Symposia Seniors is a Senior Citizen group that I helped found at the Symposia Bookstore in Hoboken, New Jersey. We meet at 4:30PM each Saturday afternoon, Lord willing and the creek don't rise ... and it isn't too hot ... and the main members are feeling OK ... which in my case means I haven't been to meeting in three weeks altenating between too hot and not feeling well.
Which is OK, too, because we decided when started back in the dead of last winter, that it wouldn't be until this coming fall before we REALLY got going. We wanted to just place a "marker" in peoples consiciousness so that when they got done with their summer doings this year they might consider getting involved ... and if they don't, that's OK, too, because Leo and I are having a great deal of fun getting our stuff together and planning to publish it ourselves if need.
Leo is writing a memoir novel with a working title of Operation Plowshare of his life in Hoboken which spans almost 80 years ... stretching back into the lives of both his parents who were also lifelong Hoboken residents. So far we've been working through Leo's youthful antics and pranks up to and incuding a hitch in the US Army in Europe during the Cold War ... fascinating stuff.
I've been working the kinks out in our "publishing" operation by printing and binding a booklet series of my postings here on this blog. I have called the series Thoughts Written In Poverty: Philosophy 0 to 101. So far I have complete small "press runs" for Part 1: July, 2004 and Part 2: August, 2004.
Websites for addtional information:
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Friday, August 19, 2005
I am poor
I am poor. I am also Scandinavian. Being poor is not a shameful state of affairs for Swedes.
And my being poor doesn't correlate well with my lifestyle. It is the label attached to a person who has—in my case—a minus net equity. I owe more than I own. And who receives less than a specific amount each month—which varies from state to state depending on the cost-of-living in that state (I believe).
My lifestyle has more to do with simplicity and patience, of stopping to smell the flowers and absorb the ambience of the world around me.
I live in a suburb a little over half-an-hour away from Manhattan on the NJ Transit Midtown Direct commuter line ... which gives me access to one of the great metropolitan centers of the world for less than $5 roundtrip. I am mobile within my world, a world that offers more interesting things that I can do than I can get around to doing.
Plus, I share the use of a computer with high-speed internet access in the household where I live.
I am fortunate to be part of a culture that values the worth and dignity of each individual member based on a belief in the intrinsic value of the individual human life as a transcendental end in itself rather than the exchange value of the assets he or she owns, or social position, or ...
And what do I mean by " intrinsic value of the individual human life as a transcendental end in itself"?
How can an "end in itself" be "transendental"? How can we transcend or go beyond an "end in itself"? Isn't an "end in itself" an end without any beyond?
This is where the concept of "an idea" comes into play. (Which is VERY Platonian, but that should not bother us, just giving credit where credit is due.) It is that "the idea" of "a chair" is something other than a specific chair and applies to all chairs ... and in that sense goes beyond a specific chair—transcends it—even though the specific chair is an end in itself.
Thus if I believe in the intrinsic value (intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing; Merriam-Webster) of the individual human life as a trancendental end in itself, I am saying that each individual person has worth and dignity that requires respect and consideration, and that that "idea" applies to all human beings.
(Note: It is difficult for me to not immediately extend the concept to all forms of life, but that is a subject for another essay.)
Therefore, my placement on the poor to rich spectrum of ownership (or any other positioning relative to others) does not affect the intrinsic value of my individual human life.
Is this just whistling in the dark? Making a silk purse out of a pig's ear?
As one blind man, it is only with the help of others that I can put together the whole image of the elephant. I can only relate as honestly as I can the description of what I am hanging onto, and encourage others to do likewise.
And my being poor doesn't correlate well with my lifestyle. It is the label attached to a person who has—in my case—a minus net equity. I owe more than I own. And who receives less than a specific amount each month—which varies from state to state depending on the cost-of-living in that state (I believe).
My lifestyle has more to do with simplicity and patience, of stopping to smell the flowers and absorb the ambience of the world around me.
I live in a suburb a little over half-an-hour away from Manhattan on the NJ Transit Midtown Direct commuter line ... which gives me access to one of the great metropolitan centers of the world for less than $5 roundtrip. I am mobile within my world, a world that offers more interesting things that I can do than I can get around to doing.
Plus, I share the use of a computer with high-speed internet access in the household where I live.
I am fortunate to be part of a culture that values the worth and dignity of each individual member based on a belief in the intrinsic value of the individual human life as a transcendental end in itself rather than the exchange value of the assets he or she owns, or social position, or ...
And what do I mean by " intrinsic value of the individual human life as a transcendental end in itself"?
How can an "end in itself" be "transendental"? How can we transcend or go beyond an "end in itself"? Isn't an "end in itself" an end without any beyond?
This is where the concept of "an idea" comes into play. (Which is VERY Platonian, but that should not bother us, just giving credit where credit is due.) It is that "the idea" of "a chair" is something other than a specific chair and applies to all chairs ... and in that sense goes beyond a specific chair—transcends it—even though the specific chair is an end in itself.
Thus if I believe in the intrinsic value (intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing; Merriam-Webster) of the individual human life as a trancendental end in itself, I am saying that each individual person has worth and dignity that requires respect and consideration, and that that "idea" applies to all human beings.
(Note: It is difficult for me to not immediately extend the concept to all forms of life, but that is a subject for another essay.)
Therefore, my placement on the poor to rich spectrum of ownership (or any other positioning relative to others) does not affect the intrinsic value of my individual human life.
Is this just whistling in the dark? Making a silk purse out of a pig's ear?
As one blind man, it is only with the help of others that I can put together the whole image of the elephant. I can only relate as honestly as I can the description of what I am hanging onto, and encourage others to do likewise.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Creeping closer to death
I have end-stage kidney disease aka chronic renal failure. I am beginning to feel the fatique and low-level nausea of my kidneys shutting down with my Creatinine level closing in on 5.0.
I have been engaged in the struggle against life-threatening kidney failure since acute kidney failure struck at the end of July, 2002, in Fairbanks, Alaska, and I spent ten days in Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, the first few days hovering at death's door. (I describe the experience in my memoir, "Into the Hospital".)
Yesterday was despressing as I finally made the call to my nephrologist (kidney doctor) and told him the time had come, the symptoms he had described and "ordered" me to call him when they appeared, had appeared. I couldn't put off dialysis any longer.
Today I began the process of the final sort through my treatment options, which will be dictated to some extent by how I can pay for the medical care I am about to receive ... because it will be an expensive regimen for the remainder of my life.
Faced with the hurdles of the next few weeks, I was starting to feel sorry for myself and consider whether it was going to be worth it, worth going through all the rigmarole of applying for the additional medicaid coverage I would need, getting the tube placed in my abdomen, and then go through the training for the peridoneal dialysis I would most likely be undertaking because I can do it at home. Maybe, I should just settle back and drift off into the cotton candy slumber of death from kidney failure.
But the self-pity didn't last too long. The room and closet and office spaces I use are simply too messy to leave for someone else to clean up. I have to try to hang around long enough to at least get that straightened out.
So I got up this morning, showered and headed off to see my PCP (Primary Care Physician) at the clinic.
She cheered me up immediately. I hadn't seen her for a while because I missed an appointment when I was sick that day, and it is harder then heck to get a new appointment. So I just kept putting it off ... until I knew I had to see her today if I was going to get anything straightened out ... and went in as "walk-in" ... which she takes on Monday afternoons and Wednesday mornings.
Knowing it would be a long wait, I brought along a couple of bottles or water and Jon le Carre's novel, ABSOLUTE FRIENDS, ( which by the way, is turning out to be an absolutely fascinating read!)
All went well and she steered me to the Clinic Social Worker who steered me to the County's Division of Aging, where later in the day I met truly helpful local government employee ... who took all the time I needed to explain the programs available to me as a Senior Citizen at my current level of income. (I'm publishing my journal as a series under the title, THOUGHTS WRITTEN IN POVERTY, so that ought to give you some idea of my financial situation.)
The process will continue through at least few more evolving iterations.
I have been engaged in the struggle against life-threatening kidney failure since acute kidney failure struck at the end of July, 2002, in Fairbanks, Alaska, and I spent ten days in Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, the first few days hovering at death's door. (I describe the experience in my memoir, "Into the Hospital".)
Yesterday was despressing as I finally made the call to my nephrologist (kidney doctor) and told him the time had come, the symptoms he had described and "ordered" me to call him when they appeared, had appeared. I couldn't put off dialysis any longer.
Today I began the process of the final sort through my treatment options, which will be dictated to some extent by how I can pay for the medical care I am about to receive ... because it will be an expensive regimen for the remainder of my life.
Faced with the hurdles of the next few weeks, I was starting to feel sorry for myself and consider whether it was going to be worth it, worth going through all the rigmarole of applying for the additional medicaid coverage I would need, getting the tube placed in my abdomen, and then go through the training for the peridoneal dialysis I would most likely be undertaking because I can do it at home. Maybe, I should just settle back and drift off into the cotton candy slumber of death from kidney failure.
But the self-pity didn't last too long. The room and closet and office spaces I use are simply too messy to leave for someone else to clean up. I have to try to hang around long enough to at least get that straightened out.
So I got up this morning, showered and headed off to see my PCP (Primary Care Physician) at the clinic.
She cheered me up immediately. I hadn't seen her for a while because I missed an appointment when I was sick that day, and it is harder then heck to get a new appointment. So I just kept putting it off ... until I knew I had to see her today if I was going to get anything straightened out ... and went in as "walk-in" ... which she takes on Monday afternoons and Wednesday mornings.
Knowing it would be a long wait, I brought along a couple of bottles or water and Jon le Carre's novel, ABSOLUTE FRIENDS, ( which by the way, is turning out to be an absolutely fascinating read!)
All went well and she steered me to the Clinic Social Worker who steered me to the County's Division of Aging, where later in the day I met truly helpful local government employee ... who took all the time I needed to explain the programs available to me as a Senior Citizen at my current level of income. (I'm publishing my journal as a series under the title, THOUGHTS WRITTEN IN POVERTY, so that ought to give you some idea of my financial situation.)
The process will continue through at least few more evolving iterations.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Some thoughts on old age and dying ...
One of my earliest "mature" stories, begun in my early twenties, started with the protagonist sitting on his front porch in his old age, slowly rocking back and forth, passing the time, thinking about the end of his life, fast approaching. The stream of consciousness setting up the story was about what regrets he might have.
As I thought about that story, it changed my life. Because I became aware early on that the biggest regret for me would come if I didn't pursue my dreams, march to my drummer, take my own path through life. It mattered not a twit whether the route would be crowded or lonely, hard or easy, long or short ... what mattered, I thought, would be that it was mine, of my choosing. I would get the feedback from my decisions.
As a white male of Scandinavian descent, born and raised in the northern tier States of Minnesota and Washington, a natural-born citizen of the United States, gifted with a reasonable intelligence and no physical defects, AND of the working class, I was relatively free to do whatever I wanted to do. I had no legacy of expectations other than to not screw up so badly that it would embarrass family or friends. I was blessed indeed. I was free ... still am, for that matter.
Now that I am that old man rocking away the end of my life, I feel like sharing what I am thinking about ... as openly and honestly as I can. At least some part of that feeling stems from the fact that the important adults in my childhood and youth kept most of their thoughts and how their experiences affected them, hidden from me. I wish I would have known then, or at least in my young adult years, what I now know ... and which I understand as being a fairly common experience.
For starters, up until my early forties, I didn't think much about dying. As a child, I thought a lot about going to Hell, because I was raised a Fundamentalist Christian, a mixture of old time Baptist and Pentecostal religion. I was saved, experienced the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the psyche phenomenon of Speaking in Tongues ... the whole bit. As a child, I only knew what I knew.
In my late teens I started seriously questioning the literal teachings of the Bible and spent the next forty some years trying to figure it all out, details of which I allude to from time to time in my stories and public journals.
In my early forties, I had the mid-life crisis we hear so much about as common to older men. I realized in a startling epiphany that my life really was going to end some day, leaving me with less time to live than I had already lived. I even remember much of the specific circumstances when and where it happened. It was in the fall, the early 1980's and I was traveling to Evergreen College in Olympia, Washington, from Seattle, via public transportation--a Greyhound and then the local city bus. I had been up most of the night before discussing the state of the cosmos in an all night restaurant, and slept most of the way to Olympia on the Greyhound bus. I got there, boarded the city bus to the college, and as I settled into my seat, I suddenly realized that I was going to die.
I can still remember the shock I felt at that moment. It was true, I was going to die. If ever there was a troubling of deaf heaven with bootless cries, to borrow a line from Shakespeare, that was it.
But I got through the moment, and the day with a renewed committment to follow my own path ... which was never very straight for any length of time, but always interesting.
Fast forward to the end of July, 2002, when I came quite close to dying from acute kidney failure. One of the benefits from dying from kidney failure is that it is usually a simple and painless drifting off into a coma and then dying as all the body's functions shut down. I liken it to settling into a big cotton candy cloud. I don't remember consciously fighting it. I do remember thinking that if this is dying, it ain't so bad. It didn't seem to matter one way or the other, whether I lived or died.
I haven't been afraid of dying since. I get a little annoyed once in awhile when I am right in the midst of a writing project, and I feel my body acting kind of sluggish, and I can get peeved about the interruption if I do in fact have to head off to the Emergency Room to check my blood chemistry when I don't feel right. My basic reaction is that I don't want to be bothered with it at the moment. If I'm not in the midst of something, I am much more mellow, even sanguine, about it.
Another thing, I have prostate cancer and receive a periodic hormonal medical treatment to keep my testosterone in check. As a result, I am basically a chemical enuch. With this new status I discovered that many men don't like to talk about a reduced sex drive in old age. From my point of view, it solves a lot of problems. If I would have known how I would feel about it once it was imposed ... who knows, I might have opted for it sooner. It's hard to explain the additional sense of freedom I have simply because I no longer have an appreciable sex drive. This is a clear example of what I believe older people should share.
I have lived each age-phase of my life past childhood and puberty in pursuit of what I wanted at the time. I regret none of it. It got me here. In this moment, here and now, I am free with more choices than I could ever hope to pursue. I can pick the most satisfying for me, and I do. I love it with a full-throttle zest for living in the moment.
I'll get back to you on the subject.
As I thought about that story, it changed my life. Because I became aware early on that the biggest regret for me would come if I didn't pursue my dreams, march to my drummer, take my own path through life. It mattered not a twit whether the route would be crowded or lonely, hard or easy, long or short ... what mattered, I thought, would be that it was mine, of my choosing. I would get the feedback from my decisions.
As a white male of Scandinavian descent, born and raised in the northern tier States of Minnesota and Washington, a natural-born citizen of the United States, gifted with a reasonable intelligence and no physical defects, AND of the working class, I was relatively free to do whatever I wanted to do. I had no legacy of expectations other than to not screw up so badly that it would embarrass family or friends. I was blessed indeed. I was free ... still am, for that matter.
Now that I am that old man rocking away the end of my life, I feel like sharing what I am thinking about ... as openly and honestly as I can. At least some part of that feeling stems from the fact that the important adults in my childhood and youth kept most of their thoughts and how their experiences affected them, hidden from me. I wish I would have known then, or at least in my young adult years, what I now know ... and which I understand as being a fairly common experience.
For starters, up until my early forties, I didn't think much about dying. As a child, I thought a lot about going to Hell, because I was raised a Fundamentalist Christian, a mixture of old time Baptist and Pentecostal religion. I was saved, experienced the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the psyche phenomenon of Speaking in Tongues ... the whole bit. As a child, I only knew what I knew.
In my late teens I started seriously questioning the literal teachings of the Bible and spent the next forty some years trying to figure it all out, details of which I allude to from time to time in my stories and public journals.
In my early forties, I had the mid-life crisis we hear so much about as common to older men. I realized in a startling epiphany that my life really was going to end some day, leaving me with less time to live than I had already lived. I even remember much of the specific circumstances when and where it happened. It was in the fall, the early 1980's and I was traveling to Evergreen College in Olympia, Washington, from Seattle, via public transportation--a Greyhound and then the local city bus. I had been up most of the night before discussing the state of the cosmos in an all night restaurant, and slept most of the way to Olympia on the Greyhound bus. I got there, boarded the city bus to the college, and as I settled into my seat, I suddenly realized that I was going to die.
I can still remember the shock I felt at that moment. It was true, I was going to die. If ever there was a troubling of deaf heaven with bootless cries, to borrow a line from Shakespeare, that was it.
But I got through the moment, and the day with a renewed committment to follow my own path ... which was never very straight for any length of time, but always interesting.
Fast forward to the end of July, 2002, when I came quite close to dying from acute kidney failure. One of the benefits from dying from kidney failure is that it is usually a simple and painless drifting off into a coma and then dying as all the body's functions shut down. I liken it to settling into a big cotton candy cloud. I don't remember consciously fighting it. I do remember thinking that if this is dying, it ain't so bad. It didn't seem to matter one way or the other, whether I lived or died.
I haven't been afraid of dying since. I get a little annoyed once in awhile when I am right in the midst of a writing project, and I feel my body acting kind of sluggish, and I can get peeved about the interruption if I do in fact have to head off to the Emergency Room to check my blood chemistry when I don't feel right. My basic reaction is that I don't want to be bothered with it at the moment. If I'm not in the midst of something, I am much more mellow, even sanguine, about it.
Another thing, I have prostate cancer and receive a periodic hormonal medical treatment to keep my testosterone in check. As a result, I am basically a chemical enuch. With this new status I discovered that many men don't like to talk about a reduced sex drive in old age. From my point of view, it solves a lot of problems. If I would have known how I would feel about it once it was imposed ... who knows, I might have opted for it sooner. It's hard to explain the additional sense of freedom I have simply because I no longer have an appreciable sex drive. This is a clear example of what I believe older people should share.
I have lived each age-phase of my life past childhood and puberty in pursuit of what I wanted at the time. I regret none of it. It got me here. In this moment, here and now, I am free with more choices than I could ever hope to pursue. I can pick the most satisfying for me, and I do. I love it with a full-throttle zest for living in the moment.
I'll get back to you on the subject.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Some thoughts on Intelligent Design (ID)
Posted to the Paul Krugman forum on the NY Times Op/Ed website, hglindquist - 7:52 AM ET August 6, 2005, #44707 and hglindquist - 8:03 AM ET August 6, 2005, #44708:
If ID is an attempt by Creationists to present a rational concept, everyone should applaud. With reason as a guide, blind faith is quickly shown to be irrational ...
But to show the advance of reason that ID brings to Christian Fundamentalists I would like to quote Sir Isaac Newton (taken from Karen Armstrong's A HISTORY OF GOD--a recommended read, by the way):
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. . . . He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. . . . We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfection; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing."
Remember what Newton did for the Age of Enlightenment (from Wikipedia):
"There was a wave of change across European thinking, which is exemplified by the natural philosophy of Sir Isaac Newton, a mathematical genius and brilliant physicist. The ideas of Newton, which combined his ability to fuse axiomatic proof with physical observation into a coherent system of verifiable predictions, set the tone for much of what would follow in the century after the publication of his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica."
One more thought, this time from Jean-Paul Sartre,(in translation, of course, from THE PHILOSOPHY OF JEAN-PAUL SARTRE, edited and introduced by Robert Denoon Cumming):
"Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue."
I accept that.
Now if I chose to take Kierkegaard's leap of faith to believe in God then I would have to deal with the rational consistency demanded by that belief, would I not? Many people I know, respect, and love have made this choice. They cover a wide range of ID advocates to Literal Creationists. Most of them are not stupid or uneducated.
I choose to believe that God does not exist and to deal with the rational consistency demanded by that belief.
Getting Literal Creationists to establish a standard of rational consistency via the concept of ID is a huge step forward, in my humble Existentialist opinion.
Maybe we will have a new Age of Enlightenment?!
If ID is an attempt by Creationists to present a rational concept, everyone should applaud. With reason as a guide, blind faith is quickly shown to be irrational ...
But to show the advance of reason that ID brings to Christian Fundamentalists I would like to quote Sir Isaac Newton (taken from Karen Armstrong's A HISTORY OF GOD--a recommended read, by the way):
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. . . . He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. . . . We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfection; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing."
Remember what Newton did for the Age of Enlightenment (from Wikipedia):
"There was a wave of change across European thinking, which is exemplified by the natural philosophy of Sir Isaac Newton, a mathematical genius and brilliant physicist. The ideas of Newton, which combined his ability to fuse axiomatic proof with physical observation into a coherent system of verifiable predictions, set the tone for much of what would follow in the century after the publication of his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica."
One more thought, this time from Jean-Paul Sartre,(in translation, of course, from THE PHILOSOPHY OF JEAN-PAUL SARTRE, edited and introduced by Robert Denoon Cumming):
"Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue."
I accept that.
Now if I chose to take Kierkegaard's leap of faith to believe in God then I would have to deal with the rational consistency demanded by that belief, would I not? Many people I know, respect, and love have made this choice. They cover a wide range of ID advocates to Literal Creationists. Most of them are not stupid or uneducated.
I choose to believe that God does not exist and to deal with the rational consistency demanded by that belief.
Getting Literal Creationists to establish a standard of rational consistency via the concept of ID is a huge step forward, in my humble Existentialist opinion.
Maybe we will have a new Age of Enlightenment?!
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
On reading the fora of the NY Times Op/Ed Columnists
Posted under hglindquist to the Bob Herbert forum in the NYTimes website, Wednesday, August 3, :
hglindquist - 10:04 AM ET August 3, 2005 (#29261)
The fora of the NY Times are a fascinating read! So many people appear to have closed their minds to reason ... all along the spectrum of political thought from the right to the left.
Some individuals expend a seemingly inordinate amount of time and energy to respond in kind to the sophomoric rhetoric (drivel?) of an opposing view. Where does all this angst come from?
Are we turning our back on the ideals of our great nation?
This spoken by a Republican President:
"It is rather for us the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
From our Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... "
Yes, there is some latitude in interpretation of our ideals, but I believe that we have start with what we believe these principles mean and explain with reason how we then come to our interpretation of them as applied to current events.
In this there will always be the tension between what is and what we believe ought to be.
I would suggest that if we turn away from the pursuit of freedom and a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", we will be retreating. And what is retreat?
hglindquist - 10:04 AM ET August 3, 2005 (#29261)
The fora of the NY Times are a fascinating read! So many people appear to have closed their minds to reason ... all along the spectrum of political thought from the right to the left.
Some individuals expend a seemingly inordinate amount of time and energy to respond in kind to the sophomoric rhetoric (drivel?) of an opposing view. Where does all this angst come from?
Are we turning our back on the ideals of our great nation?
This spoken by a Republican President:
"It is rather for us the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
From our Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... "
Yes, there is some latitude in interpretation of our ideals, but I believe that we have start with what we believe these principles mean and explain with reason how we then come to our interpretation of them as applied to current events.
In this there will always be the tension between what is and what we believe ought to be.
I would suggest that if we turn away from the pursuit of freedom and a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", we will be retreating. And what is retreat?
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Reaping the harvest of Manifest Destiny
Once again the Christian West is embarked on a program of bringing our view of "knowing what is best for them" to another culture. We used to call this Manifest Destiny.
One problem in bringing our (the Christian West's) view of enlightenment to the Middle East is that we have a historical legacy in how we have treated aboriginal populations. Remember Kipling? Didn't he write something like, "We have got the gatling gun, and they have not"?
The next problem, stemming from that one, is that the Muslims have the gatling gun, and they are willing to use it in defense of their culture.
What did Nathan Hale say? "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."
The blowback (unintended consequenses) of our policies in the Middle East, which are so obviously constituted to protect our access to its oil, is that we have allowed the doctrine of jihad as a violent response to imperialism to take root. Muslims are not Native Americans with bows and arrows, nor Australine aborigines with boomarangs, nor Africans with spears. Muslims have an arsenal of lethal weapons at their disposal and the will to use them, in a culture that affirms the validity of martyrdom in opposing the encroachment of other cultures.
This conflict will not now cease until either we renounce our designs on the Middle East or the doctrine of jihad is renounced by Muslims everywhere. Which do you think will happen first?
Bush does not have a clue as to the conflagration that has been fanned and fueled by the Neocon's War in Iraq, because he is a true believer in the Christian God of the Bible.
Or maybe he does. Maybe he believes that he is God's instrument in bringing us to the prophesied Battle of Armaggedon.
Either way, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle ... or stopping the grain from ripening.
One problem in bringing our (the Christian West's) view of enlightenment to the Middle East is that we have a historical legacy in how we have treated aboriginal populations. Remember Kipling? Didn't he write something like, "We have got the gatling gun, and they have not"?
The next problem, stemming from that one, is that the Muslims have the gatling gun, and they are willing to use it in defense of their culture.
What did Nathan Hale say? "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."
The blowback (unintended consequenses) of our policies in the Middle East, which are so obviously constituted to protect our access to its oil, is that we have allowed the doctrine of jihad as a violent response to imperialism to take root. Muslims are not Native Americans with bows and arrows, nor Australine aborigines with boomarangs, nor Africans with spears. Muslims have an arsenal of lethal weapons at their disposal and the will to use them, in a culture that affirms the validity of martyrdom in opposing the encroachment of other cultures.
This conflict will not now cease until either we renounce our designs on the Middle East or the doctrine of jihad is renounced by Muslims everywhere. Which do you think will happen first?
Bush does not have a clue as to the conflagration that has been fanned and fueled by the Neocon's War in Iraq, because he is a true believer in the Christian God of the Bible.
Or maybe he does. Maybe he believes that he is God's instrument in bringing us to the prophesied Battle of Armaggedon.
Either way, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle ... or stopping the grain from ripening.
Friday, July 29, 2005
On "French Family Values"
Posted under hglindquist to the Paul Krugman forum in the NYTimes website, Friday, July 29, in response to his Op/Ed column "French Family Values":
hglindquist - 9:00 AM ET July 29, 2005 (#42725)
Re: French Family Values
hglindquist - 9:00 AM ET July 29, 2005 (#42725)
Re: French Family Values
I appreciate Paul Krugman writing about other possibilities for arranging the way we live.
As a person of Scandinavian descent I have long held the view that we are far too concerned about "socialism" and not concerned enough about "fascism" creeping into our systems.
When I reflect on the manner in which communities came together in the formation of our great nation to develop political and economic systems to meet the common needs, we didn't seem to be so encumbered with mental blinders against cooperative efforts in laying out our towns and villages, building water systems for instance, establishing the "rules of the commons".
People seemed to understand that some things are best sorted out in open debate between all the stakeholders in an issue. We knew that some issues left to the vagaries of "The Invisible Hand", could be irrationally distorted by the accumulation of economic power in the hands of a few, and monopolism could supplant capitalism under the guise of a free market.
Maybe I am being too idealistic in my hindsight; however, I find it somewhat humorous to read denunciation of ideas for ostensibly valid reasons which on closer examination are revealed to be chauvinistic responses to a foreign source ... as if most of what we now call the United States didn't stem from foreign sources.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
On "Learning From Lance"
Posted under hglindquist to the Thomas L. Friedman forum in the NYTimes website, Wednesday, July 27, in response to his Op/Ed column "Learning From Lance":
hglindquist - 8:15 AM ET July 27, 2005 (#22796)
hglindquist - 8:15 AM ET July 27, 2005 (#22796)
Maybe we will rethink the irrational logic of "If everyone pursues maximum personal benefit, the result will be maximum benefit to the group." (Tell that to an Army platoon!) Unless we have the context of the group's shared goals, the resources of the group will be used to attain the goals of the "person" who controls those resources. (Which is fine if the Lieutenant is in charge, following the Army's rules of engagement; however, if the private seeks to maximze what he or she decides is best for him or her ... )
If those who control the assets of a corporation (Capital) have more power than those who provide the labor (Labor) for that corporation ... and Capital and Labor do not have an agreement on shared goals, as in the building of community ... and each are seeking to maximize their own benefit ... well, we have that now, here in the United States. (Obviously, the reverse would be true, if that were the case ... it is the tension between the opposing interests that contributes so much energy to the dynamic of capitalism.)
As Ireland has learned (and Norway and Switzerland) it is the community (as in the nation) that must establish rules of the commons, the ground on which business takes place, if the community is to benefit.
Lance's seven victories have meaning because there is a Tour de France ... not the other way around.
We are tipping over
Don't our leaders get it? We have PASSED the tipping point!
When the design is to put the Freedom Tower on a 200 foot concrete pedestal, it becomes the Fear Tower.
When police in a "civilized" nation adopt a policy of shoot-to-kill based on suspicion, we have lost an essential charactersitic of liberty.
Of course it is UNDERSTANDABLE! I know why it is happening. It is to protect us from terrorists. That is my point. We are circling the wagons and we have "them" both inside the circle and out. Frightening, isn't it?!
You see, the question of who wins and who loses is paramount in the minds of both groups, "us" and "them". And they know what we do to the losers from the long history of our treatment of aboriginal populations.
We should have learned from the adventures of the West in China and India. In some cases it really is best to let the other group win early on, so they can become an equal partner in our world. But no, we have to control the oil, don't we? Because what would happen to our standard of living if we didn't? Who would be rich and who would be poor then?
What is being done in our (yours and mine, the people's) name?
This from the following article in today's (Wednesday, July 27, 2005)Washinton Post:
We are tipping over and "We've got to just ride it out."
Note: Read Dora Graham's article in the Authers Den entitled,
"England My England!"
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?id=18906
When the design is to put the Freedom Tower on a 200 foot concrete pedestal, it becomes the Fear Tower.
When police in a "civilized" nation adopt a policy of shoot-to-kill based on suspicion, we have lost an essential charactersitic of liberty.
Of course it is UNDERSTANDABLE! I know why it is happening. It is to protect us from terrorists. That is my point. We are circling the wagons and we have "them" both inside the circle and out. Frightening, isn't it?!
You see, the question of who wins and who loses is paramount in the minds of both groups, "us" and "them". And they know what we do to the losers from the long history of our treatment of aboriginal populations.
We should have learned from the adventures of the West in China and India. In some cases it really is best to let the other group win early on, so they can become an equal partner in our world. But no, we have to control the oil, don't we? Because what would happen to our standard of living if we didn't? Who would be rich and who would be poor then?
What is being done in our (yours and mine, the people's) name?
This from the following article in today's (Wednesday, July 27, 2005)Washinton Post:
In Britain, a Divide Over Racial Profiling
Mistaken Killing by Police Sets Off Debate
By Glenn Frankel and Tamara Jones
Washington Post Foreign Service
LONDON, July 26
Yet after facing two coordinated bombing attacks on the city's transit system -- one of which killed 56 people, including the bombers, and injured 700 -- many people say they understand the reasons for the policy. "Shoot-to-kill keeps us secure, and I feel protected, but at the same time I'm scared," said Angel Henry, 22, an airline employee who is part Jamaican and says that at times she feels singled out for having black features. "It's a Catch-22 situation. We've got to just ride it out."
We are tipping over and "We've got to just ride it out."
Note: Read Dora Graham's article in the Authers Den entitled,
"England My England!"
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?id=18906
Sunday, July 24, 2005
A call for a new Age of Enlightenment
Posted under hglindquist to the Paul Krugman forum in the NYTimes website, Friday, July 29, in response to his Op/Ed column "French Family Values":
hglindquist - 10:39 AM ET July 29, 2005 (#42768)
Once again we must free ourselves from the bonds of delusional ideology and turn to the rational evaluation of our world, brilliantly practiced a few steps beyond the threshold of civilization so many centuries ago in Athens by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other slightly less well known Greeks.
The heritage of the world's philosophers from before Athens to today, provides a firm foundation for a return to reason. Let us not shy away from our task because it is difficult. Those who have gone before us have in many instances given their very lives that we may enjoy the freedom to think rationally about what we are doing, to question what is being done in our name.
Are we to be led by those who would deny us our heritage? Are we so weak and fearful that we would not be free? If I am not free to think, I am not free.
Gather your friends and acquaintances as we do on Tuesday evenings at the Symposia Salon in Greenwich Village: West Village Conversation Group, and question your world. We can fuel the flame of reason in a new Age of Enlightenment.
When:
7:00 pm, Tuesdays
Where:
Caffe Dell Artista
46 Greenwich Av.
between 6th and 7th Avs.
New York, NY
Map and Directions
The West Village discussion group is open to anyone who loves to make new friends and find ways of improving personal or community life. The meetings have rotating facilitators who come up with specific subjects, but people who attend shape the conversation and this gives a different flavor to every meeting. The discussion is respectful, open, and creative and there is no pressure to contribute. Everybody is welcome.
There is a minimum $5 order per person.
Contact: Corneliu Rusu
Email: info@symposia.us
Website: www.symposia.us
Some references:
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on the internet, describes the Age of Enlightenment in part as,
In Invitation to Philosophy: Issues and Options by Stanley M. Honer, Thomas C. Hunt, and Dennis L. Okholm (1999: Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 8th Ed.,ISBN 0-534-53393-0) write,
hglindquist - 10:39 AM ET July 29, 2005 (#42768)
Once again we must free ourselves from the bonds of delusional ideology and turn to the rational evaluation of our world, brilliantly practiced a few steps beyond the threshold of civilization so many centuries ago in Athens by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other slightly less well known Greeks.
The heritage of the world's philosophers from before Athens to today, provides a firm foundation for a return to reason. Let us not shy away from our task because it is difficult. Those who have gone before us have in many instances given their very lives that we may enjoy the freedom to think rationally about what we are doing, to question what is being done in our name.
Are we to be led by those who would deny us our heritage? Are we so weak and fearful that we would not be free? If I am not free to think, I am not free.
Gather your friends and acquaintances as we do on Tuesday evenings at the Symposia Salon in Greenwich Village: West Village Conversation Group, and question your world. We can fuel the flame of reason in a new Age of Enlightenment.
When:
7:00 pm, Tuesdays
Where:
Caffe Dell Artista
46 Greenwich Av.
between 6th and 7th Avs.
New York, NY
Map and Directions
The West Village discussion group is open to anyone who loves to make new friends and find ways of improving personal or community life. The meetings have rotating facilitators who come up with specific subjects, but people who attend shape the conversation and this gives a different flavor to every meeting. The discussion is respectful, open, and creative and there is no pressure to contribute. Everybody is welcome.
There is a minimum $5 order per person.
Contact: Corneliu Rusu
Email: info@symposia.us
Website: www.symposia.us
Some references:
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on the internet, describes the Age of Enlightenment in part as,
The Age of Enlightenment refers to the 18th century in European philosophy, and is often thought of as part of a larger period which includes the Age of Reason.
The term also more specifically refers to a historical intellectual movement, "The Enlightenment." This movement advocated rationality as a means to establish an authoritative system of ethics, aesthetics, and knowledge.
In Invitation to Philosophy: Issues and Options by Stanley M. Honer, Thomas C. Hunt, and Dennis L. Okholm (1999: Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 8th Ed.,ISBN 0-534-53393-0) write,
Distinguishing between reason and rhetoric—two concepts that are all too frequently confused—is important. Reason implies some sort of orderly thought process that can be traced, analyzed, and judged by intellectual standards. Reason claims to increase human knowledge or understanding, often apart from its practical applications. Reason may be valued for its own sake because it illuminates meaning, order, and perspective. Reason emphasizes the passion for clarity and truth; it stresses criticism and the search for sound arguments. Rhetoric, on the other hand, is a form of communication designed to persuade, to motivate people toward a predetermined action or opinion. Rhetoric is the skillful use of language in an effort to elicit a particular response. Rhetoric is a means; it takes the form of intellectual coercion or psychological persuasion. Rhetoric tends to be uncritical and dogmatic.
The distinction between reason and rhetoric raises some sticky semantic questions, but it is a similar distinction to that sometimes made between "education" and "propaganda." Education seeks to give persons the power to make decisions and the knowledge to make choices on their own. Propaganda is designed to produce a predictable opinion or response, whether or not responders understand what they do or why they do it. Over the years philosophy has been tilted toward the broader view—toward reason and education.
Logical reasoning is one of the most important areas of contemporary philosophical study. The traditional way of classifying logical arguments is to designate them either inductive or deductive. Different criteria are employed in evaluating each type, and we shall consider them separately.
Friday, July 22, 2005
The roots of the Neocons run deep ...
Posted under hglindquist to the Bob Herbert forum in the NYTimes website, Thursday, July 28, in response to his Op/Ed column "Oil and Blood":
hglindquist - 7:39 AM ET July 28, 2005 (#28622)
The roots of Straussian fascism, the political philosophy of the Neocons, run deep.
Gordon Wright, history professor, wrote the following in The Ordeal of Total War: 1939-1945, with its 1968 Copyright:
"The German resistance did differ markedly in its composition and general outlook from the resistance norm in occupied Europe. By necessity it was much smaller; perhaps by necessity also it was more elitist in spirit, more suspicious of the masses, more doubtful about the practicality of political democracy. Its members were inclined to see Nazism not as an antiparlimentary political system but as a moral and political illness affecting the whole Western world. In Germany an atomized, secularized society had succumbed to demagogic dictatorship, as might happen to mass societies anywhere; the German masses had been corrupted, and could only be saved by an elite which would restore morality. Their dominant mood strongly resembled that of the German conservatives during the 1920's, when the source of evil had not been Naziam but liberal democracy. Some of them had hoped to turn the rootless mass into an organic Volk; some had even, for a time, seen this as Hitler's mission. Disillusioned by that experiment, they were not prepared to look to the masses as active allies in restoring sanity and balance to the nation. More than anywhere else in Europe, the German resistance looked to an elitist, decentralized regime with deep Christian roots. Only thus, they believed, could a mass society be prevented from slipping once again into some kind of totalitarian abyss."
Repeating for emphasis, "The masses had been corrupted, and could only be saved by an elite which would restore morality."
The Neocons, in their minds, are this elite saving the Western world. What they don't seem to understand is that leaders who save us from ourselves are dictators.
The question we should always ask of our leaders, Are they using fear to advance their agenda? or are the helping us to understand--in the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt--the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.
You can read more about Professor Wright at:
http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1463/310.pdf
hglindquist - 7:39 AM ET July 28, 2005 (#28622)
The roots of Straussian fascism, the political philosophy of the Neocons, run deep.
Gordon Wright, history professor, wrote the following in The Ordeal of Total War: 1939-1945, with its 1968 Copyright:
"The German resistance did differ markedly in its composition and general outlook from the resistance norm in occupied Europe. By necessity it was much smaller; perhaps by necessity also it was more elitist in spirit, more suspicious of the masses, more doubtful about the practicality of political democracy. Its members were inclined to see Nazism not as an antiparlimentary political system but as a moral and political illness affecting the whole Western world. In Germany an atomized, secularized society had succumbed to demagogic dictatorship, as might happen to mass societies anywhere; the German masses had been corrupted, and could only be saved by an elite which would restore morality. Their dominant mood strongly resembled that of the German conservatives during the 1920's, when the source of evil had not been Naziam but liberal democracy. Some of them had hoped to turn the rootless mass into an organic Volk; some had even, for a time, seen this as Hitler's mission. Disillusioned by that experiment, they were not prepared to look to the masses as active allies in restoring sanity and balance to the nation. More than anywhere else in Europe, the German resistance looked to an elitist, decentralized regime with deep Christian roots. Only thus, they believed, could a mass society be prevented from slipping once again into some kind of totalitarian abyss."
Repeating for emphasis, "The masses had been corrupted, and could only be saved by an elite which would restore morality."
The Neocons, in their minds, are this elite saving the Western world. What they don't seem to understand is that leaders who save us from ourselves are dictators.
The question we should always ask of our leaders, Are they using fear to advance their agenda? or are the helping us to understand--in the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt--the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.
You can read more about Professor Wright at:
http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1463/310.pdf
Who are the terrorists, Mr. President?
A poem by Hilding Lindquist
Copyright 2005
Reproduction and distribution is permitted with attribution.
I have been enlisted
by my President
to stay the course
to fight the terrorists
until they are gone.
I will, Mr. President, but
the questions are endless
in my mind.
Who are the terrorists, Mr. President?
and do they have roots?
or is theirs a virgin birth?
or manna from heaven?
God, their source.
Are they the ones
who blew up the trains and the bus
in London?
Are they the ones
who strap explosives to their bodies
and blow themselves up
in Iraq
and Israel?
Are they the ones
who flew the planes into
the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon
and the field in Pennsylvania?
Are they the ones
who shot the seven thousand Muslims
in Srebrenica?
Are they the ones
who slaughtered the Palestinians
in Chatilla and Sabra?
Do they have roots
in the Trail of Tears
of the Cherokee Nation?
Do they have roots
in the fight against Franco
in Spain?
Do they have roots
in the dropping of the bomb
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Do they have roots in Fallujah?
The questions are endless
in my mind.
Who are the terrorists, Mr. President?
and do they have roots?
or is theirs a virgin birth
or manna from heaven?
God, their source.
So I may stay the course
and know when they are gone,
the terrorists and their roots.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Have Bush and the Neocons gone insane?
Posted under hglindquist to the Bob Herbert forum in the NYTimes website, Thursday, July 28, in response to his Op/Ed column "Oil and Blood":
hglindquist - 9:10 AM ET July 28, 2005 (#28643)
In 1987, David Lamb, the noted reporter and author, wrote in The Arabs: Journeys Beyond the Mirage, "The stakes are high for the world in the Gulf war. If Khomeini wins and a wildfire of Shiite fundamentalism spreads through the region,Iran Arabia 's oil fields. It is a script the United States and Western Europe would use military force to prevent."
Instead of preventing the spread of Shiite fundamentalism in the Middle East, Bush and the Neocons have used our military force to help its spread.
Today's news is filled with stories of the relentless push by the current transitional government in Iraq to install Shiite fundamentalism in Iraq. An example is found in the editorial, "Off Course in Iraq", in today's (Thursday, July 21, 2005) New York Times, which reads is part: "Most chilling of all are the prospects for Iraqi women. As things now stand, their rights are about to be set back by nearly 50 years because of new family law provisions inserted into a draft of the constitution at the behest of the ruling Shiite religious parties. These would make Koranic law, called Shariah, the supreme authority on marriage, divorce and inheritance issues."
And we are supporting this? Have our leaders gone totally mad?
hglindquist - 9:10 AM ET July 28, 2005 (#28643)
In 1987, David Lamb, the noted reporter and author, wrote in The Arabs: Journeys Beyond the Mirage, "The stakes are high for the world in the Gulf war. If Khomeini wins and a wildfire of Shiite fundamentalism spreads through the region,
Instead of preventing the spread of Shiite fundamentalism in the Middle East, Bush and the Neocons have used our military force to help its spread.
Today's news is filled with stories of the relentless push by the current transitional government in Iraq to install Shiite fundamentalism in Iraq. An example is found in the editorial, "Off Course in Iraq", in today's (Thursday, July 21, 2005) New York Times, which reads is part: "Most chilling of all are the prospects for Iraqi women. As things now stand, their rights are about to be set back by nearly 50 years because of new family law provisions inserted into a draft of the constitution at the behest of the ruling Shiite religious parties. These would make Koranic law, called Shariah, the supreme authority on marriage, divorce and inheritance issues."
And we are supporting this? Have our leaders gone totally mad?
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
A new paradigm for community action
Some thoughts for future development:
Hierarchical social structures (vehicles) fueled by greed are not capable of organizing (bringing us into) the global community of the 21st century.
Why aren't they? It's quite simple, they become encumbered by a historical legacy of power and control vested in specific individuals who are themselves limited by the specific skill sets that bring them to positions of power and control.
Change is occurring too rapidly for team play in which the quarterback is king. Even the short span of years the normal CEO has at the top has now become far too long, particularly when you consider the trajectory of his or her ascendency. We should think about the baseball model in which the movement of the ball really does determine who is in charge of the play.
There are other aspects of the emerging global community for which our hierarchical soical structures are not adequate for integrating the world's diversity. If we think in terms of making everyone as homogeneous as possible, then we are misguided, but this is the end result for which a hierarchical social structure is best suited: get everyone to align under the direction of leaders.
We do not need vertical alignment top to bottom, front to back. Nor do we need the integration of the blender. We need the integration of the work of art in which components retain their essential characteristics in the creative whole.
Hierarchical social structures (vehicles) fueled by greed are not capable of organizing (bringing us into) the global community of the 21st century.
Why aren't they? It's quite simple, they become encumbered by a historical legacy of power and control vested in specific individuals who are themselves limited by the specific skill sets that bring them to positions of power and control.
Change is occurring too rapidly for team play in which the quarterback is king. Even the short span of years the normal CEO has at the top has now become far too long, particularly when you consider the trajectory of his or her ascendency. We should think about the baseball model in which the movement of the ball really does determine who is in charge of the play.
There are other aspects of the emerging global community for which our hierarchical soical structures are not adequate for integrating the world's diversity. If we think in terms of making everyone as homogeneous as possible, then we are misguided, but this is the end result for which a hierarchical social structure is best suited: get everyone to align under the direction of leaders.
We do not need vertical alignment top to bottom, front to back. Nor do we need the integration of the blender. We need the integration of the work of art in which components retain their essential characteristics in the creative whole.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
The Sexual Nature of Evil
Consider this question: Are we really at such a loss as to why young men are blowing themselves up in the name of religion?
Reflecting on the swirl of newly produced hormones coursing through my body in my late teens and early twenties from the vantage point (and safety!) of my old age, I don't find it difficult to understand at all.
I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian environment ... Baptist oriented--with a brief mix of Pentecostal ... yes, I experienced the psychic phenomenum of "Speaking in Tongues" as a manifestaion of the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit". Imagine my suprise when I later started lusting after members of the opposite sex! How could this be?
The battle I fought against Satanic forces seeking to control my soul was gigantic, heroic, and--finally--tragic ... because I was fighting myself.
Fast forward to a philosophical review of our history from the vista of old age: We have made it public policy to deny the sexual nature of sociopathic environments in our history, such as the slavery in the Southern Baptist south and homophobia in the military.
Because we do not, as part of our conventional wisdom, acknowledge the double-bell shaped curve of human sexuality as a continuum without sharp delineation in our species, we continue to fail in our attempts to understand the roots of much behavior that we have labeled as evil.
My hypothesis is that if we understood the sexual nature of our own history, we could better understand the (also seemingly obvious upon reflection) sexual nature of the jihadists efforts.
Do we really NOT understand the frenzied drive to overcome the lust awakened in us by what religous leaders call Satanic forces?
I can still remember--though I no longer feel--the heat of that powerful force ... and the peace that finally came when I understood it was natural, that I was supposed to feel that way, and the secret to feeling the indescrible joy in its climax and release (as opposed to guilt and shame), was to care about the other person.
Otherwise, I was a dog chasing my own tail.
Read my play, HUNTING THE ROAD KILL MOOSE, dealing with this subject.
I will also be facilitating the Tuesday evening, August 2nd, Symposia Salon in Greenwich Village on this subject, "The Sexual Nature of Evil." Check out www.symposia.us for time and place.
Reflecting on the swirl of newly produced hormones coursing through my body in my late teens and early twenties from the vantage point (and safety!) of my old age, I don't find it difficult to understand at all.
I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian environment ... Baptist oriented--with a brief mix of Pentecostal ... yes, I experienced the psychic phenomenum of "Speaking in Tongues" as a manifestaion of the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit". Imagine my suprise when I later started lusting after members of the opposite sex! How could this be?
The battle I fought against Satanic forces seeking to control my soul was gigantic, heroic, and--finally--tragic ... because I was fighting myself.
Fast forward to a philosophical review of our history from the vista of old age: We have made it public policy to deny the sexual nature of sociopathic environments in our history, such as the slavery in the Southern Baptist south and homophobia in the military.
Because we do not, as part of our conventional wisdom, acknowledge the double-bell shaped curve of human sexuality as a continuum without sharp delineation in our species, we continue to fail in our attempts to understand the roots of much behavior that we have labeled as evil.
My hypothesis is that if we understood the sexual nature of our own history, we could better understand the (also seemingly obvious upon reflection) sexual nature of the jihadists efforts.
Do we really NOT understand the frenzied drive to overcome the lust awakened in us by what religous leaders call Satanic forces?
I can still remember--though I no longer feel--the heat of that powerful force ... and the peace that finally came when I understood it was natural, that I was supposed to feel that way, and the secret to feeling the indescrible joy in its climax and release (as opposed to guilt and shame), was to care about the other person.
Otherwise, I was a dog chasing my own tail.
Read my play, HUNTING THE ROAD KILL MOOSE, dealing with this subject.
I will also be facilitating the Tuesday evening, August 2nd, Symposia Salon in Greenwich Village on this subject, "The Sexual Nature of Evil." Check out www.symposia.us for time and place.
Hee Hee, Ho Ho, Karl Rove has got to go!
It's clear that Karl Rove was involved in the leak. It
is also clear that the White House said anyone
involved in the leak would have to go. And it is clear
that the White House lied through its spokesperson,
Scott McClelland, about Rove right up until the point
where it became clear that Rove was one of the two
sources for the leak. (Just the facts, ma'am.)
All that being said, this is still something of a
smokescreen to divert our (the American public's)
attention away from the fact that the President lied
to us about the intelligence gathered prior to going
to war in Iraq (and therefore its justification). And
if THAT isn't an impeachable crime, I don't know what
one should be.
As Frank Rich wrote today (Sunday, July 17, 2005) in
his column, titled "Follow the Uranium", on the Op/Ed
page of the NY Times:
"Seasoned audiences of presidential scandal know that
there's only one certainty ahead: the timing of a Karl
Rove resignation. As always in this genre, the knight
takes the fall at exactly that moment when it's
essential to protect the king."
(Sent as an e-mail to weekends@cnn.com)
Saturday, July 09, 2005
7/7, London Calling
The horror of the 7/7 bombings in London will reverberate as long as memory remains.
A thought on the spiraling violence of my world
Herein lies my sudden doubt,
imperfect fear.
Beyond this day,
this year
The twirl of man's mad carousel
will bind us to its wall,
to travel the cyclic corridors of time,
unheard above the shrieking barkers cry
and the playing of his raucous tune.
A thought on the spiraling violence of my world
Herein lies my sudden doubt,
imperfect fear.
Beyond this day,
this year
The twirl of man's mad carousel
will bind us to its wall,
to travel the cyclic corridors of time,
unheard above the shrieking barkers cry
and the playing of his raucous tune.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Hunting the Road Kill Moose
Updated May 10, 2006:
My play, Hunting the Road Kill Moose, has been rewritten!
Act I
Act II
Act III
It's a play in 3 acts about conflict over the rules of sex in today's America.
An actors' group read the final draft at Symposia Bookstore in Hoboken, New Jersey, on May 7th. (See the poster.) The post-reading reviews by the group were enthusiastic, and the organizing director has asked me to submit my next play, On His Steps, to him when it is in its final draft and ready for a reading ... which is planned for this September.
My third play, The Last Supper, has been plotted and "cast". I plan to to bring it to final draft form, ready for reading by early Spring of next year.
My play, Hunting the Road Kill Moose, has been rewritten!
Act I
Act II
Act III
It's a play in 3 acts about conflict over the rules of sex in today's America.
An actors' group read the final draft at Symposia Bookstore in Hoboken, New Jersey, on May 7th. (See the poster.) The post-reading reviews by the group were enthusiastic, and the organizing director has asked me to submit my next play, On His Steps, to him when it is in its final draft and ready for a reading ... which is planned for this September.
My third play, The Last Supper, has been plotted and "cast". I plan to to bring it to final draft form, ready for reading by early Spring of next year.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Learning to live in the world
There are some basic things to think about.
One of them is that I experience my world as ongoing. Today arises out of yesterday and proceeds into tomorrow. I imagine that if the chain of events ever stopped, there would be nothing. Thus, I imagine that because there is something, it is eternal.
Is there really something or is it a mirage? Ah, even a mirage would be "something". I think, therefore I exist, as in the translation of Sartre's quote of Decartes', Cogito Ergo Sum ... I think therefore I am.
Another thing, I existed before I became aware of my existence. And my earliest observations were of others explaining my world to me as I went about discovering it. Before I ever felt the joy or pain of my own explorations, I was directed through my world by the physical expression of freedom or restraint of others in my life. I was informed by others—whom I had no reason to doubt—of what was beneficial, nuetral, or harmful.
As my consciousness was formed, I was forming the emotional bonds and barriers with my world based on the emotional bonds and barriers of others. Thus, when I became aware of myself, I experienced these bonds and barriers as a natural part of me.
This sense of who I am, joins me to the others in my world ... and separates me from most of the others in the world.
I must live within my world, and learn how to live in the world.
One of them is that I experience my world as ongoing. Today arises out of yesterday and proceeds into tomorrow. I imagine that if the chain of events ever stopped, there would be nothing. Thus, I imagine that because there is something, it is eternal.
Is there really something or is it a mirage? Ah, even a mirage would be "something". I think, therefore I exist, as in the translation of Sartre's quote of Decartes', Cogito Ergo Sum ... I think therefore I am.
Another thing, I existed before I became aware of my existence. And my earliest observations were of others explaining my world to me as I went about discovering it. Before I ever felt the joy or pain of my own explorations, I was directed through my world by the physical expression of freedom or restraint of others in my life. I was informed by others—whom I had no reason to doubt—of what was beneficial, nuetral, or harmful.
As my consciousness was formed, I was forming the emotional bonds and barriers with my world based on the emotional bonds and barriers of others. Thus, when I became aware of myself, I experienced these bonds and barriers as a natural part of me.
This sense of who I am, joins me to the others in my world ... and separates me from most of the others in the world.
I must live within my world, and learn how to live in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)