A Day for Personal Reflection

I have often thought that there should be at least one day set aside for personal reflection. Two days come to mind: my birthday and December 31st. Although birthdays are more personal and I do reflect on that day anyway, I have chosen Dec 31st to be the day more appropiate for me as my day for personal reflection. Not only do I think it is important to reflect on the year gone by but how the footnote I will be leaving behind is progressing.

It’s a time for me to be more retrospectively introspective (I just love tongue twisters, don't you?) and consider some of the choices I have made or failed to make and my inner-motivations for those choices. Have I lived up to my potential, my self imposed expectations (at least the reasonable ones) or perhaps have I succumbed to the expectations others have placed on me? Have I fulfilled what I consider to be a productive period in my life?

In past years, I usually never really come to any firm conclusions even though I felt it important to take the time, stop, listen and reflect on whether what I have or have not done has led me in the direction I feel I should be going. It is so easy to get distracted, undisciplined, and careless if I let my focus sway or I lose my concentration when I'm doing any task I may see as important. Perhaps I've being too perfectionist, perhaps not. Perhaps it's also wise to realize that in the end, I won't be the judge of my footnote, others will be.

This year there have been a few surprises I've had to face. Some long-term friendships have ended, but I have made some new ones with people who I think will prove to be pivotal in my life. I have also started this blog, which I think has finally provided me with the proper and comfortable format to articulate some of the ideas I have had for years but could never quite put in written form. So for me it's been an interesting year.

Happy New Year.

On The End of All Things

"To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them? To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end the heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; to sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil, must give us pause..."
HAMLET [3/1]


I have often reluctantly concluded that my problems are here to force me to think about my life, re-evaluate my choices and motivate me to change the way I deal with my reality. Many times in the depths of depression I have been drawn to suicide as a credible option for change and release from this place where (cause and effect) rule the way my life plays out. Many of the stings and arrows that I have been forced to endure were of my own making. The choices I have made or avoided, that I have construed as negative, bad or painful are all part of my failure to come to one basic conclusion: I have created my own reality by screening what I have been subjected to through the interpretations of my personal neurosis and forgotten my own advice about trying to develop objectivity about my own experiences.

If I were to re-examine my experiences, follow my own counsel and learn to refrain from placing a good or bad verdict on their meaning, retaining some objectivity or view them as tests of character that force me to look at aspects of my life, would I be as fatalistic as I have been on many of them? I wonder. Although life is not easy, it does have a simplicity that offers itself up in every single choice that has been presented to me: listen and learn to trust my inner-self which has its own wisdom, follow the melody of my heart as it resonates what is real and what is illusion and construct my life through the eyes of the wisdom that I have gained from understanding why I have lived the life I have lived. Hopefully I can remember not to judge my mistakes or failures too harshly.

Even if life can be reduced to a few simple and clearly stated tenants, what appears easy is never quite as simple as it may initially seem. It may have seemed easy to others to watch Picasso create a drawing in less than 60 seconds then watch that same painting sell for several hundred thousand dollars, but it took him a lifetime to develop the skills and artistic control to have done it that fast and the notoriety to be able to sell it for as much as society might deem its artistic worth.

Very often I have viewed some obstacles that I have wrestled with as failures of my character which have led me to judge myself less than worthy. This has simply perpetuated those feelings by causing me to get so depressed that I don't see the larger picture of what my experiences are trying to teach me. It's a way to distract me from taking control of my own destiny by creating a diversion and taking me farther away from the truth that I need to reassert. I am not perfect and I should not expect myself to be .

Depression only serves the purpose of diverting us from being effective in finding a solution to whatever problem we may be dealing with at any given moment. I would argue that most habits of a physical nature (for example, the inability to give up a drug addiction) are not a weakness in our moral character. Simply saying that one should give it up because of the medical documentation illustrating its impact on the body ends up adding to the depression when results are not achieved simply based on that medical fact. Attacking our moral fiber only adds to that denigration.

A more productive way to effect a change would be to recognize it for what it is, an addiction that "all flesh is heir to", study and plan (with help from others) more effective approaches to giving up the addiction in a way that doesn't exacerbate the situation by creating an impossible goal, which when we fail will further damage our self-esteem by making us feel so negative about ourselves that it leads us to conclude that the addiction itself is interpreted as the deserving consequence of that moral failure. It would be more helpful to focus our attention on ways of eliminating the habitual patterns that led to the addiction in the first place. Suicide then becomes an option which - appearing initially as a light when our emotional self judgements are at their most negative - would be seen for what it really is: the end of all things we will experience in this life.

If we were put here to learn the lessons that this plane (cause and effect) has to teach us one lesson should be clear: We are not here to jump ship and end it because we feel our life has become too overwhelmed and beyond our individual capacity to effect.

If we can recognize that life's struggle is worth grappling with and whose positive outcome lends support to the conviction that the struggle itself is of value to our evolutionary development, then suicide becomes less of an attractive choice when things get difficult.

On Tarot, Crystal Ball, Tea Leaves, Palm Reading and Divination

Although these forms of divination have all been around for centuries, they exist because people have a need to know what their future holds. Perhaps they think that the future - something that doesn’t exist yet - is already set and fixed, that if they know what it may be, that they will in some way be able to feel more comfortable with their present.

In truth, people don’t really want to know what their future truly holds but rather they want to know whether their future is a good one, a happy one, a place where things will make them content and satisfied. So to say that people are open to "hearing" about their future (if it could be heard), is not quite what they think they are searching for.

People don’t want to be told bad things or things that they most fear, the knowledge of which may already exist some place in their preconscious, or subconscious mind. They want to know that what they already fear will not happen. Many people search out those who are experts in Tarot, Tea Leaves, Crystal Ball and Palm Reading. They think that one of these occult forms of reading might give them more information that will validate not only their future as promising, but their present as well. When they hear the things they want to hear, they feel that the validity of this divination is verified, and they go back to their lives comforted that their future is assured as a fulfilling place that will hold promise for them. They provide hope, whether false or genuine.

If however they hear that things will not be good or that something they most fear might actually happen sometime in the future, that reinforces the growing fears they already have. They tend to attack the reading as if it’s a personal reproach on them, and their future. The truth is that the readings just told them things they didn’t want to hear. And when people hear things they are not open to or really aren’t ready to be told, for whatever reason , they tend to close up and raise doubts about the method this information came to them.

In general, this is how people handle fortune telling: They are drawn to them like magnets because of their need to know. But most people also have a simultaneous fear to hear what might be told. On the other hand, some people approach these forms of divination as opportunities to learn things they need to consider in helping them make better choices for the future. Those people have less fears of uncertainty and more confidence in using any information to help them plan their future.

This so far has answered why people go to fortune tellers, but it still doesn’t say anything about its accuracy, how it works, whether the future can actually be told at all? Or whether we should even be searching for answers to something that doesn’t exist yet.

The basic principle behind all methods of divination is the same. It’s a way for the reader (fortune teller) to tap into an energy source that is part of another sense beyond the five senses (hearing, tasting, seeing, feeling, touching), that some claim they have some mastery of. It's almost like a form of hypnosis or meditation for the reader (fortune teller) to pull this energy in and use it to pick up information on the seeker. What they actually pick up, and what they are tapping into, is yet another issue. But if you believe there are other senses than the five senses already described, then the reader perhaps is tapping into something.

Now we come to the question of whether it's possible to tell the future if the future doesn’t yet exist. If we take the position that the future is defined as a range of possibilities that can happen given the present circumstances, as in quantum physics, there are infinite possible effects for any given present action, then what the reader may be doing is simply describing one of those potential results that is part of the infinite set of possibilities that can occur. Are they then predicting the future itself, or just a possible future that can happen or may not happen? Since there are other possibilities that can occur, what would make the teller's prediction come true or not?

Again we come back to the issue of Free Will. Does the seeker have the ability to change the course of what might happen or perhaps the question should be: can the seeker in some way effect or make happen one or another of the infinite possibilities? I believe he can. Sometimes knowing the trends of one's life can get someone information that might impact which trend dominates in any given situation. If we know that our family history contains certain genetic diseases, we don’t have to go to the fortune teller to learn the likelihood of getting this disease in the future. We can be more alert of our health. We can seek out medical treatment more rigorously to catch something early or prevent what may already be in our path.

Although I have not described precisely how these four fortune telling techniques work, it's really more important to examine why people need to have their future foretold in the first place. If we feel we have control of our own destinies and if we feel we have power to effect the course of our lives, rather than have it chosen for us, then why would we need to go to fortune tellers in the first place?

On Reincarnation

This is the subject I have had the most trepidation writing about, mostly because there is such strong feelings about it. Reincarnation, seen by the West as totally conflicting with Judeo-Christian Theology, has been so misunderstood especially here where it's been associated more with people who have rejected the commonly accepted theology of heaven and hell. It never-the-less deserves serious consideration partly because it is held as a credible view by a large part of the world.

I am not suggesting that anyone should believe in reincarnation. I am simply stating my understanding of it, and presenting it as an alternate way of viewing existence that may hold some answers for some.

One of the biggest held misunderstandings is that when one is re-incarnated it can be as an animal or a lower form of life. Humans can only be incarnated as humans. If the purpose of re-incarnation (and existence), is to evolve, the notion that being incarnated as a lower form of life is counter-evolutionary.

Re-incarnation very simply takes the view that the corporeal world is a school, a place where the (human) spirit is incarnated in the world of cause and effect for the purpose of learning and evolving to a level where they no longer need to be on this plane. Once the lessons from experiencing the impediments and obstacles (that are necessary for them to overcome) and attain spiritual evolution have been learned, the wisdom gained, the individual spirit is now ready to move on to another existence.

Some who have reached this level, choose to remain behind and again be reincarnated specifically to help the rest of humanity evolve. These are the adepts, the ones who have to some degree mastered cause and effect, but consciously choose to remain part of this plane and be incarnated again. This is a special sacrifice, primarily because when they re-enter this plane of cause and effect, they are not above creating additional Karma that may complicate their personal attainments. However if personal evolution is the only thing that one is searching for, then we have as individuals missed the point of what sacrifice and selflessness are.

Reincarnation goes hand in hand with KARMA. KARMA is the law of cause and effect while reincarnation is the vehicle by which karma is played out.

If someone creates karma in one lifetime, the karma may play out in another life, or over a series of lifetimes. Reincarnation allows the energy of karmic effects to play out until the spirit learns the lesson it needs to learn from the karma. Once the karma is resolved the individual (spirit) moves on perhaps to deal with some other karma.

This may not be a view that is consistent with heaven and hell as Christians and Jews know it. But it does explain many events in a person's life that may not make any apparent sense. Certain fortunes or misfortunes that occur to people who may not appear to warrant them can be explained if one understands that karma that may have been created in a previous life is played out in another where the person's current life doesn’t appear to warrant such events.

Déjà-vu experiences can also occur with circumstances, relationships, or places, where some feel instinctively familiar with these people and events, and be a result of having had previous lives together, positive, negative or both. Family relationships, close friendships or other kinds of feelings of kindred connections can all carry over from previous lifetimes if there are strong bonds between them or if there is karma to deal with.

I will leave it at this point, and come back to it at a later date.

What Education Should Do

When I refer to education, what I'm talking about is more than just what schools do. That is just one part of it. I'm expanding education to include how a culture, a society, or a country educates the newer generations on the culture itself. Schools as we know them now teach reading, writing, arithmetic, history and science. In universities we learn logic, philosophy, etc. How a society educates its young not only defines its identity but also the way it defines itself for the future. If a society recognizes the importance of education to its existence, then it will make sure to place education high on its list of priorities. Unfortunately, that has not been the case in the United States. Other priorities have been distractions, and this has robbed several generations, of an education that should be worthy of free society, and a country like ours.


I have always been more of a pro-process education vs. content education thinker, and have felt that the first and foremost goal of schooling should be focusing everything on teaching the child the skills to teach himself. It is not at the expense of the basic skills of reading, writing, arithmetic. It's simply filtering everything through that goal.

The basic learning centers we have are the parents (family), the schools, religion, and later the external world (without supervision). The parents give us our first glimpse of the world and our first impressions of it. The schools begin the socialization process along side the religion which presumably deals with spiritual and ethical values. Then we are grown up, and expected to go out into the "external world" and not only survive, but be contributing members as well. This is where it's determined whether a society has been successful or not in teaching its younger generations.

What parents can do is initially set the stage and create the best possible foundation for the child to enter the society via the school system. They can first instill that all important perception that the world is a trust-able place (and also identify the parameters of that trust). They can also encourage curiosity, imagination, and the ability to observe what is going on around them, assess risk all of which will enable the child to make better choices.

All these things are positive things but the one that is most important is instilling in children the gradual ability to be independent of their parents. The parents should want their children to grow to be independent, so they can feel comfortable that their children will survive and do well when they are no longer around.

Schools can do other things too. They introduce the child to his first social group situation. But they can also include skills like anger management and further the development of risk assessment as part of the child's growing cognitive abilities. They have the potential for greater cultural education, skills such as logic and ethics in addition to the basic reading, writing, arithmetic skills, at a much earlier age than is now considered possible through schooling.

Religion or Spiritual institutions, can also teach morality, ethics and things related to the spirit.

One subset to all this is Sex Education. What happens in real life is that the parents are split about wanting the schools to teach it, at least within certain parameters. Religion doesn’t really teach anything about sex except to abstain until marriage. When the schools attempt to teach it, the parents get more ambivalent about what the parameters should be, while religion insists that the schools should only be involved in teaching abstinence. So my conclusion is that the parents should be the ones who have the ultimate responsibility, and should put aside their embarrassment and discuss it with their children, or else they will learn it from the external world without any supervision.

The US government should put education high on the priority list, because if they don’t, future generations will not be able to compete with those that have been educated in other countries and are more equipped to compete in the world market. My approach is simple: focus more on education, because the future survival of our culture depends on it.

On Thoughts And Actions

Although we accept that there is an intimate connection between thoughts and actions, do we really understand how intimate that relationship is?

We know pretty much what actions are. They are tangible, and we can see them. They exist here in the corporeal level. We can be held responsible for them, and we can even be put in jail if they run contrary to what society considers allowable. We also know that actions can have more numerous effects (KARMA) than we consciously or initially intended. They can be causes of other actions which can also have ripple effects that go on to impact yet more things or people then we ever conceived of or imagined at the time they were set in motion. Thoughts, however, are far more difficult to visualize, primarily because they are more introspective, and the connection between a thought and an action is more difficult for others to see when they are not the ones having the thought.

Are thoughts that different from actions? We know that thoughts can have have effects via meditation, and prayer. We may not be able to see them as tangibly as we do actions, but the person having the thought can perhaps visualize in their minds' eye an image of what that thought is, especially if the thought has a visual component to it such as a picture of something or someone. We also know that thoughts can have power, at least with some people, who seem to be able to influence others with their thinking. We also know that a person, who is the subject of the attention by their fame or notoriety, such as a politician or an actor, can feel the thoughts of others focusing on them, sometimes to a painful degree.

Over the years, when I have considered the difference or similarities between thoughts and actions, I have come to the conclusion that they are basically the same. Thoughts, I have reasoned, are actions on another plane, a subtler plane that exists super-imposed but inter-connected with the corporeal plane. Thoughts affect actions, and actions affect thoughts. The only difference between the two are the physical characteristics that actions have since they can be seen by others who are present to view them as they are taking place. Thoughts can be silent, held only by the person who is having them or felt by the person who is receiving them or by others who have special abilities to perceive them on some level that is beyond the five senses we know exist.

If my view of thoughts and actions has some credibility, then are we as responsible for the thoughts we have as for the actions we initiate? This is the tricky part. How do we define responsibility here? We have random thoughts. Some are are "good", some may be "bad". Should we be held as responsible for random thoughts as for those that have motives?

Random thoughts are not as controllable as ones that have motives. They can be akin to instincts, or as unconscious thoughts as in dreams. How do we distinguish the difference? I don’t think we can. Random thoughts perhaps can have unconscious motives, but thoughts that are more willfully directed can have a more energetic beneficent or malevolent energy to them. Those are the ones I think we are more responsible for than random ones.

Legally, we can't be held as accountable for our thoughts, as we can for our actions. But I'm not just referring to criminal law. If you believe in a higher justice which is Karmic, then our thoughts do take on a different meaning which gives it a different level of responsibility than criminal law does, although criminal law does recognize motive, it can't prove motive as easily as it can identify an act that has been committed.

I think it's important to consider that because thoughts may be somewhat invisible, it doesn’t mean that they do not have a concrete element to them. That quality can be tangible, and have an effect as real as any action. Finally, if thoughts are actions on a subtle plane we may not be totally aware of, does that mean because we can't see them as easily as actions, they are any less real or important than actions we can see?

How History Is Taught

History teachers take note: The way history is taught, at least in the United States, is wrong. First of all, I was taught History in the NYC Public School System and that is a problem in and of itself. The American School System would have you believe that American History began with the Plymouth Rock and the landing of the Mayflower, also the "stealing" of Manhattan for a mere 24 dollars. Prior to that nothing is taught. Suggesting of course that there was no relevant history prior to then. Well, what happened to all the dinosaurs???

World History is taught from a uniquely Northern Hemisphere/European perspective, primarily with Western Democracies as its focal point. Again suggesting that modern “civilized” society was a monopoly held by Western Europe. Democracy, we are taught, began with the Greeks; monotheism began with the Egyptians, by some Pharaoh whose name seems to always elude me, perhaps because my brain has been affected by all that NYC smog.

I have often thought that maybe I should teach history. My reasoning goes it will finally be taught correctly. But then, because my brain is affected by the smog, it would be better that I don’t attempt that, but rather stand on the sidelines and simply criticize the way it is taught and then tell history teachers how I think it should be taught.

When I learn about Ancient Greece, for example, I want to know what is happening all over the world at the same time, using Greece as a focal point. I want to know what is happening in Japan, China, Australia, Africa, South America, North America so that I get a more circumspect view of what is happening in the world at large. I'm not suggesting that I be taught every detail about what is going on in the world, but that I get a general sense of how history, culture and societies at large are progressing in relation to each other. Have I forgotten any of the major continents?

The problem with the way history is taught today, according to my NYC smog-affected memory, is that we study one culture, then go back and begin another, and so on without making any substantial connection between them. This method forgets to give a sense of connectedness to what I was saying before about a circumscribed or is it circumcised view of history.

Seriously, history should be taught like current events. Like reading a newspaper of what is going on all over the world at the same time, so a more accurate view of how one civilization is affecting another or at best assimilating each other? Gee, now I feel like Borg.

On Cause And Effect

If I were to ask someone, if they thought that things they did in life, good or bad, would come back to them in some form or another? Most would probably say yes. But if I asked these same people if they believed in KARMA, they would probably respond along the lines: Oh that’s an Eastern Philosophy. I was brought up in a Judeo/Christian family. No, I don’t believe in that Eastern way of thinking.

The point being that KARMA is simply the term Easterners use to refer to cause and effect and a way to make it simple and easy to identify, because it's one word.

KARMA is the belief that when a person causes something, it ultimately has an effect which eventually returns to the person who set up the initial cause. It's also true that this effect can reverberate as additional causes with resulting effects. What is the cause and what is the effect really becomes the age-old question of which came first: the chicken or the egg? The point is, it doesn’t really matter, cause and effect act like a ripple in a pond and where it begins or ends is less important than understanding that it's simply a way that actions and reactions exist on this plane.

What KARMA means is that each individual has a responsibility for his/her actions. How they conduct themselves with others, will bring about consequences that will eventually boomerang back on them in some form or another.

KARMA is also often referred to as “GOOD" or “BAD KARMA”. But the energy is simply the way we interpret the cause and effect relationship. Whether it's defined as good or bad is the personal association we place on it because of how the consequences may effect us emotionally and concretely and how we view their meaning. I prefer the terms "difficult" Karma or "less difficult" Karma.

Understanding our KARMA on any level is very difficult to do. It is not easy to identify one effect to one cause relationship, any more than it is to understand how one perception we have as an adult may have evolved from perceptions we had as children. Often one cause can have many effects. Although we may live in a linear universe, many things may not occur in a linear form.

Rather than to understand how one event may have resulted from one cause, it seems more productive to conduct our lives in a more conscious, ethical way, so that the KARMA or KARMA(s) we create, are causes that have “positive” effects rather then impact "negatively" on others or ourselves.

Accepting personal responsibility for our own behavior, is one way. If we are aware that the things we do in life, towards others are beneficent, magnanimous, and which consider the thoughts, feelings and sensitivities of others, then our KARMA will reflect that. If on the other hand we are thoughtless of others, do things out of selfish motives, discount the feelings of others, and don’t pay attention to the obvious effects our actions create, then our KARMA will also reflect that.

In any interpretation one wants to take about cause and effect, the important point is that it returns the responsibility for our own actions to the place it belongs, ourselves! It removes the idea that our sins can be taken away by anyone but ourselves, and it places the quality of our thinking about our purpose and our effect on others back in the hands of the person who is ultimately responsible for it.

If we accept responsibility for our thoughts and our actions, the choices we make will reflect it, and the effects we create will also show our understanding sensitivity, and recognition of that responsibility.

More on KARMA at another time…..

Remembering Science Fiction

I remember growing up on some of the most respected science fiction films of all time. Forbidden Planet, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The day the Earth Stood Still, The Time Machine, etc. I also remember Star Trek. I recall how so many issues relevant to the time were presented using science fiction as a vehicle to illustrate issues that could not be presented by other forms of literature or film genres.

It seemed to me that Science Fiction was the perfect medium for presenting contemporary issues in a format that was acceptable to society - by being culturally relevant to current times to be easily identified, and yet distant enough to be non-threatening. Classic Star Trek during the 1960’s presented a long list of relevant subjects ranging from race relations, arms proliferation, and many others. No other series could have presented those issues at that time without having some kind of severe public backlash.

The issues raised by science fiction also relate to expectations of the future of what we can expect our society, and our world to evolve to. Inextricably, most science fiction involves some major advancements in technology or in medicine that transform society into the image of that futuristic state we see on the screen. Science fiction challenges the imagination by creating plausible paintings of various scenarios that our present day society may evolve to, while in many cases bringing attention through satire of some of the most troubling political issues facing the world at the time.

One of the most memorable was "Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)" filmed in stark black and white, in just two weeks. Its place in the history of science fiction is secure, yet it is the only science fiction film, I can recall that features no alien technology, no spacecrafts, no alien monsters, but rather reflections of humans who lose their humanity by being taken over, one by one, by those oddly looking “PODS” - which some attest was really a statement on a communist takeover of a free society. I recall having difficulty looking at or eating Brussels Sprouts for years!

Who can forget "The Twilight Zone" - that brilliantly written anthology series, many episodes of which featured science fiction themes? “Presented for your consideration” by Rod Serling, who in the span of 23 minutes (not counting commercial interruption), created a compelling story so colorful and richly acted, all involving some form of IRONIC TWIST that comes out of left field. The episode of the nine-foot alien, landing at the UN and presenting the world with a book “To Serve Man”, which by the end of the episode turns out to be a cook book!

No medium has had quite the impact nor as loyal a fan base as science fiction. It deserves another look as I, quoting Serling, say about science fiction: “Presented for Your Re-Consideration”.

Some links...
- The Twilight Zone Archives
- Watch all Episodes of the Twilight Zone (Google Video)
- Get the entire DVD Collection
- The Twilight Zone Wikipedia

On Being A Good Parent

I have thought long and hard about approaching this subject. There will be some that will say that since I have never been a parent, I have no right to say anything on what it takes to be a good parent. However, my response will be that I have been someone's child and that gives me as much right to comment on what qualities I think it takes to be a good parent as anyone.

Too many times I have seen parents who think that because they have brought children into the world, that fact alone is enough to claim that they should have the respect of those children. Respect is something that needs to be earned. If you expect, as a parent, to have the respect of your children, then you have to earn it from them just as you have to earn it in life from others.

Frequently, having children becomes the thing to do as a natural course of events in life. We start as part of a family, we grow up, mature, develop relationships, and define our own family, with children becoming a part of that cycle.

Some people feel that having children is a way to leave something behind when they are no longer here, a way of propagating their genes, their essence, their existence with a mark. If having kids is your personal mark, then its also the responsibility of parents to make sure that the mark they do leave behind is a good one. Because that mark will always reflect who they have been parented by. It is the personal responsibility of parents to be parents and not transfer the responsibility onto someone else such as the school, or some other person or institution. Children should grow up well because of their parents , rather than in spite of their parents.

Children deserve to be accepted for who they are. They should not have to prove anything to anyone for existing. They should not be expected to do anything or to have to be anything other than what they are - unique human beings that are mould-able by the forces they are subjected to. The initial forces they are in contact with are the parents, and it’s the parents who have the responsibility of instilling the first concepts of personality from which all other perceptions will be affected by: Is the world a trust-able place or not? How the parents conduct themselves in the beginning of their child's life will determine this primary perception that will influence everything the child feels, thinks and does for the rest of his or her life. The responsibility is clear. It lies with the parents and no one else. To deny this is to deny your personal responsibility as a parent and to put the very emotional health of your child at risk.

I come back to this primary perception again and again and will continue to do so in the future, because it is this concept that all other perceptions will be an outgrowth of. Is the world a trust-able place or not? If in the first few days of life the child perceives that the world he inhabits is a safe place, one that is nurturing, supportive, giving and loving, then the child will feel trust. He will respond to his/her environment in kind, and his growth will reflect this. If not, his lack of growth will also reflect this. Everything he does and feels will be focused through that mistrust. He will have difficulty feeling comfortable with others or with himself. He will have problems forming intimate relationships. He will cling to one or both of the parents because his view of his world will be that it is a threatening place, and one where he needs to defend and protect himself from at all costs. If he doesn’t then the world will reject him. His feelings of his own worthiness will take the form of worthlessness. All this from that one perception of the world, all affected solely by the way his parents relate to him in the initial stage of his life.

Too often I have seen instances where the TV becomes the baby-sitter for children whose parents complain they have no time. They both work, they have two jobs. If it's not one thing it's another, but the bottom line is the parents don’t have the time to spend with their children for whatever excuse they may make, it still results in the same result: children growing up without the proper supervision. When the children begin school, parents feel relieved because now the kids are away from the home and in some magical process where they will transform into social human beings by the process of being in contact with others.

When parents have stress and pressures, too often they expect the children to understand, even though young children do not have the perceptual capability to comprehend stresses parents are experiencing. Often those stresses are so compounded that ultimately the parents may take it out on the children in the form of abuse, emotional neglect or some other harmful way that adds to accumulated mistrust the child already may have about the world he inhabits.

No one is expecting parents to be perfect. We all have problems. But if you transmit to your children that they are loved, accepted and wanted in whatever way you can, and give them the supervision, guidance and discipline when they truly need it, then their growth will reflect it.

But if things do not go well with your children, no matter what age they are, nothing you do in life will ever feel right. Joy, satisfaction, happiness will always be a glass half full and the reasons that things didn’t go right with your children will haunt you over and over again, even as you assert, “I did the best I could”.

On Growth, Change and the Art of Adaptation

One of the most challenging struggles I have faced in life is dealing with the prospect of change. Although I have a sense of who I am, an identity that is undeniably mine, the future does not feel as comfortable as I would like. Where exactly am I going? What will I be faced with and who will I become as a result of it? (part of the uncertainty mentioned in previous posts). There is only so much I can be prepared for. Events happen and although I may have some control over them, I have wondered whether it is control I really want, and whether that control is a reality or an illusion I have created to give me a sense of power over my own destiny.

Control is a tricky prospect, partly because I'm never really sure how much control is appropriate at any given time, or whether I'm really clear on exactly what l need to control in the first place. My instincts tell me to leave the future as open ended as possible because what I may feel may be necessary now, may not be what I really want or need then, and it may also not be in my best interest. The conclusion I have reached is that the best I can do is have confidence in my own ability to handle whatever issues I am presented with, or whatever forces are brought to bear on my life as it progresses to its inevitable conclusion.

The only thing I am sure of is that I need to adapt to the circumstances I am faced with as my life progresses and I want to be careful that my thinking remains flexible and permeable to change when new circumstances arise to force me to reconsider the things I have already decided on.

I'm also aware of the importance of remaining curious, and always searching for new things to be curious about, because therein lies the part of me that I brought from my childhood, where the strength of my insights will be determined, and the ability to absorb new information will be found.

This is the reason I created this blog. My sensibilities have changed over time. I am no longer self conscious of my blind spots. The reasons that perpetuated them no longer exists. I feel freer to articulate some of the thoughts and ideas that I felt were not just relevant to me, but also to other people. I now am able to use myself as an example where in previous stages of my life, it would not have been possible.

A lot of the blogs that I have looked at in preparation for creating this one, were primarily a form of focused self-expression instead of being a source for any kind of information. Others are so technically based in scholarly quotations and material that it seems to hold little relevance for the issues I was grappling with, and as a result, my hope was that my essays would help other people, by identifying some of the common experiences that we all have, and focus on the importance they hold in our lives.

I hope that by exploring some of my own questions and elucidating them the way I have will perhaps lead others to explore their own issues and their own realities that are so difficult to articulate let alone deal with.

On Personal Responsibility

I have often wondered what the personal responsibility of a writer, musician, newscaster, or even blogger is when the information they communicate is interpreted in a way they did not intend.

Free speech certainly entitles someone to say what they want (within the constraints that The Supreme Court defines), but personal responsibility doesn’t end with what the justices say is appropiate or not. What i'm referring to is a higher responsibility, a spiritual responsibility that goes beyond the laws defined by our society.

Too often people say things and think that because they are entitled by free speech, they have no responsibility for how things they put forth are interpreted. Free speech, they reason, gives them the right to express themselves as they wish, and if someone in the audience interprets it and goes out and does some calamitous or self-destructive act, only that person committing the act is responsible. How simple life would be if that were really true.

We are all responsible for how we conduct our lives. We are also responsible for how we effect other people, both positively and negatively. But it is easier to quantify our effect when it is on people we know or people who are in our immediate sphere of influence.

What about the people we don’t see? Those who, because of mass media, are so affected by what we say, that it prompts them to act in ways that we may or may not intend. What is our responsibility then? Just because they are not people who are in our immediate lives, does that mean we are less responsible for what they do if what we say so affects their behavior that it influences them to do things we may think inappropriate or bad?

I first asked this question a number of years ago when I saw the newscasts of an airplane that crashed off of Long Island. Newscasters of all channels kept playing the same scene over and over again day and night, ad nauseum. For me it was overkill. I knew all the important details, all the events related to the crash, all the investigations that were being conducted. But what about all those young kids who were watching TV, who were seeing the crash site replayed? How were they interpreting what they were seeing?

Children up to a certain age do not have the perceptual capacity to discriminate that one event continually repeated, is the same event. To them, seeing the same thing over and over again is like seeing a different event happen. Children were in fact being traumatized over and over again by one event, while thinking that each time they saw it, it was a different crash that was occurring.

Although the media industry at large claims that studies don't definitively show that violence in TV or Movies causes acts of violence in real life, because, they claim it hasn't been quantified according to the precise scientific method, they act as if they are “off the hook” until there is a study that proves undeniably that violence in the media affects behavior negatively.

What is the responsibility not only of the individual who promotes ideas that may adversely affect others, but who works for an organization that promotes ideas that have the same adverse effect? Is it the same level of responsibility as the individual writer, or is it different?

I offer no answers; I am just asking questions I think should be asked by anyone who has or may have some kind of influence on others that may or may not be in their immediate sphere of influence.

Earthly justice allows us a lot of leeway to do things that a higher justice may look upon quite differently. Each person has a responsibility to think and reason this issue on their own and find the best way to conduct themselves whether they believe in a higher justice or not.

To say that there is no higher justice is the same as saying we have no personal responsibility beyond what the courts say we have; we have no accountability in our actions beyond what the laws define and we can do pretty much what we want without any real consequences other than those defined by our laws. This is a totally irresponsible position and not worthy of an ethical society that claims civility. We must all look beyond our immediate circumstances and use ethical guidelines in conducting our behavior on each level. This is the responsibility of both a civilized society and the individual as we evolve.

On The Nature of "TRUE SECURITY"

When we talk about security, what do we mean? Usually we refer to job security, financial security, health issues and medical security etc. Security is usually defined as some kind of stability accompanied with the presence of that cherished value “Certainty”.

Generally, people do not like uncertainty. It creates anxiety, chaos and puts us in a position where we aren’t sure about what will happen. Our choices seem incomplete, our lives feel just a bit unsteady and our trust in our judgements take on a more iffy quality, because we tend to believe that if we have made sound choices then our world in general should be a more certain place to inhabit.

On the other hand, we also know that it's not possible to know all things, and it's not a credible goal to try to control everything that happens, simply because our very nature is finite. So to place the expectation that we should even attempt to eliminate uncertainty is a way of thinking that is more related to our emotional need to know that our lives have a definite purpose rather than accept that our existence is reason enough to exist.

Uncertainty is not always a threatening condition. There is also the uncertainty of the creative process. An artist, a writer or any kind of person who lays claim to some form of creativity, also knows that during the process of creating anything, there is often an interval of uncertainty as to how to begin or how to organize whatever they are attempting to create, whether it's an idea or a tangeable piece of art. They also understand that uncertainty has its own kind of energy and that it is part of the cycle that ultimately leads to the creation they are attempting to concretize. In other words, they trust it and know the importance that it has in the creative process. They also do not fear uncertainty.

When we think of goals, we usually think in terms of specifics: Goal A, Goal B, etc. But a goal is simply a direction we move towards that has boundaries we often can not anticipate because we can't see ahead all the factors that are involved. It's not that they are uncertain, as much as we recognize that we inhabit a world where so many things can affect us (events, other people, other ideas) that the very idea that we should even think of controlling the process of moving towards a goal seems so unrealistic.

A goal is really a direction; a movement towards a place or a range of things we think is where we want to go; a place we want to be, or an attribute we feel we should have. Goals should be open ended, with flexibility and the ability to be fluid and capable of being changed and rethought of. It shouldn’t be fixed and it shouldn’t be certain.

So uncertainty is a natural fact of life that should be embraced rather than feared. It should be seen as part of our finite existence and akin to knowledge that we are drawn to learn about and know as part of our personal and collective reality. Uncertainty can be our friend if we put it in its proper perspective and attribute to it a reasonable place in our lives and aspirations.

This brings us back to what security is. Since security, as part of its nature, has the need for certainty, how then should we view security? Can we also view uncertainty as our friend and part of the natural course of our finite existence?

The only real security isn’t about the things that surround us such as events, circumstances of our lives, money in the bank, or the ability to strategize and plan for all the possibilities that may or may not happen (so allowing us to be prepared for any eventuality). It lies in our ability to deal with uncertainty. It's about realizing that whatever may come our way while we are going from goal A to goal B, that we must have not only the confidence but the inner knowledge and trust in ourselves that we will be able to deal with those things we aren’t prepared for. Understanding and accepting that we don’t need to know all the details that may be thrown at us from left field because we believe inwardly that we will be able to deal with whatever happens and come out on top in a way that reflects our ability to positively control our lives without doing things at the expence of others or hurt people in the process. In short, true security is and always will be SELF CONFIDENCE.

Can We Change Our Core Personality?

Some think that it is possible, as adults, to change our personality. By personality, i mean the synthesis of attitudes, habits, the way we think and feel, our outlook on life and our attitudes towards ourself and others.

One way of looking at personality is to view it as a circle with a central point. Everything outside the point/core is the part that evolves over time from our perceptions, attitudes and experiences that we have throughout our life.

The very first perception that is formed as an infant is the one primary perception on which all others are based. It is whether the world is a trustable place or not. If an infant is treated with love, nurtured, held, and wanted by the parents (its first contact with the external world) then the infant will feel secure and come to the understanding that the world is a place he can trust. His emotional development will reflect this and the child's personality will grow and develop from this point based on that one important sense of the world, although he will later learn that the world may not be a completely safe place. On the other hand, if the infant, still in the crib, is not given the basic unconditional acceptance or the love or nurturing, touching, attention that he deserves, he will grow to learn that the world he inhabits is not a trustable place. In fact, he will feel unsteady and unsure about what his surroundings holds for him. His expectations of his external reality will be one of mistrust, suspicion, and a place where he must be guarded, because the world, according to his experiences, will be a threatening place, and he will feel uncomfortable and unsure of what he can expect from his surroundings. This one perception will be at the core of all perceptions he develops from that point on and will be the primary source of all his neurosis and difficulties in forming any relationship for the remainder of his life.

In any relationship, regardless of the kind of relationship, there is a point at which one of the persons must make themselves vulnerable to the other. He must share some secret or show something he hasn’t revealed to anyone else. This is the sacrifice that must be made if a relationship is to grow. When he does this and the other person doesn’t reject him or accepts him unconditionally, then this point becomes the real beginning of where the true inner nature of the relationship begins. It is the point at which an acquaintence becomes a friend. The trust that develops from this one sharing of vulnerability becomes the building block of strength that the friendship will now become. As time develops, the trust building will develop both ways. The other person shares a vulnerable moment with him and the bonds of the friendship will grow both ways.

If the child who basically mistrusts the world does not resolve his issue of how he see’s the world, he will grow to adulthood never being able to reach a point where he will be willing to place himself in a vulnerable position with someone else, because to him, his world is nothing but a threatening place by which he must develop defenses to protect himself from, and ward off the rest of the world which he sees as a threat. So his ability to form deeper relationships will be more difficult because he is not willing to take the step of allowing other people to see his vulnerabilities.

The crucial point here is that all perceptions of the world that follows the one the infant makes about the world being a trustable place or not becomes the filter by which all future perceptions of the world will be made from that point on, and it also becomes the most important perception that is at the center of the core of his personality.

As we develop to adulthood, we cant go back, correct this one perception and then expect that all the ones hence will in some way resolve themselves in a way that will lead to a more trustable view of the world. The interconnectedness of all our perceptions and feelings and actions are so intricately tied together, that the notion that we could go through therapy, and in some way hope that we can change, I contend is an illusion.

Personality is far too complicated and interwoven with reinforced experience, habits and other factors that i'ts not possible to deal with any one problem in isolation. Although it is true that some people make remarkable changes over their lifetime, I contend that those changes may occur on the outer edges of the circle (personality) and that in and of itself may result in a completely changed person. But I still contend that changing the basic nature of the core personality itself, is an unrealistic goal that only leads to greater sense of hopelessness that may add to the futility of the quest to changes one’s life.

In all things, we must have realistic goals. Goals that are credible and attainable. The goal of changing our core personalities is not realistic. A better goal would be to find points in our life, and experiences where we can examine, and perhaps come to different conclusions about their meaning that ultimately affect the way we see them, our world and ourselves. This hopefully can lead to insights that shed light on why its so difficult to trust others, and maybe lay the foundation for taking the risk of finally sharing some of his deepest held fears, secrets with others. This can then show us that there are people who we can trust, and maybe chip away at that core perception of the world thus far seen and protected ourselves from is a place that is less threatening than we first perceived as that infant in the crib. Over time, and with new reinforcing positive experiences via more trusting intimate relationships, we can change personality enough to understand and control the instinctive defenses from being called forth to prevent us from taking a risk to reveal our true inner self to others.

Introspective Observation

When considering any actions I have taken or those I have deferred, I usually ask myself whether I could have made better ones, and what would have given me the groundwork for making those better choices? I often wonder what conditions would be conducive for a better framework for making more productive decisions. I think it is more difficult to evaluate choices and decisions from a contemporary point of view, when actually faced with them because of being too close, emotionally and intellectually, to conditions that can be better judged from a retrospective point of view. But in actuality, most choices have to be made without knowing the ultimate consequences. We don’t have the luxury of time or an opportunity to have a more exhaustive review. We often have to make choices on instinct and accumulated experiences, and hope that what results is beneficial to our lives.

There is no such thing as a right or wrong choice, only an easy choice or a more difficult one. The notion that this is right or wrong is more based on whether a choice causes some internal pain or conflict, usually of a moral nature. Difficult choices are never easy to make. They usually require some kind of prioritizing of goals that force us to sacrifice something for something else in the process. Having to prioritize things in our lives is never an easy process if what we have to put on the lower end of the list is something that we consider perhaps as important as those at the top of the list.

So, what do we need to consider as a basic guideline for making any choice? I'm suggesting that we at the very least need to try and structure our thinking and our perceptions to be more aware of the reality that is going on around us as opposed to what we think our reality is. To do this we need to be able to take a more dispassionate view of our lives by aiming at becoming more objective rather than subjective and personal. In this way we can slowly gain over time a perspective of our reality that is more free and detached from our personal neurosis that so often affects the very choices we need to be obejective about.

I am not suggesting that being dispassionate means we need to be unemotional. Being unemotional is impossible if we have feelings. What I am inferring is that we need to understand and have a clearer sense of what feelings should be important in considering any decision and what feelings clutter our judgements and do more to obscure the real issues.

If in some way it were possible to view our lives as if we were sitting in a movie theatre audience and watching our lives on the screen, then it would be possible to see our lives more as others see it, and perhaps judge it less harshly as appropiate or inappropriate, and that in itself would help us to see a more realistic accounting of our actions that can teach us over time to make better choices. Although we all want to make better choices, especially if the ones we have made up to this point have resulted in making us unhappy. But it is unrealistic to think that the process of making choices will become any easier even if we have more knowledge. What is needed is a carefully nurtured instinctive wisdom that recognizes that what may cause “pain” should not be seen as bad or negative, because in the end, we can only look at the consequences of choices long after they have been made. If they first appeared to be painful, but in time resulted in a more enriched life, how could we possibly consider them poor choices?

On Free Will

Does free will exist?
Or is it a figment of our cultural imagination that we are taught exists because we live in a society that we are told is "free"?
I have often wondered about the nature of free will, as a thinker, and as a practical philosopher.

We are so indoctrinated from infancy to accept so many values as “truths”. Are we really that objective about our reality that we can be sure that the choices we are presented with, are really ours? Or ar these "choices" so influenced and limited by our surroundings that we can never really know that they are choices presented in a free will situation, as opposed to those presented to us in a controlled situation?

If I am presented with two choices, I really have three choices. I can choose between choice A, choice B, or neither. In other words, to resist making a choice between the ones I have been presented with, is a choice in itself, and the consequences of which can be just as real as choosing between the choices I am presented with.

The long term effects of any choice may be easier to identify if the choice made is between A or B. But the effects of not making a choice between the obvious ones given can be hidden until years later, when reflecting on the successes of ones life and failures.

From this line of thinking, I have come to the conclusion that although we may have some form of limited free will, it is far more limited than we would like to believe. We do have a choice, but our choice is contained by the perceptions of what we think are our possibilities which are really determined by how we are brought up and what we are taught we are capable of doing by our society, our family, our culture.

We can either pick from the choices we are given or resist those choices. But we are still in the limited universe of identified possibilities? Our possibilities are not “out of the box”, because we are not taught to think out of the box. Even if we can create another option than those apparent, that option still conforms to some basic principle that was molded by our cultural upbringing.

So free will is really just a choice between accepting those presented to us, or neither of them; flowing downstream with the river's current or trying to buck the current and go upstream against it which, in the end, will lead us either to stay still, depending on our ability to resist the flow, or eventually to be forced down with the current because we become so tired of resisting the currents flow.

On Self-Gratification

The truth is men masturbate way too much!

It's not that there are men walking around with hairy palms, it's just that it creates the problem that too many men can't cum without in the end choking their own chicken necks, till it spits.

The purpose of having sex, I presume, should be for greater intimacy with another being (and some men don't distinguish "another being" as human - fancy that for a brief moment), but what it now becomes is simply a way of getting rid of excess nervous energy. All thoseoooooo's and aaaaahhhhhh's feel good, but in the end if men jerk off too much then it becomes difficult for someone else to get them to climax. Hence, sex is no longer a way to gain intimacy, but a practice that illustrates the lack of intimacy.

What or who is really doing the masturbating? It's not the hand, but the brain, which knows all the right speeds, pressures, and spots to touch at just the right time in route to the final climactic jump off the precipice. All controlled solely by the brain of themasturbator as he negotiates his fantasy in his mind, and searches for the ultimate heat that will take him to a level more intense than any other he has experienced. But when this is achieved, it is difficult to find someone else who can reproduce the same intensity, because no one else can duplicate the same speed, or pressure that themasturbator can using his own hand. He has become so used to his own touch, that no one else can come close to it.

This may explain the continual frustration in the search for sexual energy - an exercise in creating more intimacy - which becomes the very thing that makes closer intimacy less possible. So men, stop playing with yourself. Find someone, or something else to jerk you off.

On The Nature of Physical Senses

When we touch an object - anything - we "feel" it. We are told we are capable of this, that we have five senses. Touch, Smell, Hearing, Sight, Taste. We are told in grade school about sense receptors that "feel" things, olfactory receptors that "smell" things, ocular receptors that "see" things, the hearing receptors that let us "hear", and taste receptors that allow us to "taste" things. So we believe it. We know it because we grew up thinking that we can do all these things and if we have these capabilities than all that we perceive through them, enable us to form a concept of our world based on these five senses. But are all these senses the only senses we have? Perhaps there are others. Perhaps the others may possibly alter our reality if we knew what they were, if we knew we had them, and if we explored the boundaries that defined their ability to perceive what IT, or THAT is.

We do know that our eyes only have the capacity to see up to certain dimensions of things. We can't see the sub-atomic particles, we cannot see things that float around in the air that science itself has proved existed, such as microbes, invisible air currents etc. We can smell things, yet the sense of smell in some animals is much more sensitive then ours. When we put food to be discarded in plastic bags so that they don't smell before we have the opportunity to throw them away, we assume that because the plastic contains the smells for us that will prevent roaches or mice from smelling them too. Yet isn't that presumptuous of us to think this way, just because we can't smell things? To conclude that this is true for animals or insects that exist in our reality along side of us? We know dogs have a different range of hearing than us; that they can hear things we cannot. Even taste, is quite dependent on the kinds and amounts of taste receptors our tongues contain. We presume a lot about our reality based on our five senses.

All of this is to propose that if our five senses are proved to be limited than our perception of our reality is also limited by their boundaries. If this is true, isn't it reasonable to assume that if we could change the boundaries of those senses, our reality would change as well?
Suppose we have other senses. Some people claim to have extra-sensory perception. Is it also reasonable to assert that if we don't have this perception, that it doesn't exist for others? Just because we don't see something, and in this case seeing is defined as "sensing", doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The first task then is to throw out what is acceptable and what is not. It is not reasonable, I propose, to say that since I can't hear the sounds a dog hears, or the smells another form of life smells, that they don't exist, simply because I cant smell or hear them. So too, if someone claims to hear voices, it may or may not be a symptom of mental illness, but it may also be a sense that someone has in some way been born with or developed in some unknown way in the course of their own lives that we don't as yet know. It seems fair to keep an open mind then, about everything that others may see, that we cannot. It seems prudent to be open and see how things develop for ourselves over the course of our own lives. Perhaps we can develop some of the things we see others have that we don't. Maybe we just need to try. But in order to try, we need to be open to it. If we immediately assert that because we can't see this or that than it doesn't exist, then we will be closed to ever developing anything beyond what we think we can develop. How reasonable does that sound? This is not a question of logic. This is a question of being reasonable and of being open to experiences we have not as yet had. It's about being flexible, keeping the mind open to all things, as opposed to closed down because we don't "believe" something that we really don't know anything about, because our particular upbringing has discounted this as beyond our capabilities.

Is it possible that there are "nonphysical" senses? If so, what kind of senses are we talking about? We know that only a small part of our brain capacity is utilized. Could our brains be capable of some other kinds of perceptions? If so, what are those other kinds of senses? It may be reasonable to assert, some would say, that if the five senses were more acutely developed that we could extend them beyond the boundaries that we normally expect now and into some other level that we don't as yet accept now.
Could we hear things we don't hear now? Could this be true of the other senses as well? How do we know that some people who claim to have abilities beyond the ones we now know possible are delusional, or in some way lying or exaggerating their experiences? The truth is, although we don't believe they have that capacity, we don't really know what they are capable of. Just because we may not have these capabilities doesn't mean we can conclude that it's not possible for others to have them. Again, here we need to have an open mind to all possibilities.

A lot of questions are raised here, and admittedly not many clear-cut answers are given. But it's too soon to answer some of these questions yet. Often, the pursuit of knowledge doesn't find immediate answers, but rather raises more questions. Answers come when a new level of questioning is attained, then the openness to see the answers comes in its own time.

When other topics are discussed we will come back to the issue of the potential senses other than those that we now normally consider possible.

IT

When we talk about "IT", what do we mean? From infancy, we grow to learn that what we see simply exists. We don't know why, we have no clue as to what IT is we are seeing, we don't know how we see IT, just simply, we see. We learn to identify, over time aspects of what we see as parts of our physical body, and things that are not. The things that are not are what we call our external world. Then we are simply told that this is our reality and what we learn in school tries to explain IT when even the scholars don't really understand what IT is, but simply that " It " exists and that we are apart of "IT". Is it any wonder that anyone understands anything at all?

Perplexing as it may sound, its not that "It" is beyond our comprehension, but that we need to learn how to look at "IT". To form a coherent approach to viewing what we see in a way that slowly pieces together various forms and aspects that define what we mean when we say "IT".

From the moment we are born, we begin to absorb in some mysterious way, what is around us. Slowly over time, we accept basic precepts about what we see as truth, and reality and all those terms that seem to validate that what we see is real. But do we really understand what it is we are involved in? Do we truly know how it is all this "reality" came to being? Does our knowledge explain the fundamental reasons why we are here?

Religion evolved primarily to respond to all those unexplainable uncertainties that we define as our reality. It tries to explain that our reality must have been created by some more powerful being, which most religions define as a reflection of our own form, then turn around and say that we were created in "His" form. That a higher being may even be described as a "being" largely is a concept that religion needs to present in order for our brains to accept.

How then should we approach this? By what manner of reasoning should we use to slowly build our understanding of what all this is that we are immersed in? Let us begin by throwing out all our preconceived notions about why we exist, what we are here to do, what purpose we have to be here. If what we see is real or not. Let us start by building a new foundation, a new approach for asking questions.

Journalists usually begin by asking the five W's: what, why, where, when, whom, Scientists explore the facts of nature, and define scientific facts in terms of the independent reproducibility of results over and over again. They conclude if certain experiments can be reproduced, independently, that they must form the basis of some scientific truth. That is noteworthy since they recognize that they are beginning from a point of non-knowledge, and build upon what can be done over and over again if the conditions are set by certain parameters. Theologians on the other hand view reality differently. Their claim in belief, divine revelation, and tradition, provide a concrete basis to formulate fact. They claim scientific approach simply conflicts with those concepts. But there is another way to approach all this. One that is simpler, and more importantly relies on the persons own instincts, free from cultural, religious, or scientific influences. This way can be learned and applied to almost any problem.

The basic question should be. Can we ever know what IT is in its entirety? Why do we need to know what IT is, and what is it that we can know about what IT is? As absurd as this all sounds, some western thinkers see it absurd when Eastern Philosophers simply refer to " IT" as "THAT".

When a Scientist or a Doctor, rooted in western thinking would be asked to explain a patient who claimed a life after death experience on the operating table? How do you think they would explain it? Would they approach it as say simply that the patient experienced part of the true nature of IT, or of THAT? . Would they acknowledge that some things are unexplainable to Science and leave it at that? Perhaps it's a miracle of some unexplainable proportions? Perhaps some would. Others would say, well! I think the patient didn't really die; our medical science, and instruments are not capable at this time to measure life at that level. When the heart stops, the brain ceases to produce waves. Yet obviously the brain, at that level of beginning deterioration, releases endorphins that may cause the patient at that level to experience some sort of hallucination, that when revived is remembered as a white light or some kind of tunnel, or the presence of those loved ones in their lives that have already died. That all sounds so logical and reasonable. But, does it really explain the patients' experience?

Logic itself is not enough to lay claim on the truth. Logic is an apparatus that is part of the nature of this world, and this plane of existence. It is a good method to define reality on this plane, but it does nothing to define other kinds of realities that may exist, if they exist. In order to discover if other realities exist one must be open to their possibility, and one must go beyond logic, and dispense with even that trusty tool of understanding.
Again, one must start from the beginning and formulate a new way to question what It, What That, what we all are involved in on this earth.

What follows are proposals for consideration on the nature of many subjects. It will start with the fundamental questions and build upon them slowly and consistently to some kind of way to reason and approach what it is that we may all be involved in. But in the end it must be the reader who puts it all together into a coherent format of understanding and a useful tool to use for approaching any problem or task they may find in life. No one can spoon-feed you. It is your life, and your task to understand and solve your own questions, your own problems and your own issues that you may face life. Others may help and it is always useful to talk to others, who you trust, about what your thinking is because when we tend to try and only solve our problems internally, we tend to regurgitate the same solutions over and over again. Its in talking to others, we trust and respect, in reading the credible insights that others have had, that we ourselves gain new insights into our own thinking and a level of understanding. It is each person's responsibility, and no one else's.

On Solitude

Solitude can be a wonderful thing , as long as it is recognized that there is a difference between the need for solitude and loneliness, as well as the knowledge when one has crossed the line between one (solitude) and fallen into the depths of the other (loneliness).

I have said , and will continue to say, that I am a solitary thinker. I like being a solitary thinker. When I think, I need the silence of my own thoughts uncluttered by the clatter and clutter of the world around me to reach the insights I am capable of reaching through the process of my own thinking.

I find it perplexing that so many people are afraid of being alone. Perhaps they fear that they have no ability to think unless their space is populated by others, or that without the presence of others, they would disappear into a world of nothingness, where their existence would be meaningless and insignificant. Or perhaps they are simply afraid of being alone.

When they think and have to make a choice on some particular subject, most people tend to try and consider as many options involved that are possible. They are prepared for anything, with the goal being to reduce the potential for surprises or for uncertainty. No one likes uncertainty. It tests our confidence in the ability to handle our environment, and our capability of calling forth our personal resources in dealing with a situation we may not be prepared for. So, it's easy to understand why thinking about options, we want to strategize and make some kind of order.

The only problem with being a solitary thinker is that we tend to regurgitate the same solutions. Since thinking is a solitary process, no new insights are possible since the elements that are contained within our thoughts are the same things we have thought about over and over again. It's possible to gain new elements through reading, but the best way is to communicate with other people who might, in the process of conversation, leave seeds of new lines of thinking which may be taken by the solitary thinker to a new level of insight that will bring a solution that was previously not perceived.

Eye Contact

Does anyone ever notice how little eye contact is made, when walking in the street? I often wonder why that is? Perhaps there is some inner meaning that is associated with it . Eye contact, conveys more than just the color of ones eyes , or a reaction one is having . Maybe it truly is the "mirror of the soul".
And that is why so many in americans don't like it. They may feel its an intrusion into the inner recesses of their mind , their soul or an invasion of their privacy.

Even in conversation, its very rare to find a person who sustains eye contact while talking to someone else. Its almost as if eye contact reveals some esoteric truth that speech alone does not. Perhaps looking into someones eyes conveys an emotion, or a truth that either is consistent or not with what is being said. In either case it seems likely that for some looking into someone's eyes is an uncomfortable expendature of energy which in some way causes a loss of control because it may convey something they do not want to convey.

Does this mean that there is a basic dishonesty at play here? If the fear is that looking into someones eyes for a sustained length of time conveys more than what they want? Its also noticeable that when not engaged in conversation, people also generally dislike eye contact. Perhaps the concern is that it conveys more intimacy than they want.

Men especially don't like to look into each others eyes as they pass in the street or in conversation, as if there is a sexual interest associated with it that makes men feel uncomfortable. The eye contact that is made is a quick glance,
a quick look into anothers eye, then a quick look away, as if to convey a lack of interest in what they see.

Those people who do have sustained eye contact, I have noticed , are usually people who have a certain self confidence that is conveyed through their comfort at speaking while looking directly into someones eyes and who are not afraid of relating more about who they are and what they mean , as they communicate. They exude a self assuredness that translates into an almost knowledge that what they are saying is how they truly feel and they are not afraid to say it, or I might add, to look it..

Revelations on My Shadow

I was sitting in my little corner of space today, part of my universe that I define as myself and I noticed a dark, forbodding shadow that recurs at various times when I least expect it . I said to myself, “self?” What is this black shadow that inhabits my world and causes me chaos. Its part of me , yet not. Why then am I so defensive about it when I notice it and try to understand what it is and what meaning it has in my life.

Why are things so close to what I think is my awareness, seem so familiar and yet feels so alien simeoltaneiously. I ponder these questions often , as I successively review my considerably inadequate existence that others say is meaningful, But I , perhaps in haste, conclude is insignificant and inconsequencial.. How could they possibly be right about me when I am so sure my life has lacked a substantial balance and richness that I envy in others.

I have come to the reluctant conclusion that I suffer from a malady that is so pervasive , and so integrated into my personality, that only at special moments can I see it as a distinct shadow. And only in a fleeting quiet moment when I clear my thoughts of emotions and attempt to listen to what is going on around me in a world that sometimes appears clueless harsh and filled with empty , uncompromising events.

In that isolated moment, I suffer myself an answer. “ why, you jerk, you suffer from depression. Depression? , I respond?, looking at my reflection in the mirror ,” why this is always your pattern of emotional responses since you were a child”, I say to my self who I am now convinced is actually listening to me. Explain yourself , you lurking collage of maladaptive interpretations. Simple, I hear a response in my minds eye. Your depressed, and your greatest problem is that you are so focused on preventing people from seeing your depression , that you cover it over with a sense of false well being, a pattern of cohesive, articulate responses that are so convincing and make so much sense , that your greatest claim to success is your ability to hypnotize people in to thinking you actually make sense.

By now , Im quite confused. Have I confused myself, or has this shadow, which sometimes I think is part of me and sometimes not, layed claim on my rational soul and taken hold of my sense of reality. Shades of Gollum, I think. What is happening to me?, am I really so split in my thoughts and feelings that I have depersonalized myself into a dark slinky wide eyed apparation that actually responds to my own self questions when I find myself perplexed by life, my personal failures, and my hopes and fears for the future that seems so elusive to my touch. Does this mean I am so unable to accept personal responsibility , that I cant accept my own feelings , whether good or bad as mine?.

We all suffer from depression. Some suffer from it more and others less. Some people experience it so severely that it acts as physical and emotional quick sand in their lives, preventing them from acting in ways that give them happiness, and rather reflect neurotic patterns that are so second nature , they go unnoticed.

I think of depression as a big black hole in space, that sucks my energy into it almost unperceptably at first. It comes , often out of nowhere, and encapsulates me before Im aware its even there….and initially uses its long ugly tentacles to pull itself towards me , while im distracted on other things that I deem as legitimate focus’s of my attention.
Once its tentacles encircle me, and I feel its presence moving closer, there is little I can do to counteract and dispel its growing effect on me . I begin to feel the anchor of its weight affecting every movement I make. Every effort I think of , fails to affect its growing pull. Sometimes , the onset of depression is slow and laboured, and at other times its quick and infective over the course of hours. But either way, the nature of its effects on me and on my way of thinking and acting is the same. It becomes part of my shadow that I argue with as if its an external “thing” that contains nothing of the real me.
It confuses me , it questions all the things that I have previously defined as the good me, and it makes all the comments that people say, condescending comments on a life that is by and large inconsequential, and personal acts of achievements as failures in comparison to the lives and accomplishments of others.

I often think of the Renassainse man. What makes a renassainse man so special , is their ability to do so many things well as if its so easy, as they flawlessly move from one ability to another impressing everyone watching them as if they were born with all these traits fully matured and expressive. In comparison to that, Im such a dismal failure, my shadow asserts. Why you have no skills. You have no patience, Your not as attractive , your not as worthy, your not as important, and certainly, No one cares as much for . Just look at your life. What have you really accomplished. Are you rich, where is your creativity, where is your magnanimity?, where is your empathy?

The questions of doubt just keep coming. The self doubt becomes so overwhelming that it looks from the oncoming distance as a sunami approaching and threatening to drown me in an ocean of total uncompromising negativity, that the hopelessness of my location seems only to place suicide as a small path of escape from this deluge of this dark place. What first seemed like a black hole , now becomes a dark world I inhabit that brings no light , and no possibility of relief, short of not existing, not thinking , and not feeling. I have no way to dispel this kind of darkness. My shadow even asserts that I lack the intelligence or the sensitivity to percervere. So it seems quite logical that non existing is a better alternative than continually suffereing the onslaught.

As I review all this, over the course of my life. And as I have tried to see how the evolution of my shadow has progressed as I have gotten older, I have, in certain isolated moments of lucidity come to certain conclusions about how to deal with depression, that help me hold on as if im on a small raft in the middle of a dark current.

Regardless of how deep, I have always had an innate sense that depression is not a permanent state for me. As I recognize that, it helps give me the stamina to hold on and not give into it. I realize that I need to wait till im off the roller coaster ride, when light seems more part of my reality. As part of that line of thinking, I make it a rule not to make any important decisions when im caught in a depressive state. Many decisions that we face may have effects lasting for years after we make them , and may result in other choices that could become available. Therefore I have made it a rule to defer all decisions until after the depression passes, for better or worse. I also honestly acknowlege my desire to “not exist”, and recognize that although the way to get to that point is suicide, I really don’t want suicide as that path. Not existing is another way for me to say that I don’t want to feel bad about myself or that I am hopeless, or that I have no possibility for growth and renewal, so I also recognize that in the end, I do want to exist, but I want an existence where I am happy, where I accomplish something positive, and where my affect on people refects personal growth and insight on their part. So when someone says to me, that what I said makes sense to them, that I feel confident that, I can say ,” yes self, you actually do make sense.”, and feel that in some way, I have become dyogenes holding some kind of light on a path that most people travel at one point or another.

More on this at another time......