The First Step in Fixing a Problem is....

Not so much a mystery as it is an assumption. Anyone in a recovery program will recognize, "The first step in fixing your problem is admitting you have a problem." Others might say it is, "...defining the problem", "...understanding the root cause", or "...recognizing there is a problem". These are all very pithy and goal-oriented. You may have surmised, by this point, that I have a suggestion which differs from these. This is correct, and not only that, I believe it is a vital difference. The baked-in assumption is that we can fix the problem, since the sentence begins with, "...first step in fixing...". It is here that we have already lost a large number of people, because they do not believe a fix is possible. It may seem strange or illogical to imagine that anyone could think we are just stuck with problems, that there is no solution for some things. However, this is the issue underlying many conflicts in relationships and life: one side thinks we can fix it and the other side does not.

In a previous post, I made mention of growth and fixed mindsets. These terms refer to the belief that either change for an individual is possible or not, respectively. In terms of nature versus nurture, one with the fixed mindset will hold that nature wins out and cannot be changed. This can be expressed, "Some people are just born bad" or "You can't fix stupid". This may seem to some as an antiquated notion, something that has been superseded by progress and scientific discovery. However, the fact we can hear people continue to use such expressions should be enough to demonstrate the tenacity of this perspective. It is this attitude that poses a barrier in fixing problems, ironically enough. Those with a fixed mindset will work around the difficulties that others present, assuming that there's nothing to be done to change those others' actions. "It's just the way they are," they will shrug to themselves as they assume the other person cannot change. Rather than pointing out this other person's actions as being problematic, looking for ways to fix the situation, or even contemplating how to address the problem, these folks will take it upon themselves. This situation or attitude may begin to seem familiar, as you contemplate times in your life when someone acted this way.

The point here is not that people are incapable of change, and certainly not to berate anyone for thinking such. Having experienced such change in my own life, I hold with the growth mindset and can attest that it can happen. Because of this, I can believe that the same is possible for you, even if you currently hold a fixed mindset. My hope in writing this is to point out how the presuppositions we do not recognize can end up sabotaging our efforts to make things better. Therefore, my suggestion is that the first step in fixing a problem is simply to believe change is possible.

The Trouble with Philosophy

First, because it is too easy to assume that we share an understanding of what is meant by a word, let us agree on a simplistic definition for laypeople. Philosophy means both thinking about general principles and the overarching beliefs about how things work because of those general principles. Throughout history, philosophy has drawn from outside human society and psychology for rules or understanding of the ways in which things work. From prehistoric religions to the Hellenistic Period of idealized forms, the guidance philosophers offered tended to disregard the human in favor of the super- or extra-human. For example, Pythagoras theorized some very real mathematical instruments still in use, but was also responsible for a religion around mathematics. The heart of religion is bending reality to fit belief, rather than forming understanding based on observation of reality. This insistence that the world acceded to numbers, or that certain numbers were 'sacred' and 'powerful' and could influence reality, was important to Pythagoras and his followers. Despite it's popularity, it did not actually describe a truth or become the basis for a science or society. There are diverse more recent examples, more or less connected with academic philosophy. It is also important to note that our typical interaction with philosophy is informal and generally comes from family and community. This is because we can overlook our own philosophy, since we do not immediately think of it as being such. It is simply the underlying set of assumptions that silently guide how we interpret the world around us, our worldview.

Certainly, philosophy as a discipline has given and continues to give us tools to explore reality and question how we examine it. The fields of ethics and logic are contained within the realm of philosophy. This post does not seek to undermine its real work and advancements, but only to interrogate its limitations. Specifically, has this historic tendency to treat philosophy as an outgrowth of mysticism been a hindrance? Has it created a shared fallacy of some "immutable, eternal truth" or constant, unwavering order to existence? Rather than allowing us to accept that we have an incomplete and ever-evolving understanding of reality, or that we understand the universe through our own (limited) lenses, does this pursuit of perfection blind us to our role in that understanding? The point being that the desire for or expectation of an immutable and total answer may stall our advancements. Blindness to steps taken and insistence that an eternal truth is the only acceptable measurement could be a real threat to progress.

Further, if this has been the case, have we shaken off that tendency? Even after the Enlightenment and Humanistic advancements, this could still be a factor. Have we divorced our philosophy and philosophical pursuits from the need for a mystical basis? A belief that our flaws make us incapable of arriving at valid, if incomplete, conclusions could persist. Have we accepted that we will not arrive at an eternal and immutable truth via our philosophizing? That we are not seeking to understand a rational 'actor', but rather that we are examining an imperfect species' view of a neutral universe? If we do not accept and embrace these tendencies, and factor into our philosophy that central tenet, we may still be sabotaging ourselves.

I suggest that answering these questions could only benefit the field and humanity.

Rethinking Leads to Improvement

Previously, I have posted on the nature of science as well as taking actions in the face of opposition. Given recent events, and my continual learning and growth, I feel it important to revisit these topics and provide greater context.

The first is from early 2012, and can be found here. In it, I encourage people to "act as if". The reason for revisiting this is the recent insurrection at the nation's capitol in the District of Columbia. I thought that a reader might conclude I would agree with a "direct action" such as storming the legislature. This nonsensical idea would be ludicrous even in more sane times, as it is far from the intention or spirit of my post. I have previously expressed my support of peaceful protest/action (ahimsa), whereas the violent mob of 6 January were seeking to impose upon rather than convince others. In 2012, I was considering how much better things could have been if the majority of sympathetic citizens had "revolted" against the idiotic notions and laws about "race" segregation in 1950's and 1960's U.S. If only regular folks had not been cowed or silenced by the authority of Jim Crow laws and uppity segregationists. However, this admonition (I only recently recognized) could be taken to support the very group I wished to oppose. After all, it was very often the racist and political actors who were "acting as if"; they played out the fantasy of "racial superiority" as if it had legitimacy. I recognized that I can be somewhat overly optimistic when it comes to humans. I tend to think that most people have a deep sense of what is right, which they struggle to quiet in those times they do things that I consider wrong-even though there is no evidence that we share these values. It is a simple (or simple-minded) error and projection. However, what I wish to focus on is that statement about subverting backwards norms and prejudice. I still think it is valid to buck convention, and wish more people had the courage to take actions to help one another despite the "rules against that sort of thing". To bake that cake for the same-sex couple and tell off the boss. To let a person without a residence sit inside without buying anything. To not guard discarded food at a grocery store when people come to reclaim some of that "harvest". Essentially, to take the decent, humane action in a situation despite "company policy". The difficulty arises when I have to acknowledge that others think "decency" is something that excuses hateful and dehumanizing actions against groups who look or act differently than themselves. I forget that some people are so narrow-minded that they actually do believe somehow they have a handle on "Truth" and everyone else has it wrong. To those individuals, I still advise you to "act as if"-although in your case, it is to act as if you were a kind and rational human on the same level as everyone else-as if we had equality, equity, and justice. While I recognize that I also operate from opinion and there are other interpretations, mine are based on assumptions of inherent human worth. There are numerous possible actions based on these ideas, none of which lead to condemning another or taking from others because they are "less worthy" than I am. It is one of the worst parts of us that allows suffering because of "rules".

The second post I wish to update is from later in 2012, and can be found here. This is because I had a realization about the nature of human knowledge and thinking, specifically relating to the last line in the post. To begin, I must say that the intensity of denial, refutation, and outright hostility which has accompanied the global pandemic over the past year leaves me aghast. The basic knowledge of the germ theory of disease that escapes people is outrageous; it is almost as if they still believe spirits, demons, or miasma are the causes of disease. However, I want to keep on track in regards to this post, so let us return to the attack on science in general. In the original post, I again projected a few attributes, including the capacity for self-awareness and self-examination. The long history of humans falling for ludicrous notions and snake oil is extensive, but dependent upon ignorance. It is typical of humans to have cognitive biases, logical errors, and non-critical thinking; it takes training and effort to learn to think logically and clearly (not to claim I am successful in same). Fundamental Attribution Error, Confirmation Bias, and Availability Heuristic are only three common problems with thinking, and we are all subject to many more. It is how brains work, and simply part of being human; there is no shame or uniqueness in having them creep into our thinking. However, it means that we need a way to counteract this natural process, in order to better understand our world. This is the genius of the scientific method, and what I failed to previously acknowledge. Whereas we typically want to find things which confirm what we suspect (and be satisfied once we do so), this scientific approach requires that we come at it from the opposite direction. Using science, we seek to prove that what we believe is wrong, and that it can be explained in some other way! If that fails, we may attack it from another angle, seeking again to disprove our thinking. All this work deserves celebration, since each explanation that is disproved will mark real progress towards a more comprehensive understanding. Once we have eliminated enough possibilities, we see more clearly what and how we previously misunderstood the subject. Science is a process which expands our thinking and allows us to witness the beauty of what actually is. There is nothing I could say which will match anything Carl Sagan has already stated, so I will point you to his works rather than subject you to more of my own sub-par offerings. I simply wish to convey that anyone can utilize this scientific approach in order to increase their knowledge, and everyone who is willing to spend more time being wrong is on the right path.

A Word on Shame and Language

I have been grateful for the work of Dr. Brené Brown and personal experiences with emotional intelligence skills for my understanding of shame. I heard something on the topic recently that just did not sit right with me, and I could not find the words in the moment to express why. After reflecting on it, I felt it important enough to publish my thoughts here. First, the statement centers around the idea of "healthy shame"; I heard this explained in the context of society v. individual. Supposedly, the idea seems to be that shame is healthy when it is used to keep people from doing harmful things in public or social settings. We will come back to why I had an immediate sense of how wrong this is, but first I need to explain a few basics so the conclusion is clear.

My understanding is that the central difference between shame and guilt is the locus of responsibility or fault. This is often expressed as "Guilt is 'I did something wrong', and shame is 'I am something wrong'". Either I am separate from my choices or I am my choices; it is external or internal. This is an important distinction because actions can be changed more easily than selves. When I believe that I made an error in judgement and have learned that lesson, I want to change my behaviour to have better outcomes in future. My healthy self-image is not tied up with my choices, and I have a number of comparable paths to choose from. However, when I believe I made that choice because of who or how I am, it has a couple impacts. One is that the feeling of shame is reinforced, making it apparent that 'I always screw things up'. The other is that because it is who I am, I would have to be willing to change myself fundamentally to stop these mistakes in future. Furthermore, there is the learned helplessness of individuals with shame; nothing they have ever done was good enough, and no matter how hard they tried they could never change it-they likely will have given up hope that change is possible. To a person who is shame-filled, there are 'right' and 'wrong' choices, and every choice carries the weight of being the wrong one. This indicates that shame is intimately related to thinking in absolutes-often referred to as "black-or-white" and "either-or" thinking. Shame can come from a child hearing things like "you're such a screw up [no one else would do that]" instead of "oh, we all make mistakes-you'll do better next time." The former is being uniquely separate from 'normal people' and inherently a "screw up". The latter is being the same as everyone else and able to change. Incidentally, this is a good argument for using "people-centered" language, for example: "a person who has X" rather than "an X person". Now that these things are more clear, we can return to the original issue.

If shame is about the "who" someone is that they cannot change and locks them into "being" their choices, then how could that ever be "healthy"? Especially when the idea seems to be that this would change problematic social behaviours. I will suggest that the idea is more closely related to other 'feelings' that Dr. Brown has talked about: embarrassment and humiliation. These, again, can be divided into "internal/external" and  "healthy/unhealthy", but also don't quite explain what is really expressed by the notion. For that, we would look to social constructs: pressure, norms, and mores (the last is said "more-AYs"). These are essentially the social controls which keep people "in line" and from acting outrageously in public. When people talk about "pro-social" and "anti-social" behaviours, they are based off the aforementioned social constructs. They are what we learn without being told and what we fear to breach lest we are ostracized. Finally, this is where we encounter what "healthy [social] shame" actually is: the threat or action of casting out a member perceived as non-conforming. I think this exposes the intolerance and impracticality of the idea, which I hope leads us to healthier methods of encouraging pro-social attitudes and actions.

Confirmation and bias

It seems there is a portion of the population which struggles with accepting the world the way it is. People who hear what they want to hear, and anything contradicting their worldview is automatically wrong. However, whatever they hear – no matter how outlandish – as long as it fits with their established perspective, is given credence.

One might think I'm discussing religion zealots, however this applies to larger proportions than those who identify with a religion. It is a human tendency, whereby our lazy brains want to use as little energy as possible in order to solve any problem. It allows us to short-cut the process of information evaluation, and especially now that information is so readily available, this is appealing. Finding definitive answers that stand up to rigorous scrutiny actually seems more difficult, now that there are so many sources and varied interpretations to evaluate. It can be understandable to avoid all that work, and focus on more important matters. This may all indicate an underlying discomfort with uncertainty, whereby an answer must explain everything under all circumstances to be valid and any explanation that only deals with parts of a question must be entirely worthless.

 

However, a larger problem is that it can lead to dismissing others' opinions and insurmountable disagreement. If I have to hold on to my opinion no matter what evidence arises to contradict it, then I cannot hear what someone else has to say on the subject. This results in unwillingness to have simple conversation, and avoiding entire topics which can be vital to resolve. I am not advocating an entirely relative perspective, where we cannot know anything for certain and therefore must listen to any new opinion with equal credence. I simply point out the difficulty presented by the current system which lacks the ability to resolve anything, regardless of controversy or validity.

How Rocky Ruins Expectations

Initially, I was planning on demonstrating my thesis by using the film as an example of absurd wish-fulfillment that feeds viewers lies about achievement and twists expectations about success. However, I went back and re-watched the film; my narrative did not entirely fit the actual film. With that in mind, I am re-working this post, and therefore it may seem mildly disjointed. I think this may fit with the topic, although I appreciate your patience and understanding.

Rocky is the quintessential "American" story. It is about one man who overcomes all obstacles and wins a championship despite having many disadvantages. It is, in fact, the persistent drumbeat that anyone in the U.S. is familiar with whether they acknowledge it or not. I will add that it is an emotional and dramatic movie, and does display some of the struggles regular folks face. This is the reason I cannot use it as my example, although it still bears examination and demonstrates part of the message I seek to convey. In fact, the best examples of this issue are social media and video-sharing sites. The latter made it so any person with an account could upload videos of anything they like which visitors to the site could view, instead of needing expensive recording and broadcast equipment. Both are platforms which were initially purported to allow everyday individuals to easily distribute their messages to other users/individuals. They have not necessarily lived up to that early promise.

How does this show or even relate to expectations and their ruin? Both types of platform contain only the best, polished, edited version of what users want others to see. What I mean is that you won't find people's failures or mistakes on display, unless it's for ridicule. With the introduction of "likes", videos that do not fit this mold are voted out of mainstream. Typically, anything short of perfection is edited out, leading to much worse than simple jump-cuts. Only our best successes are allowed to be broadcast, the exotic vacation or fabulous event that gets posted. My criticism is not that people's triumphs or pride should not be seen. My point here is not about gloating or hubris. It is more about the underlying messages to both creators and viewers. There are three fundamental errors or injuries that arise from this system.

The first is found in the axiom "life is not a straight line". It is an immutable fact of being human that we do not learn as much about something by getting it right the first time. An exemplar of this is children. While adults know how to do things the child needs to learn, no adult can learn the experience or skill for the child; no matter how caring the adult may be, they cannot short-cut the child's process to learn for themselves. In fact, proficient individuals can learn from watching inexperienced persons build proficiency-it is helpful and desirable to explore ways to fail at a thing because that builds expertise. Failing to recognize or demonstrate this leads to individuals who think anything less than success is unacceptable or wrong.

This leads into the second error, that if one only sees success then failure seems aberrant. The problem is that there is harm done by ignoring the fact that everyone messes up and fails at times. If the expectation established by these platforms is flawless performance and immaculate appearance, how can I keep up in everyday life? It leads to thinking that if everyone else is doing this thing, then by not doing (or even being able to do) it I am wrong. The most proficient athlete, scientist, or chef will make a mess and have to clean it up. There is value in acknowledging this, even to witnessing or hearing the story of this mistake. It normalizes the fact of human fallibility, and allows individuals to have compassion for themselves and others. This creates greater opportunity for connection and forgiveness.

Finally, the third error around expectations. The entire exercise is inauthentic, meaning that I do not show who I actually, truly am. If the goal is to be able to share my life with social media, how do you get to know me when I only show the "good" side? This is more of the same as in everyday life where we want to be seen as admirable and capable. Any failures or limitations count heavily against us, and we work hard to deny or prevent them. It is not authentic to hide our shortcomings because we all have them and they are as much a part of our selves as the parts we want others to see. I will suggest that living a lie is barely living, and the constant fear of being "found out" leads to real, negative effects.

This is why it is a cultural and not a personal failing-that we are encouraged, if not required, to show no weakness or flaws. This does not lend itself to resilience or grit because it is an impossible standard to meet. This pattern of success-centric content creates unrealistic expectations whereby I think I should just be able to do something with minimal effort or "if I'm not good at it right away, I'll never succeed." This thinking does not recognize or include the tremendous amount of work that goes in to every piece of media, even a photo. Anyone who has sat for professional pictures received a glimpse of this.

Another Try

There is an old idea expressed in a contemporary manner: "Do, or do not, there is no 'try'." You may recognize the words of Yoda here (from the original Star Wars movies). I have adopted this idea for a variety of reasons, the main of which is the notion that I want to give my all to what I do.

When using "try", the focus is on the operative word of the sentence and what that word means. Therefore, rather than saying I will fix a car or clean dishes, it's about how I will "try". Instead of expressing clearly what I want as the outcome, I water it down. I'm not 'going to get my homework done', I'm just going to do what I want and the rest will wait. I'll 'try' to make it on time, 'try' to be nice, or 'try' to help someone. In the end, it doesn't matter whether I actually succeed or help, just that I've 'tried'. As long as I even thought about doing the thing, it can count as a try. As long as I set the bar to that level, I barely even need take action.

This pattern admits fear (possibly an incapacitating subconscious fear) of failure or commitment. Instead of definitely stating to another person that I will do this thing, and accept the consequences of not doing it, I will let myself "off the hook" by only setting the expectation of 'trying'. I don't recall anyone saying they would "try to go to the store' or 'try to buy groceries", they just say "I'm going to the store." The point being, if it's commonplace, we feel comfortable fully committing to 'doing'. However, when it requires effort or is unusual, we resort to 'trying'. I recognize that I'm not doing the thing as well as a professional; every skill takes practice. However, part of learning to ride a bike is falling off.

Finally, part of this is about clarity and direct communication. I see using 'try' as a way to avoid saying "no". This can be a conflict-avoidance technique, where I risk discomfiting another. I'm not advocating for conflict-seeking, rather that we and others accept and navigate rejection. By claiming that I will fulfill a request ("I'll try"), I falsely let the other person believe that it will be done. I know I don't have the time, but I want to please the other person, and so I say the words. However, at some point the work has to be done, and they've relied on me and no one else to accomplish it. Because I only committed to "trying", I can claim that I fulfilled my end of the bargain, even though the other person still needs their task done. They have less time to find this other helper, and likely will pay a higher price in some way for my delaying them. If I had been upfront at first, and said "no", they could have found someone else immediately.

There is nothing wrong with being unwilling or unable to do something. There is something undesirable about misrepresenting my intentions.

Breaking the Golden Rule

Most people have heard, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This precept is offered as a way to smooth relations and extend respect to others. However, it is as much simplistic as it is simple. It goes so far as to be harmful in some contexts, while useless in most others.

Too many times it is unwise or unkind to treat another person as I would want to be treated. This approach is problematic if for no other reasons than issues of perspective, culture, self-worth, abuse, shadow, and projection. The first two can be easily demonstrated by asking if I understand how a person of another gender or culture (or other background) actually wants to be treated. This is not my assumption and not how I think they would want me to treat them; those are important to recognize in order to see the difference between my thoughts and reality, but do not substitute for the information the other person provides. The next one is a bit tricky, since my own view can be skewed after surviving trauma. Obviously, I don't want to perpetuate the violence I have experienced, but I also need to be aware of my own post-traumatic stress reaction and how that can influence my actions towards others. Next, if I have poor self-image and/or self-worth, then I am liable to have poor self-care and tend to disregard my own needs and wants. Not only shouldn't I do that to myself, I certainly ought not treat anyone else that way. This ties in with shadow - which I understand to mean my unconscious and subconscious beliefs - and how it colours my interactions and decisions. These are often unaddressed, childish ways of seeing things. The same is true of projections, which are the ways I see those undesirable parts of myself in others. These trigger me so I do not think clearly and interfere with my ability to see others as they are.

Furthermore, it is improper for me to treat someone who differs from me as though they were the same. It is no benefit to ignore differences as though they were unimportant. These differences constitute each person as much as their name, and they are important pieces of identity for everyone. It is disrespectful to pretend that someone else is the same as me when they have different expectations for what constitutes propriety and morality. Likewise, if I treat someone with their ideal deference or obsequiousness, am I respecting my own needs? This notion does not sit well with some individuals I know.

Finally, a word on reciprocity. Acting in accordance with the Golden Rule likely means that I expect the attitude will be returned - that the other person will pick up on how I want to be treated and give that to me. Yet how can that be, since if each person was following the Golden Rule, then they would each be pushing their own expectations onto the other in order to get the message across? Contrariwise, if I stop treating the other person how I want to be treated in order to treat them how they want to be treated, then I am breaking the rule.

So is there another way? Can all parties give and get respect in a situation without this Golden Rule? Indeed, but it is not so trite or simple. There aren't shortcuts to this method, but it has a surety to it. It requires acknowledging ignorance, and then finding out for every person at each initial encounter. Raising the subject for each person involved requires an understanding and mutuality that can seem difficult. This difficulty is often because there is competition, an undercurrent ubiquitous and unacknowledged because it is so commonplace.The presence of competition leads to scarcity-based thinking. The expectation becomes that if one person is afforded respect, then another will lose out because there is only so much to go around. If one person gives, they lose out on getting; if a person is given to, then they will hoard and not reciprocate. Instead, the opposite is true: The more respect I give someone the more empowered they are to offer respect.

I recommend rejecting assumptions and instead asking, being brave enough to be seen as imperfect and willing to admit such. It is a great way to demonstrate humility and humanity.

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.

Legal Insanity

The legal system we refer to as one of "justice" is actually about retribution. It deals not with making things "right"; it deals only with making people pay, either in money or time. If something were broken, justice would require fixing it or replacing it.  When an item is taken, justice would say to put it back.  If someone is injured, justice demands they be taken care of and healed.  None of these remedies are as complicated or as superficial as the solutions suggested and implemented by our modern version of righting wrongs.  What good is done by building resentment and decreasing the ability to work and/or be productive? How does locking people away from family and friends effect a positive change as a result of the "crime"?  Some wrong has already been done, so how does another wrong make anything better?  There is no benefit to imprisoning citizens and it is not a solution.  At best, it could be said that the prison system, as it should be called, is a temporary fix to a larger problem.  This stop-gap measure should have been abolished years ago and not allowed to continue-and expand to grievous extent-into the 21st Century.  Locking up a small number of truly dangerous individuals for as short a period as possible is the only humane manner to address this problem.  In other, somewhat more civilised countries, it is done that way; even murderers are only kept locked away for a relatively short period.  Further, during their incarceration, they are actually rehabilitated and healed so that they will not re-offend.  The issue goes beyond "bad people" as some would say, and even beyond simple monetary poverty.  This is at heart a problem which stems from our neurotic notions of complete individual responsibility, which has expanded to such an extent that a person is deemed to be of diminished worth if they recognise they need help and ask for it.  We all acknowledge that no one actually "pulls themselves up by their own bootstraps", because even the staunchest believer in individualism drives in a car designed and built by others.  Even these rugged, die-hard foes of community will drink water drilled, purified, and piped to them by others.  No one person-and this includes all of history-does all the things needed to stay alive all on their own and lives within and contributes to a society.  It takes a small band, if not an actual village, to stay alive in the simplest sense of the word.  Some may be wondering what this has to do with law and justice.  It is only in the overpopulated, overcrowded situation that we are currently experiencing in which this could even be contemplated.  At any other time in history, we would value the lives of each individual enough that no one would ever be locked away.  In any other manner of living but this one we would acknowledge our failings as a society to those who suffer and are not given the basic necessities and opportunity to contribute to their community.  It is precisely because we have lost the idea of belonging together, of supporting each other, and of working together.  Only under these conditions could it be acceptable to make different, to "other", people who are truly just like ourselves.  It is only because we treat "them" as competition and as opponents to be beaten that we can justify this sort of behaviour.  If we were to admit that those who are in prisons, jails, detention centers, and labour camps are there solely because we could not accept responsibility for our society, things would be radically different.  We would no longer be able to shun and expel those who made mistakes.  We would have to see that they only did so because we are weak and selfish.  Overwhelmingly, crimes are monetary in nature: theft, mugging, even embezzling.  Next in line are "crimes of passion", spontaneous reactions to a perceived attack on a person's emotional well-being (most often a disrupted intimate relationship).  Addressing these things would be simple, but revolutionary, because they come from disregarding the innate value of each human.  Prisons are just another symptom of the same condition, and until it is treated all these problems will persist.  It is shameful that rather than stand up to our own failings we lock away "criminals".

Defeat Is In the Air

There are times when I've felt like a loser: like I didn't know what to do, that I owed something to someone else, or "they are right and I am wrong." These are all ways that I've felt less than myself-basically feeling sorry for myself. Of course this isn't all the time, I'm like most others in that I have "highs and lows", but I have found something about those low times. When I feel like there is no hope, or I've screwed up beyond redemption, like some other is better than me or has "shown me up", it's not the end until I think it is.

What I'm talking about here is being in a state of helplessness, or feeling vanquished. The concept of defeat is only with in the acceptance of the confines of win/lose, or "zero-sum", thinking. One can only be defeated if one believes in it. When you refuse to stop struggling even though you lie broken and crying at the feet of those who wish you harm, when your mind is still saying, "I'll get through this, I can make it!", you are still winning. When you refuse to slink off with your head down, when someone has taken their best shot and you simply carry on, there is nothing of defeat about you. How can you be beaten when you don't give up? It is only in your attitude, thinking that "once X happens, then all is lost" is just a way of cheating one's self. In essence, the only way to be beaten is to think so; the only one who can defeat you is you. Once again, it is thinking that makes reality and truth.

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.

A Confession

I have to admit some things, and I hope you will bear with me. Some people may stumble upon my blog out amoungst the many on the web; others know me personally and I have invited to read what I write here. It is my hope that whoever you are, dear reader, that you explore, ponder, and otherwise enjoy my blog. Having said that, I feel the need to share a few things about myself, as writer and individual. I am not just a robot typing out drivel at random, though it may indeed seem that way (hopefully not, but it is possible); I am a person, much like yourself, I imagine. We probably share the same desires, hopes, and dreams: living in a better world, making a difference, loving and being loved in return, all the things that make us feel important and human. I recently went through a divorce from my partner of eight years, and it has been surprisingly difficult for both of us to act like rational adults in the process. Things have changed that I thought had been set for all time-I really considered us to be inseparable for the rest of our lives. But this is what happens when we delude ourselves, and allow ourselves to be deluded by others. I was silly to have thought that, and only now am I beginning to see why and how. I don't think I regret the experience, just that it had to be such a painful lesson, and that I caused so much inadvertent pain to someone I loved. However, I think I did learn some things, and so I can still agree with Alanis who said, "I greatly recommend getting your heart trampled on...."

Relationships

It is difficult to come to an agreement on this subject, even though it is one that we all deal with at some time in our lives. The greatest problem is that so many people are mixed up about so much in their life that something as fundamental and powerful as being loved and loving others is beyond them-and this goes double for those struggling to simply survive. On the hierarchy of needs, food beats love every time. By this I mean a person has to be very secure in order to really love another, and being worried about where one’s next meal is or what another person thinks is not a very secure foundation. Even after settling one's life by meeting those basic needs, one still has to gain experience with the subject. By this, I mean that thinking about something and actually doing it are very different experiences. People often fantasize about relationships, but those are idealized to minimize effort for maximum rewards-as all fantasies are; real relationships are not like that, they are all work. Further, to do something well always takes practice, yet we are told that we will simply get this "right" the first time! Supposedly the first time we fall in love, we will have found the person with whom we spend the rest of our lives. Also, evidently, making friends and getting along with fellow students, coworkers, etc., is natural, because we aren’t taught how to make those connections either. After this fantasy we finally come to the reality of it: when we have relationships, we fumble and fail-as we should. The best way to learn something is still to do it. Inevitably we get hurt, we make those mistakes with our relationships. Friends come and go, family is estranged, marriages end; all these things are symptoms of our deficiency. Still we improve over time, each failure teaches us something we need to know. If people truly wanted to avoid these hurts, then we would actually teach the inexperienced what they need to know. There is an old adage, “No [person] is an island.” the problem being that everyone is an island in that we have no natural emotional connection to others. We need to form attachments, even between family, between parents and offspring. This is meant in two different ways: first we “need” to do it because it is important for our well being, and secondly because it isn’t automatic, it does require effort. Finally, what sort of relationships are we forming? Are they strong, healthy ones or are they made from desperation, just to meet our need for companionship? It can be very difficult to tell, unless we examine how it makes us feel. Are you lost without your mate? Does your world revolve around the status of your relationship? Do you feel like you don’t deserve the relationship? Do you sacrifice yourself to maintain the relationship? If you answered, “yes” to any of these questions, you may want to seriously look at what you want out of your life and the relationship you are in. Always remember, you cannot Love another until you Love yourself.

Failure

There are at least two ways to overcome a fear of failure: do nothing or fail. Many only make it to the first, where they keep things from other people. Hiding their emotions, motivations, and dreams so that others cannot access them, attack them, criticize them, ridicule them. That is what most of us resort to, it is cowardly and does not lead to reaching our goals. Too often we are beaten down, trampled on, and laughed at by others whose own insecurity demands that no one else be allowed to flourish. So we stop trying, we give up and do nothing, and by not attempting we are never faced with failing at anything. To these people, others success is not a guidepost or motivator, but acts as a reminder of their own failure. We should not allow these people to determine how we live our lives, certainly we should not become one of them. The alternative is to grow, to develop more maturity and wisdom. So now is the time to move on: set a goal, announce it, and then do not meet it. Then it is a failure, it is out of the way, and you can deal with it, are forced to deal with it. There is no one way to overcome that disappointment, there is no way to study for it or avoid the feeling of 'failure'. It will always be there to haunt you if you let it, but that failure, or feeling of failure, isn't the end. It is simply a part of life, and will have to be accepted as such. Everyone fails, but most do not learn from their failures and then take the next step, to go back and succeed. If we truly want success, then nothing will stand in our way; we will find a way, it just takes more determination than most people seem to have these days.

Ice Cream and Evil

I posted earlier on the subject of choice, concentrating on the issue that some people have with allowing others to make choices. I want to discuss now another aspect of choosing, which is how to make a choice; especially gaining information in order to choose. For example, in order to decide what kind of ice cream you enjoy or wish to have, what do you base your choice on? There are many factors to consider, but if you come across a new flavor, and you haven’t experienced those ingredients before, how can you know if you’ll like it? I hope that many of you have just answered, "Try it!" Not only is it an appetizing method of choosing and gaining more information for making that decision, it is an experience: something more you have gone through to give yourself another in a (hopefully) long series of instructive moments in life. Each attempt, even the failed or unpalatable, is at least more information to make further decisions from. We often need all the help and detailed information that we can acquire, so making those mistakes and learning from them leads towards what we do desire: success. Whether we want to find the most delicious dessert or a job to spend one’s life doing, this method works equally well. So, if mistakes are beneficial and necessary, why do people spend so much time avoiding them? It is because we are trained to do so, we are constantly told as we mature, to “Get it right!” and “Not screw up!” In addition to being kept from opportunities and experiencing things, we are kept from learning those important lessons, as well as the benefit of learning about ourselves and our world. After all, the only way to know evil is to encounter it, the only way to know right is to do it. If children are kept sheltered from danger and not told about real threats to them, how are they ever to understand what to avoid? How can they truly know? The fairy tales they hear disguise the dangers they will face and only teach them to listen to and obey their elders. What happens when they grow up and the elders are not around is they are lost and still need someone else to direct them. It is important for our children to learn these lessons for themselves so they can be better prepared to avoid future problems and know what they actually want.

Choices

Let us assume-as some believe-that choices are wrong, not only to decide one way or another, but simply to have. To even be able to choose between "homo-" or "hetero-" sexuality, between using or not using drugs, between this or that religion, all these "choices" are inherently, intrinsically, and irrevocably wrong-according to some people. If we do not have the choice, however, how can we know? How can we know that we are doing the "right thing" if we are not allowed to make a decision, if we can do only one thing in any situation? Even outside how boring it would be to have only one option to follow, how can we be educated or informed people living our own personal lives if we are not given the opportunity to make "mistakes"? Everyone has to come to their own conclusion about who they want to be and what they wish to do; that is freedom, and I don't find too many people arguing against it these days...which may be an indication of another problem, but we can discuss that later. Can we truly even make an 'incorrect' choice? Every time we make a decision, we are choosing from all the information we have at the moment, our "best guess". This is because we cannot wait our entire lives to study every aspect of a situation, to analyze each bit of information, indeed, to collect all available information every time we make a decision. We will make 'mistakes', but they are not evil, they are what teaches us directly what we should avoid, as well as why, an important aspect I will return to momentarily. When we make a 'mistake' and are hurt (physically or emotionally) we are operating from a fallible-but correct-standpoint, in that we are choosing correctly for us, at that time. The worst thing to come out of not having a chance to choose is that one never learns those lessons that lead to success; without the failed romantic relationship(s) in high school, one is left without a guide or goal to lead one to the proper love in life. Many times without failure, we don't know where to hunt for success. Thomas Edison made over a thousand attempts at the light bulb before he succeeded, each time learning another thing not to do! Most people will experiment with something in their life-and come to the conclusion on their own that it is not best for them, not because someone else tells them, but because there are negative consequences. What a person is arguing for when they say we should not have the option to make our own decision on whatever issue, is that we should not have the information, the opportunity, and the experience of learning what it actually means. Humans are very much keyed to learning through mistakes, by experimentation-indeed many respected (often revered) historical figures are remembered by sayings which indicate that they knew people need to make, and are better for making, mistakes-often by modelling that behaviour. Whether something turns out the way we want or expect it to is irrelevant, having and making that choice is the key. Otherwise, we are simply automatons running a program; not only is this a dismal and joyless prospect, but it makes no sense given our abilities, both cognitive (the ability to learn and analyze) and physical ( movement and the senses which allow us to examine our surroundings).