degrades the meaning and importance of the concept of truth. Beyond being influenced by popular attitudes about what it means to lie, we can also address what kind of person uses lies and when it acceptable to engage in lying. Let us be clear about what is a "lie" and to agree on that definition; to the dictionary!

LIE (noun)

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture.

3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie.

5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.

6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

Synonyms: prevaricate, fib.

Antonyms: truth.

 

TRUTH

1. the true or actual state of a matter.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity.

3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.

4. the state or character of being true.

5. actuality or actual existence.

6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.

7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.

Here is clear and encompassing definition, but quite dry. One important revelation would be to note that truth deals with reality. This means that if one lies, one is out of synchrony with reality, with the world. If this is minor, then it may possibly not have excessive impact. However, if this is endemic, if it touches on many or most areas of my life, then lies and lying can put me in a poor position to relate and interact with the world around me.

Another piece to note is that lying typically requires some amount of intent, whereas just being wrong or in error does not. This means that I can mistakenly answer a question, but in order to lie I had to want to provide inaccurate information on some level. Only I can know my intent, but others can assign malignant intent to my action or words. This is important because by not being honest about my own uncertainty, I can indirectly invite others to view me as willfully deceiving them.


To be clear, I am not advocating for a standard of always telling the truth, surprising as it may sound by this point. My aim is to clarify and reorient, and to advocate for awareness and choice in truth and lies. This awareness can lead to better outcomes, since people do things based on their beliefs. This does not necessarily lead to changing them, but can mean they are no longer unchallenged assumptions, rather they hold their correct status of personal attitude.

I recognize that lying or even the ability to lie is not totally bad. Humour often relies on untrue premises. Imagination relies on overcoming reality and using the ability to see things as they could be. Sometimes hope in the face of imminent destruction keeps us searching for answers when acceptance of reality would cripple us. However, I believe that blindly choosing one or the other path will not serve. I work to acknowledge and limit my lies so that I can be in better relation with those around me.

Finally, I will leave you with this eloquent and beautiful quote:
Above all, do not lie to yourself. A man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie becomes unable to recognize truth either in himself or anywhere around him, and thus falls into disrespect towards himself and others. Not respecting anyone, he ceases to love, and having no love, he gives himself up to passions and coarse pleasures, in order to occupy and amuse himself, and behaves in the end like an animal in satisfying his vices, and it all comes from lying continually to others and to himself. A man who lies to himself is often the first to take offense. It sometimes feels very good to take offense, doesn't it? And surely he knows that no one has offended him, and that he himself has invented the offense and told lies just for the beauty of it, that he has exaggerated for the sake of effect, that he has picked on a word and made a mountain out of a pea — he knows all of that, and still he is the first to take offense, he likes feeling offended, it gives him great pleasure, and thus he reaches the point of real hostility.
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov

Why We Work

I often hear people refer to the so-called "helping professions". I have a sense that this is disingenuous. Every job, every field, and every profession is about helping others. This may not be the expressed or intended purpose (since most businesses operate to make a profit), but helping others is what actually happens. I also believe this is what motivates most people to do their jobs, that inherent sense of reward. Customer service and nursing, banking and policing, teaching and trash collection are about serving and helping others. It may be that nobody wants to do that particular task or people are so specialized that they don't have time or knowledge to do the job; either way, the one who steps up to that role is helping others by doing so.

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.

I Would Do Anything for....

I feel a strong need to dedicate this post to Meatloaf, that is the rocking recording artist/actor.
Not the food product.

At any rate, my purpose is to discuss an interesting topic: the meaning of this claim about doing anything for some cause, person, or object. Oftentimes we hear someone claim that they would do anything for love or their family, I will call these individuals "claimants".  What is understood from this is that they would accomplish heroic feats or go to the ultimate limit to safeguard that object/ideal.  Mainly, it has been used to announce that the claimant doesn't mind death or serious injury in protecting said item.  I propose that claimants are being a bit grandiose in these statements.  Most of us are never called upon to do anything so drastic as putting our lives or bodies in harms way to protect another.  There are many documented cases of uninvolved individuals doing just that, in fact.  It doesn't really take a great attachment or forethought to act in extreme cases, just an openness to justice or relation to other humans.  These claimants can rest assured that they can, and will, still make the ultimate sacrifice if called upon.  This is still, however, worth examining because of the alternative I propose.  Rather than these improbable promises, I would support claimants instead to actually do something necessary: work on their own shortcomings.  Instead of holding out for that extreme and unlikely event (while not preparing for it in any way, I will add), I would suggest practical and meaningful personal improvement.  I propose that this active course is actually the more necessary and beneficial one.  This is because it accomplishes something immediately, it is rewarding for the claimant, and it demonstrates more concretely their intention and motivation.  It is also the more difficult choice.  It proves that the claimant means business and isn't "all talk".

Join the Club

There seems to be a pervasive attitude, an opinion, that influences many cultures and religions worldwide. I am referring to the belief in the defect of human-ness, the idea that we need to prove ourselves worthy of something. Instead of accepting each other as humans, to believe in the natural worth of anyone, we are taught to suspect and question everyone's worth-even our own. What does that say about us, about our beliefs and opinions regarding ourselves as a species? We somehow think that there is no universal right to some very basic things, we are actually willing to deny another human's right to exist. We cannot accept that everyone, by dint of being human, are owed these things: health, education, food, shelter (not an exhaustive list). What is it we have to prove, and to whom? How can we know, and when will we ever be sure? Why is this, why is being human not enough? I would love to hear your comments and answers, as ever.

Why Do My Peers Hate Me?

The rejection of peer pressure hurts those applying it, as well as the one(s) being pressured. Trying to get someone to do go along with the rest of the group is important for the members of the group, especially if the activity is questionable. Not participating points out the weakness of those who do engage in the behaviour. Resisting demonstrates that not everyone agrees with the group, so it is vulnerable to some other opinion. This is unacceptable to some people, as they need the comfort of others who share their opinion to feel confident. It can be seen as a matter of control: when these individuals feel that everyone is going along with the program, it is fine. The questioning of the groups' plan may be seen as an attack on the structure of the group, the cohesive dynamic which holds the group together. This is not always to do with something illicit, but this drive is more powerful the more dangerous or risky conditions are.

So we have insecurity compounded by feeling scrutinized by peers, leading to feelings of violent retribution for exposing the underlying vulnerabilities of the group. This should be overcome by confidence, with deciding from a place of certainty and integrity, as pressuring someone(s) into doing something is obviously not in the best interests of anyone. Actions of individuals and groups should come from deliberate consensus and valid arguments, not bullheaded or ill considered desires or impulses.

Food v. Sex

It is a fascinating subject, people's attitudes about normal bodily functions. For example, what if we were to have a stigma attached to eating such as we have for sex? Eating, like sex, is something that maintains the species (on an individual basis rather than as a whole), is nearly universal, and has dysfunctions attached, so I think there is an equivalence between them. If eating were considered strictly a private, intimate, and even taboo subject, what would people have to do? Would people have much the same reactions to witnessing a person eating as they do now to sexual behaviour? Imagine what it would mean.

People currently take classes on how and what to eat, nutrition classes that help them understand better what their bodies need and how to take care of them-but even the preparation of food would be risque in this scenario. Children would have to be taught that they don't put things in their mouth in public, that they shouldn't even put their finger in their mouth as it could remind someone of the act of eating. People would have isolated rooms for the act of eating. Accidentally walking into the eating room when someone was in there EATING would be embarrassing and could be made scary or traumatizing. All these things over a simple, natural activity we all engage in and require for various reasons, as well as one we should enjoy.

Yet we instead have this taboo around sex, and how has this improved our society and condition as a race? It is unfortunate that we have such a problem with the subject, even to the point of causing dysfunction.

The education children receive currently in "sex ed", if that is even the term for it anymore, as it has generally been "no-sex" education in this country. The government has gone so far as to deny funding for people who actually want to put some education about sex in there. Maybe teaching them the things they need to know, even though their parents are afraid of it is not such a bad thing. Maybe a universal minimum education should include some direction on how to take care of and understand our own bodies. We all need to know how to protect ourselves from many things, and take care of ourselves in many ways, yet this vital area is completely ignored. Many of the same people who limit sexual learning want to teach children all about guns and war, a much more perverse thing, and one which does actually have a demonstrable negative and lasting psychic impact. Just ask the millions dead and suffering from physical and psychological wounds because of it. The only way people suffer from sex is if it's forced, manipulative, or just unsafe in some way. Which is the same with all activities, even eating.

Going home, going home.

It has been entertaining to follow the similarities between my two classes this term. For instance, the concept that habits shape personality over time; what one does is what one becomes (I think this may have been the idea behind a number of "undercover cop" movies, but I'll leave that). This relates to the "Virtue Ethics Theory" of Aristotle we discussed, in which a person has to consistently demonstrate traits to be a "good person". I appreciate this myself because it has been my practise to not to be confrontational, but rather allow situations to run their course and let people deal with their own consequences. Although I had tried to be conscientious and not allow harm to befall anyone in those circumstances, of course. Even though I frequently play "devils' advocate", this can actually be rather difficult after years of not speaking up. I find myself questioning whether I should say something, or if it's appropriate to do so, all the time. I didn't think it would be so hard to do something that seems so simple and banal.

I begin to think that, "we can never go home again." There are certainly events which are traumatic and obviously life-altering, but even the banal, everyday things that go on have their effects. I could use myself (as above) as an example again, but think another will do nicely: you. How many of you come from another part of the country, or even another part of the world? Think of how living in this place has changed you: the way you drive, what you think of as 'expensive'. Do you feel different than you did before you moved? When you visit "back home" do you really feel like nothing has changed? I would say, rather, that it has simply not changed as much as you have; you may even feel that it is a bit quaint, that you know so much more and have seen things that you never would have if you had stayed there. The point being that even though you don't feel it, you change every day, and every change is irrevocable, you cannot unlearn what you have experienced. All we can do is decide what to do with what we have gone through.

Something to think about

Recently I had a conversation with someone who gave me a much better explanation about the need for people to stay in contact with their own family. Family is the first social group, and often the most important and influential in our lives. As such, it serves as a model for many of the interactions in the rest of our lives. Now, there are a lot of families that are so dysfunctional that to stay is unbearable and/or dangerous. I'm not advocating that a person continue to live with their kin if they feel threatened or endangered. Some folks think that since kids can't escape, since they are stuck, it means they can do whatever they want to kids, or that family is for beating. Neither is true, and there is no way to accept the thinking, "you are a child and so need to be hurt to get better." When families go wrong, the victimized individual needs to know it is not their own fault.

In the end, what I'm taking from this persons' comments is that family are our model for the world, and if we cannot find some way to accept the family we have, we will have trouble with the world as well. This means we should find a way to be ourselves, while maintaining a balance with our own families, however we can do that. Not just to be a 'part of the family", but to learn from our experiences within the family. If we never deal with the issues we grow up with, we never overcome them; they will be repeated and become a major obstacle to us ever living happily. Of course, by this I am meaning that we cannot run from ourselves-our conditioning and training-and we have to confront our problems to beat them and become better.

How Different....

For the longest time I thought that to be different, one needed to demonstrate a difference, to make it obvious for all to see. I thought one had to act crazy, look really weird, or have something noticeably off about ones' self to set one apart and make others aware of it. It's crap, it is just a way to justify needing attention, craving to be noticed. I was younger, and I didn't really know the rationalisation behind why I thought that was the way to individuality. What was happening is that I was fooling myself into thinking that, in order to cover the truth from myself. I didn't want to accept or admit that I was looking for someone to accept me. It was a way to test people, to see if they would see me through all the "difference" and still want to know me. Once I saw this, I was highly amused at the irony: I wanted people to see me, even though I was disguising myself. I wanted them to decode who I actually was, and like me even though I couldn't just be me and let them know me.

In fact, being "different" has become mainstream, something that everyone is trying to do, because it's "in". I think in part this is because there are so many of us now, we are so crowded together and homogenized. Being different truly only means that you are so, not that anyone else needs to know; there is no badge that one wears, and being seen as so does not make it any more valid. The only true way to be different-to have that actual uniqueness-is to be ones' self. There is no one else in the world who can do that, and that is truly different.

Do what you want to the girl...

I know that many people say they wish that their kids' lives will be better than their own, that their children should have all the opportunities possible. They say, "I want her to have all the things I never did"...not me. I want my own life to be the best and certainly to be better than it was growing up; my kid can fend for himself, it's alright if I let him do without a few things. I should get all the treats and gifts because, really, I'm who is important in this world; I count for more since I'm older and have more to offer than a child who can't do anything on his own. Not that I want him to have a horrible life, or plan on creating drama, or trauma, for him-all I'm saying's that me and my life are what matters. Besides, it'll be good for him in the long run: it will give him more character and provide great "life experiences". In fact, allow me to explain more fully my attitude, and say that the same reasoning applies to my wife. She's on her own when it comes to what she wants; I'm not here to provide, to be her supplier of joy or support-she should be happy just to have me in her life. Yes, sir, I'm out for myself, only looking out for my needs, and not to worry about anyone else's. No one else is going to do it for me, that's for sure, and why should I do it for anyone else?

This is all farce, of course, I don't believe in this attitude, nor do I think anyone would say they do subscribe to it. On hearing it, I think most people would say it sounds completely ridiculous: that is backwards, we cherish our children and need to protect them, to provide for and enrich the lives of children; we are even willing to give our lives for them if necessary. Yet for all this lip-service a lot of people actually apply the attitude I outlined previously when it comes to their lives, and act as though it were what they truly believe. 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 (though that is a topic for another time). So these people behave as though their selves and their own lives are more important to them than those who they "care most about" and "love", showing who and what is truly important to them. They will treat their intimates as if only their own needs and desires matter, and that others should accommodate this attitude; as though those around them should somehow serve them. I've seen it and experienced it myself, with intimate relationships in particular: no matter how much I could give, it would not be enough because I still want to be treated as a human and live my own life according to what works for me and makes me happy. Another way this attitude can play out is if the first person tries to give and do "all" for the second, making themselves the "willing servant". This is actually another form of control, as it allows the subservient person to manipulate others by pointing out their own sacrifice and how much it takes for them to do so. Thusly, the child or spouse becomes a pawn, rather than an individual, just another means to their own needs. The needs that will be filled are those that the "subservient one" feels like allowing.

So now we've explored this issue and seen behind these attitudes a little, we find we're talking basically about two sides of the same coin. We know that we cannot give all of ourselves for any other individual, it is not a rational means of obtaining our own or others' fulfillment. Moreover, it leaves only a shell of a person with no means of provoking true challenge to and reward for others. Neither should we be so careless and selfish as to wish for others to react this way. Else we risk becoming entirely self-centered and attempting to be self-sufficient all alone. We should have care for those around us and their individuality, as we expect them to do for us. Somewhere between these two extremes we can find a balance, without feeling we have to sacrifice ourselves or others to achieve happiness.

Living in Disneyland

The world is not black-and-white, right-and-wrong; this despite what our parents and grandparents, rabbis and priests, politicians and rulers try to tell us. The abstraction that there is “one true way”, or “one right answer”, is false. This is not just me spouting "morally relativistic" nonsense; I'm not advocating that there is no real-world way of truly "being good". I'm just admitting that everyone has opinions of what these things mean, but there is no absolute standard or empirically-evident answer beyond the most basic of things. What we all agree on is not our problem, however; rather it is those things that we don't all consider "right". The problem then being that we may never actually agree on those contested items, so it makes no sense to keep arguing and focussing on the negative side. Rather we should take those things we have in common and work together, accepting all else simply as being differences. This would allow us to progress and improve, as only working together can. As long as we are exercising our philosophical minds, however, we may as well do so to a larger extent. An example: if one were forced to do something considers abhorrent and wrong through extenuating circumstances or by events one never considered to be possible. If one commits one of these "unpardonable" acts under duress, is one really "wrong"? If there was no "correct" answer evident, is one “damned for all time"? If the choice is to allow an innocent, starving child to die of hunger, can one steal some food if there is no other way? Despite being an outstanding person in all other respects, does one act really mean one is "bad" forever? Can there be no return, no repentance, despite ones' intentions? I propose that our perceptions lend it that colour; looking upon the idea is what determines whether it is positive or negative. I propose that the real question of redemption and forgiveness is, “Can you live with it?” Oftentimes, there can be some minor or commonplace thing that is thought of as a major transgression, and a person will not feel as though they can overcome it. They will feel marked forever, this one mistake altering their entire life, even if the "window can be fixed", so to speak. Conversely, even the most blatant and fiendish acts can be outlived in a society if one finds the will to do so. When a person is psychopathic or convinced, by whatever method, of the "rightness" of some action then it loses its sting, despite the actual harm it may cause others. So, in essence, those who act boldly and regret not have found the path to their own salvation. Being unconcerned with or unaware of the consequences of ones' actions is an excellent definition of living in forgiveness-for that individual, at any rate. The awfulness of "living in sin" is the horrible way one feels about it, it is how much one is guilty and ashamed of ones' worthlessness. Without the emotional baggage, this type of life is no longer a problem. However, it should not be that we live without boundaries, heedless of consequences: that is not life but instead a video game. In the end, it is true that we find ourselves and our self-worth in our own eyes. In ones' own heart, mind, and conscience lie the answer to what kind of person one is. In the end, only you can decide what’s right for you-and how to be the best person you can. The same would be true of an Adam, just as it would for a god looking down as Creator, judging. Until he formed an opinion about what he was doing, Adam was just engaging in another activity, neither "good" nor "bad". Only that deity could decide whether the Creation was suitable or not. If we thought of ourselves as "bad" or "wrong", then we would be, and would feel accordingly. If, on the other hand, we like ourselves and are happy with what we do, everyday would be like living in an enchanted kingdom where benevolence prevailed.

The Cult of the Penis

It seems that many people, but men especially, have the idea that certain parts of their body are somehow special, even that they are “holy” in some way, and therefore get treated differently than the rest. It is strange that some things that are so close to the truth are yet so twisted and misguided. Just as all people are miraculous, our bodies are marvelous and incredible-but this doesn’t mean that one or another person or part is better than the others, in fact it means the opposite, that none can be. People have different abilities and different forms and that is all they are: different. One or another is not “better”, that is the type of thinking that seeks to control others, and love is not about power. The goal is not to conquer or subjugate, but to forge connections and enrich relationships. This goes for sex as well, and maybe especially, since it is an exposure of ones’ entire naked self to another. Not just physically, either, Love and being intimate with someone else requires an exposure of one’s inner self, as well as the outer. This state of vulnerability requires much trust and confidence in whomever you share it with, and it should be revered as an expression of that relationship. Just because a man penetrates a woman doesn’t make her a possession or an object, she still retains all her own sacredness. Men seem to feel that they take possession of a woman after having sex with her, that his ‘mark’ is on her and no one else should touch her because of that, not even herself. The insecurity of men in part stems from this, because they will wonder, “what if the ‘mark’ comes off, or is ‘overwritten’ by another?” These interactions and attitudes are reflected in movies such as Chasing Amy and Closer, demonstrated by characters that pursue and revere sex. These people eventually come to understand that there is no special “mark”, that the special part of the relationship is the love that makes it happen. The relationship itself is all the “mark” that is needed. Understanding the uniqueness of this act, and of the feelings that accompany it, takes a lot more maturity than most people care to develop. We should really be worried more about the mind, because that is the biggest sex organ, and source of all intentions in regards to sex and whether to remain “faithful or cheat”-not the penis or vagina.