Ask The Question, At Least

Einstein is quoted as saying, "any fool can build something bigger and more complicated."

So, the question each of us might ask of our self is this:  "Am I 'any fool?'"

He left out the part, I guess, about people who cannot or will not build anything.  Such folks don't build relationships, don't build homes, don't build on behalf of their employers, don't build anything productive.

Some build complaint files.  "My bosses don't understand".  "People here only care about money."  "No one wants to act ethically."  "Woe is me."

Some let life deteriorate.  We have owned several houses.  Most had been 'let go', and caused us as the new owner to begin to rebuild the house so it was fit for the next person to live in.  Maybe we were building bigger, and more complicated, but at least we were replacing the appliances, refinishing the woodwork, repairing the driveway.  "Am I any fool?"

So I am wondering about the question.  Maybe we need several questions.  Try these, and let us know what you think:

• Am I building small, tidy, less complex  stuff?
• Am I building bigger and more complex stuff?
• Am I building at all?
• Am I just letting everything deteriorate?
• Am I destroying most of what I touch?

What Are We Being Taught?

We are being taught.

From early days, stories, news pieces, TV programs, children's books, Internet sites all teach us how to think.  I didn't mention school.  We may or may not learn how to think in school.  If we are, usually we learn from what our peers and talking about, emoting about, and getting angry about.

We are taught to expect conflict.  The interesting stories are the ones with conflict.  If there is not conflict inherent in the story, teenagers will make conflict up.  It is not simply teenagers who make things up.  A friend went to a counselor to try to sort out some problems.  This lady counselor tried to get her to talk about the terrible things her parents had done to her.  As she told it after the session, "My parents were great!  My problems were not with them.  They were with peer relationships, and with myself." 

The counselor tried to "invent" conflict where there was no conflict.  She had been taught, simply by the media and by her own expectations, to find conflict, even where it does not exist.

One of the worst insults you can give a person is to call her or him "bland".  Bland means an absence of conflict, or the ability to deal with conflict and not become a "drama queen" or "drama king" about it.  Handle it and move ahead or sideways or wherever one wants to go.

We are being taught to expect conflict, and, if there is none present, to create it.

What do you think?  What have you experienced along this line?  Leave a comment and let us know.

One Size Fits All

Do you remember Tube Socks -- the one size fits all athletic socks that actually fit no one very well?  For some reason I got to thinking about that phrase the other day and I would like to think with you about it.

Do you ever wish that every doctor was the same as every other doctor -- especially the same as the very best "other doctor"?  Or that every computer geek could do what every other computer geek could do?  Or that every politician was like every other politician (hmmm -- can't think of that good example for the rest to follow?  I understand.)

Guys -- do you wish every girl looked like every supermodel, and that you and all other guys had the six-pack abs that are supposed to represent fantastic virility?

Well, maybe we can make that all happen.  With the new cloning procedures we just need to choose the two, or ten, or thirty "best" models of humanity and clone them.  With luck we will all dress alike, saving on dyes and textiles and putting fashion gurus out of work.  Models, too.  We could all be models, just wearing what we all would prefer.  We would all do the same as school.  No more grading on the curve, right?

We would all get the same diseases at the same age, take the same time getting over them, or. . .

We would all succumb to the same virus, and humanity would end up extinct.

Hmmm.  Maybe there are some benefits to diversity.

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know. 

Learning to Love Wisely

Rather, learning to love ignorance wisely.  Here are some thoughts that I found in Brain Pickings for November 25, 2012.  They stimulated my mind.

The cult of expertise – whose currency are static answers – obscures the very capacity for cultivating a thirst for ignorance:

There are a lot of facts to be known in order to be a professional anything – lawyer, doctor, engineer, accountant, teacher. But with science there is one important difference. The facts serve mainly to access the ignorance… Scientists don't concentrate on what they know, which is considerable but minuscule, but rather on what they don't know…. Science traffics in ignorance, cultivates it, and is driven by it. Mucking about in the unknown is an adventure; doing it for a living is something most scientists consider a privilege.

[…]

Working scientists don't get bogged down in the factual swamp because they don't care all that much for facts. It's not that they discount or ignore them, but rather that they don't see them as an end in themselves. They don't stop at the facts; they begin there, right beyond the facts, where the facts run out. Facts are selected, by a process that is a kind of controlled neglect, for the questions they create, for the ignorance they point to.

What emerges is an elegant definition of science:

Real science is a revision in progress, always. It proceeds in fits and starts of ignorance.

I believe th4se come from Stuart Firestein's book, Ignorance: How it Drives Science.   Let's think about this a moment.

First, note that Persuasive, intentional ignorance is rampant.  Politicians debunk global warming with only opinionated pseudo-science to fuel their rhetoric.  Conservatives of various stripes hate birth control without any thought of the impact unwanted and unplanned pregnancies have not only on the lives of the parents but on the world at large.  White supremacists hate blacks, Jews, Latinos and people of Asian descent.  Loving this kind of ignorance is unwise, to say the least. 

But loving what we do not know for the sake of searching out new knowledge, new possibilities, new opportunities could be wise.  I think this is a wise way to love ignorance, and true scientists make great lovers.  (Many with a scientific education are hacks, and have no love of ignorance at all.)

What do you think?  Leave a comment and share with the rest of us.

More Essential Skills in Windows 8

I didn't invent the wheel, and this link taught me what I needed to know:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2013608/five-important-windows-8-keyboard-shortcuts.html

LOCATE the Windows Key -- it's to the left of the space bar, and then over one left of the ALT key.  You will need it.

Then try the five shortcuts given in the PC World article.  And don't forget Alt + F4 to close down the computer or reboot it!  You can also right-click the lower left corner to get to a "Close" screen.

Leave your comment -- we'd all like to learn from you. 

Order, Please. Not

In my experience, most people do not like being told what to do. 

"Don't tell me. . .

• what to say
• what to do
• where to go
• when to do something
• I'll be punished if I don't . . . 
• who to vote for
• when to go to bed

and so forth. 

Yet, when all is said and done, most people want to be told what to think, what to say and how to say it, and how to vote. Most of us simply want to be told in a subtle way.

TV shows tell us how to dress, what phones to buy, how to relate to others, what to think, how to say snarky things, and what to avoid.  If it is couched in either comedy or drama, our eyes glaze over and we engage the "I submit" gear more often than not.

I think this offers another powerful reason to protect freedom of speech, to protect real diversity, and to protect as many individual freedoms as possible.  One TV station, one set of writers, one kind of music subtly telling us what to do and say and how to be would lead to even worse conformity than we have today.

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know. 

We live "Here"

One of my "over the Internet, no, we have never met" mentors is Holly Lisle.  In her weekly email she wrote these words:
"We humans do not live in the world.  We live in whatever three square feet of space we're occupying at the moment, and in order to care about the things going on in the larger world, first the world has to reach into our three square feet of space and touch us."  … Holly Lisle, from Holly's Tip 9/14/2012

Of course, I cannot imagine exactly what she meant, so I do what we all do:  I am sharing what I think she means, or rather, what I her input to mean for me.

For most of us, our world may be too big.  By tweeting, texting, friending on Facebook, looking only at the big picture, reading of large, national disasters and so forth we actually insulate ourselves from life.  Nothing REAL actually touches us.

I have a person sort of in my life who is so busy building an electronic following that she fails miserably at her here and now relationships. She blocks uncomfortable, fragile, less-than-perfect people out of her consciousness in favor of artificial bytes of fake friends. 

Many of us do the same.  We fail to let the reality of our older neighbor who slows us down touch us.  We forget that babies have messy diapers and a temper to go along with them.  We ignore the neighbors who don't do things the way we like them done, and who fail to do their yard work according to our schedules.  These folks don't really exist for us.  Super-Barbie and Keen Ken in our imaginations take up all our time, and no matter how miserable we are we yearn for the company of the fakes we think of as the beautiful people. 

I think I may be a bit harsh when I write that, and think the above.  I think reality is messy, harsh at times, and full of undiscovered potential to help us get free of the wire ties that keep us in the plastic packaging of the toy store and start living in our "three square feet of space" and allow ourselves to be touched, even when the touch disturbs and even hurts us.

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know. 

Censorship

A person in my life censors.  She censors me, she censors others, she censors her children.  They have to run to her often to be sure they aren't saying, or about to say, anything on the proscribed list.  I find it awful.  Probably, God-awful!

Granted, too much running off at the mouth without any thought is a waste of good air and eardrum vibration, but it seems much better than censorship.  Topics that are 'off limits' are usually the ones that would be the most useful to consider.  Add to that, censorship generally doesn't work.

Try this:  Set your timer, maybe on the kitchen stove, or on your iPad, for 5 minutes.  Now, Do NOT think about the color red for the next five minutes.  Concentrate.  DO NOT THINK ABOUT THE COLOR RED!

Don't come back to this until your time has gone off after 5 minutes. 

Were you able to NOT THINK about the color RED for five minutes? 

Hence the first problem of censorship:  the harder you censor the more people want to, or must, think about what is being censored .  Oh, you can do the Chinese or Iranian thing and punish people horribly for violating censorship laws -- but once people know what is going on, their curiosity is piqued as well and more people want to know about what is being censored.  It may take awhile, but it happens.

One kind of censorship works, at least for awhile.  A person come to believe that she or he is not ready for certain kinds of reading, viewing or exploring.  She or he self-censors.  She or he gives the self time to grow and learn and ripen before exploring that particular subject.  I know people who self-censor in a particular area for their entire lives.  "Not for me," they say, and that's the end of it. 

What do you think about censorship?  What do you think about self-censorship?  Leave a comment and let us know. 

Can We Weather a Depression?

We see demonstrations and riots in various European countries because their leaders have determined that they are so far in debt they MUST implement austerity measures.  Friends of mine were recently in one country where the ordinaary shop keeper, worker, or young adult, were angry and pretty much without hope.  Our world has grasped the idea that "we can better our lives" and when that is taken away from us, we choose between "fight, flight or despair".

What about the USA?  Millions of people have been unemployed, and millions more are underemployed, or over-exploited on the job.  Not long ago a team of Federal investigators looked into the problems with the State of Colorado because so many people were being required to work overtime, sometimes as much as 80 hours per week, without any compensation.  They were told that if they didn't, they would get a bad review, and lose their job.

Of course, that's been commonplace in the private sector for more than a decade.  A friend of mine watched the company he worked for downsize, downsize, downsize until he was the one person doing nine people's work.  Your are right!  He was not getting any extra pay, and his job was in jeopardy.

What can we do if we hit a depression?  or our own "depression"?

It's not just, "What can we give up?"  That's a bassackward way of approaching the issue, although that may be the common way.

It's not just, "Who can I blame?" ala' the Romney/Ryan campaign.

It's, "What can we do?"  What positive, life-enhancing moves can we make before it happens and when it happens?  Can we provide details?  Who do we have to get 'permission' from?  Will what we do help us and a segment of our society, or will what we do damage others?

The next article will focus on some ideas, but we'd like to hear from you.  What can you do?  Leave a comment and let us know. 

"We're Losing Our Country -- Does Anyone Care?"

I saw that in the back window of an SUV this morning, and I began wondering.  Think with me, please.

I.  Why would someone think we are losing our country?

• It's not like when I was a boy.
• It's not like when I was a girl.
• It's not what I planned it to be when I grew up and "made it".
• It's not what it was in my parent's or grandparent's day.

Or,

• there are too many whites
• there are too many non-whites
• there are too many gays/lesbians/transsexuals
• there are too many rich people
• there are too many poor people
• there are too many computers
• there are too many. . . [you fill in your blank here]

or,

•  too many people don't work very hard
•  too many people live only for entertainment
•  too many people lie, cheat, steal (any one or all three)
•  too many people are not Christian enough
•  too many people don't respect Allah
•  too many people are trying to get rich, usually quickly

II.  Why think that no one cares?

• Not enough people turn out to vote
• Not enough people gripe about it
• Not enough people are ready to "throw the bums out"
• Not enough people take drugs 
• Too many people take drugs

or,

• only the very rich can run for office successfully
• only the very polarized and polarizing run for office successfully
• only the people I despise run for office successfully
• only the people you like run for office successfully.

What do you think it means, that bumper sticker that says, "We're login our country -- does anyone care?"

Leave a comment and let is know. 

More on Respect

  Remember -- your comment is valued.  Leave a comment, and sign up for an email notification when a new entry is posted. 

What do you think about censorship?

Let me put it this way:  do you enjoy being censored?  When you are about to read what you want, watch what you want, believe what you believe -- do you enjoy someone (perhaps someone who doesn't even know you) forbid you?  Do you, or would you, enjoy having a government official or a religious official have you arrested if you don't submit to censorship?

I know I would hate that, and despise the toadies who tried to stop me. 

Most of us would rather be censors than censored, I think.  We believe our beliefs so strongly we want to keep others from reading, watching, thinking or hearing stuff that would be "bad for them".  But we don't usually want others to decide for us what we can read, watch, think or hear. 

Leaving another free to decide for herself or himself what will be read, listened to, watched, thought or believed is another sign of respect.  Along with that kind of respect is the mutual obligation, I understand, to communicate even when we agree.  In the words of a man who was my pastor in San Francisco many years, ago, we "agree to disagree without being disagreeable about it". 

I have shifted from despising pornography because it might promote immoral thoughts or behavior to a greater despising of pornography because of the dehumanizing it does.  First, it dehumanizes the people posing, acting, or speaking.  When these are children manipulated into these roles, or forced into these roles, I more than despise the topic.  I get downright angry.  When people are hooked on drugs, and required to take part in porn parts to get their next fix, I get incensed.  It's not about censorship, per se.  It's about the way people are treated as porn is produced. 

I believe you have the right to read or watch or listen to -- porn.  I do not believe anyone has the right to abuse others in order to supply you (or me) with porn.  It's a matter of respect for people I will never meet. 

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know. 

Thinking About Resepct

 Remember -- your comment is valued.  Leave a comment, and sign up for an email notification when a new entry is posted.

What if taking from the rich who have disrespected employees, their government, the law, even their families is wrong?  What if it is blatant disrespect?

I asked the opposite question at the end of my last post.  In order to be clear thinkers, even if we come to wrong conclusions, I want us to think about both sides of this question.

Side 1:  Maybe . . . wonder with me here a moment . . . maybe seeking a just outcome from the rich and powerful who abuse their wealth and power by abusing other (failing to respect others) is a way of showing respect for them?

Side 2:   What if taking from the rich who have disrespected employees, their government, the law, even their families is wrong?  What if it is blatant disrespect?

Most revolutions fail because when the revolutionaries come to power, they treat the "others" with contemptuous greed, willingly grinding them into the dust even as they protested they had been ground into the dust.  The kinds of people that rise into positions of authority and power usually are the kinds of people who show little or no respect for others.  That is as true in a democracy, in a business, in an autocracy, or in a government office as it is in a dictatorship. 

Oh, the old powers may be overthrown, but when the new authorities are cruel, unjust, etc., the revolution has failed.  Only the names have been changed. 

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know.  

No Respect

Sign up for an emailed notice when a new post it added.  And leave a comment.  What do you think?


I just watched an episode of "Leverage".  What is it, I wondered, that attracts to many people, including me, to the 'Robin Hood' sort of outlawry?  And I came up with a provisional answer.

The outlaw really has zero respect of everyone with power. The person with power and riches is portrayed as someone who cheated, lied, stole, or manipulated other in order to get what he/she has.  In addition, he/she did a nasty thing to someone we know, or who hired us, and we can absolutely know it even if we cannot prove it.

At least, that's the assumption made by the Robin Hoods of fiction and fact.

By the way, nations behave in the same way.  It is understood by most of the world the the USA is rich, evil, greedy for more, and willing to get it on the backs of the poor (or with the dead bodies of the poor) in the rest of the world.  Any goodwill we accrued by stopping the Nazis and the warlords of Japan has long since evaporated.

How do we feel, being lumped in with "Americans" (if you are a citizen of the USA)?  If you have been laid off because of corporate greed, or had your home repossessed because of banking incompetence, or lost your child to drugs because of empire building gangs, you probably do not feel rich and powerful.  "They" are rotten and you deserve to "get them."  Right?

Then along comes Jesus who tells us to agape' our enemy, our neighbor, our fellow disciple, our God and even ourselves. 

As I remind us from time to time, the Greek word "agape'" as portrayed in I Corinthians 13:4-8a can be better described as a "profound, compassionate respect" than any sort of gooey emotional warm feeling.

I think we all crave respect, from the gang-banger in the projects to the mob boss and his hired goons to the business person, the employee doing menial labor and the school teacher.  Could this be a major part of what Paul referred to in Romand 3:23 when he wrote that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"?  Haven't we all failed to respect someone at some time or other? 

Maybe . . . wonder with me here a moment . . . maybe seeking a just outcome from the rich and powerful who abuse their wealth and power by abusing other (failing to respect others) is a way of showing respect for them?

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know. 

Obsession and Thinking

I have been thinking about people, including me, who obsess.  When a person obsesses, he or she focuses on one or two things to the exclusion of all else.  One phrase describes it in dictionary.com --"haunt persistently or abnormally".  Some examples come to mind.

Some people in our neighborhoods seem to need an "enemy" in order to function.  Someone, some school, some religion, some relative, some movement, some store or web site catches this person's attention.  At first the person may feel pretty good about this object or attention.  But the object of attention doesn't fulfill expectations, and all of a sudden -- suspicion!  This object of attention (person, institution, movement, religion) is failing me or failing someone I love. 

After awhile, maybe a few months, maybe only a few weeks, the object being obsessed about is "wrong".  Doing it wrong, believing wrongly, transacting badly.  "I can't stand be be around _________," thinks the obsessing person. "He/she/it knows what it is doing is wrong.  I was on their side, but I was rejected." 

Soon the obsessing person is talking about he/she/them/it behind their back.  But the object of obsession does't know it.

After awhile, with little or no airing of concerns at all, he/she/it is a full-fledged enemy.  If it weren't so tragic, it would be a sad joke.  But it is tragic.  This obsessing person is hurting others, often hurting reputations, breaking off a friendship for no reason the "he/she/it" can fathom, and isolating himself or herself. 

"It is not good for humans to be alone," said the Creator. 

Of course, the obsessing person is not fully alone, not at first.  He/she surrounds self with converts to hating, converts to suspicion, converts to isolation.  These folks are not alone.  They have each other. 

But in time, each is alone.  This happens to extremists of every kind.  But it also happens to decent, concerned ordinary people who fall into the obsession trap.  It is not good.  

That's how I see it.  What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know. 

Give Me Liberty

I have been thinking about the weird marriage of ideas in political folks on the right.  For instance, people who believe in gun rights.  They assert, even vehemently, that every person in the USA has the RIGHT to own guns and ammunition -- as many, and as many kinds, as they want.  Men must be able to own guns.  Women must be able to own guns. 

But most of them marry that passion for liberty to own guns with a passion to deny women the right to decide for themselves whether or not to have an abortion.  People, they say, do not have the right to make decisions about this issue.  A woman pregnant because of rape, or casual sex, or incest, or sex with her husband cannot be allowed to decide for herself whether to carry the fetus to term.  She is denied her liberty, her right.

Many will decide to carry the fetus to term.  Some will not.

Citizens are capable of deciding whether to own a gun, or not own a gun.  We trust them with this capacity to decide whether to own a killing machine that can kill none, one, or many people as we saw in Aurora, CO, recently.  We even defend their right to own guns that are legal ONLY to kill people -- handguns, assault weapons and automatic weapons.

But a woman cannot decide whether to have an abortion or not.  These opposite, conflicting positions are held passionately by the same person.

How strange.

It's about morality, some say.  Isn't the freedom to own a killing technology, and maybe use it to defend yourself, also a moral issue?  But we trust the gun owner to exercise good judgment about the people and animals and things they may shoot, but don't trust any women to exercise good judgment about their own bodies and futures.

As I say, "strange". 

Why are not the "liberty" folks about guns as passionate about being "liberty" folks for women? 

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know.

Give It A Face

My wife, Suzanne, was recounting a conversation she had recently.  A friend attends a church arguing about welcoming gays and lesbians, etc.  Suzanne said, "Give it a face."

"Think of a child, or grandchild, who has come to believe she or he works best as a homosexual.  Now imagine inviting this specific person to church.  How would you phrase it?

"I want to you see God's love for yourself.  How God's grace welcomes you . . . uh, would welcome you if you were not gay . . . uh, is not here to judge you but love you after you change . . . well . . . "

Think about the face.  Think about the person for whom you care, the relative you love and cherish.  Remember VP Dick Cheney, for all his conservative ways, affirmed his gay daughter.  His daughter has a face for him. 

Think about it.

Let us know what you think.  Leave a comment.

Repose

re·pose

¹   [ri-pohz] noun, verb, re·posed, re·pos·ing.

noun

1.

the state of reposing or being at rest; rest; sleep.  (from www.dictionary.com)

I think this approach to life is used by many.  They are in a nearly constant state of being asleep.  They don't notice what's going on.  It's not that they bring their preconceived notions to reality.  They have few, if any notions, preconceived or not.  Rather, They prefer to sleep through life, avoiding as much of the pain as they can.  Or perhaps they just want to avoid it all.  "What a drag!" seems to be their mantra.

Of course, it catches up at some point, whether they are conscious of it or not.  (Not conscious:  stepping in front of a speeding truck and being killed on the spot!)

What about you?  What do you think about the "repose" approach to life?  Share your thoughts with us, please.

Depose

Depose:  to remove from office or position, especially high office: The people deposed the dictator. (dictionary.com)  

We all know people who try to depose reality.  Racists, economists,  lawyers (at times), the far Right, the far Left, creationists, and TV preachers all come to mind.  When confronted with real data, the results of rigorous research, or other testimony relating to reality, they find refuge in. . . 

• scripture of some kind
• what everyone knows (in their narrow circle)
• what we have always believed
• what the person himself/herself has always believed
• what a teacher once said 
• or (God help us) what Rush Limbaugh says

 The unspoken approach is to depose reality for the myth or myths a person wants to believe.  Many people find this approach convenient (no thought required).  Not only the far extremes of opinion indulge.


Those who smoke a little pot to make life seem easier, those who abuse prescription drugs, those to use a little crack or meth, as well as those who only listen to opinions they already agree with are "deposers".  If reality sucks, get rid of it.


These folks don't want to impose their own reality so much as deny reality and live in their dream world(s).  


I find them sad.  "It is what it is" is a saying that helps me avoid the impose and escape the depose mentality.  How about you?  What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know
 

Expose

Think with me about Ruthie -- the delightful girl in One Big Happy (syndicated comic strip).  She is eager to find out what life is like in small increments.  She approaches people, situations and problems with at attitude of letting them expose what is underneath the surface.

My wife calls this approach "wonderment".  I have tried to cultivate this approach to life and have, to some extent, succeeded.  Rather than try to impose my preconceived notions of reality on a situation, I try to come with a questioning mind, waiting for reality to expose itself to me.  As I see it, we don't really KNOW very much.  Even events or relationships that seem similar to other incidents or happenings may not be. 

Motives may differ, causes vary, and even the interpretation I had of an earlier event that seems the same may be wrong.  Incomplete.  Off-kilter. 

When I am developing a relationship with someone I don't know (most everyone, really) I wait for that person to expose himself/herself.  Who is he?  What does she value?  What habits will I discover?  I listen and look for opinions, judgments, ethical moves, pools of knowledge, and arenas of delight. 

Of course, I never really know the person.  it's better to let him/her continue to expose layer after layer, facet after facet.  I incorporate that into my understanding but continue to listen, look and wonder.

What do you think?  Does bringing an attitude of waiting for reality to expose itself make sense for you?  Leave a comment and let us know. 

Impose, Expose, Depose or Repose

Impose.  Expose.  Depose.  Repose. 
These are the attitudes toward living and thinking I want to explore for the next few days.  I hope you will think along with me, and let me know what your thoughts are.
Think with me of the friend who bounces up to you and says, "You have to do it.  It's expected.  It's what you do."  Your friend has an IMPOSE perspective on life. 
I don't mean she/he is trying to impose on you -- rather she or he is certain that LIFE, God, Society, or some other mysterious force imposes certain things on all of us.  We are all imposed on, and we ought to further the imposing by letting others know what they are expected to do or be or become.  Sometimes the "how" is also imposed, along with the "when" and the "who". 
It's a way of thinking.  I think I am expected to have something or someone tell me what to do, when to do it, who to do it with, and how it should be done.
What do you think?  Do you bring a basic "impose" way of thinking to most of your living?  Share your thoughts by leaving a comment.

Superstition - 1

Did you ever do it?  Did you ever test and see?  Did you step on a crack and then watch to see if your mother’s back was broken?  

Lot’s of kids do if they aren’t sure whether that old jingle, “Step on a crack, break your mother’s back” is true.  Being kids, they don’t realize how bad it would be to break their mother’s back.  But they test.

Sadly, we adults buy into many, many superstitions without testing to see if they are true.  Whether the superstitions are childhood rhymes, adult fears or political and religious nonsense, we don’t test them.  

What superstitions might you be basing your life on?  Make a comment and let us know.

Irrational - 2

Projecting “sacred value” onto a mere object seems irrational.  It’s a book.  A vase.  An urn.  An area of dirt.  A building.  A piece of cloth.  And old thing that can no longer be used.  A mummified finger.

Three major religions assert that only God is sacred (Hebrew, Christian, Muslim).  To assign “sacred” to anything other than God is idolatry and ‘out of line’.  So say the primary assertions of these religions.

Yet Mulims assert that the Koran is sacred.  Christians assert that the Bible is sacred, that there is “holy ground”, that certain buildings are sacred.  No need to go into the superstitions of years gone by about the sacred power of “relics’.  People of the Jewish faith assign sacredness to a wall, to scrolls, to items of clothing.  

It’s irrational.  Unthinking.  Silly.  Unscientific.  

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know.

Irrational - 1

ir·ra·tion·al

[ih-rash-uh-nl]
adjective
1.    without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2.    without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3.    not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4.    not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.

So says dictionary.com.  

I indulge in irrational thinking and behavior.  Probably you do as well.  

Projecting “sacred value” on objects seems irrational.  When counter-culture folks wrapped themselves in American flags, or burned American flags, in the 1960’s, many people became enraged.  “They are desecrating our sacred flag!” they screamed.  And raged.  And villified.  

Rationally, both sides of the polarization put value on a piece of cloth with different colors on it.  Irrational!

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know. 

You Can’t Have Your Friends And Eat Them Too

I am puzzled by the casual way folks throw their friends away.  Some observations include:

• folks who hang on a few friends, sometimes only one friend, and devour their time.
• folks who want from their friends, then ignore them if other interests become more important than their friends.
• folks who need to be needed, and snoot-nose their friends who don’t have pathological needs for them to 'fix'.
• folks who dismiss their friends when distance or time makes staying in touch harder.

Many mental health professionals believe that one human person can only have 6-7 good friends.  Sadly, most people out of high school don’t have that many.

When you think of your friends, does the fact that you have friends warm you?  Threaten you?  Burden you?  Annoy you?  

I believe you should think about friendship.  It’s rare in our fast-paced world, and Twitter and Facebook are no substitutes for face-to-face time that is not hurried.  Even telephone time, if the miles have come between your bodies, is good.  

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know.

Freedom -- Individuals or Organizations

The continued chaos surrounding President Obama's decision (and later modification of the decision) to require all organizations employing people and offering medical insurance, including religious organizations, to make contraceptive devices or medications available to employees through their insurance haunts me.  As a former pastor I understand the need to keep religious organizations separate from the government.  Far too much harm has been done by religious groups using the civil government to enforce their doctrinal and behavioral edicts.  Witness England, Italy, Iran, Sudan, and Indonesia, for instance.   And far too much harm has been done by governments "taking over' valid religious expressions.  Witness Communist China and the former USSR, for instance. 

OK, we get it.  But what about individual freedom?  Suppose I am a Roman Catholic and my priests, bishops and cardinals tell me it is wrong (a sin) to use birth control.  But I (an individual) decide to use it for my own sanity and health.  Suppose I work for my church (or some other church).

May I have the freedom to choose  vis a' vis my medical insurance coverage (or anything else) how I respond to the teachings of my church?  Is my freedom to choose as an individual protected by the Constitution, or is the organization of religion (in this case, Roman Catholic) more protected than I am?  If I am female, do I suffer discrimination in the workplace by being denied medical insurance coverage that other female workers in medical insurance plans take for granted?

Individual freedom?

Or, organizational freedom?

I confess I am surprised that libertarians, Tea Partiers and Republicans come down on the side of the organization and against the individual.

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know.

Freedom of the Individual

I am thinking today about President Obama's directive that all employers, including religious employers, make the health care option of birth control available to their employees at no charge.  It's part of his health care initiative.

I am thinking about the uproar that many such employers are making about this, if they oppose birth control.

I am thinking about freedom as well.

• Freedom of worship
• Freedom of the religious group
• Freedom of the individual

Scenario 1:  the religious group is FREE to hold it's convictions and impose them on everyone who works for them, whether the individuals are members of their faith or not.  Institutional freedom trumps individual freedom.

Scenario 2:  the religious group MUST PROVIDE the opportunity for birth control to all it's employees and let them freely decide whether or not to use birth control.  Individual freedom trumps institutional freedom.  In this case only those (members or not) who espouse that tenet of the religious group will forgo birth control, as well as those too old to be worried about it I suppose.

I am thinking that freedom comes in various sizes and flavors.

• Should individual people be more free than institutions? 
• Should institutions be free to impose their unfreedoms on individuals? 

My understanding of freedom of religion is that each religious belief can be practiced until it imposes its rules on an individual who doesn't believe that way.  E.g., we can persuade, but not coerce.  Especially, no group can use the services of the government to coerce. 

I am thinking that President Obama has the right of it in this case.  The freedom of the individual (whether a member of a religious group or not) comes first.

What do you think?  Submit a comment and let us know.

P.S. - how does this relate to the religious concern about gay and lesbian marriage?  Blood transfusions for babies who need them?  Vaccinations of children? 

Mind Sizing

"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light your pour upon it, the more it will contract."  So said Oliver W. Holmes, Jr.  I think he is talking about one kind of "mind sizing",

I think there is a dilemma here.  Let's say it is my mind we are talking about.  Too much new information, too much light, too much doubt, too much newness and my mind shrinks until I defend what I think I already know with a passion that could lead to violence.  And I do not perceive myself as a bigot.  I actively work to seek more light, more knowledge, more data and more options.

What about the person who actively seeks to keep everything the same, to look backward at only the information he/she was taught to believe?  How much "new" is too much?  Probably almost anything "new" in the way of changed perceptions will cause the mind to shrink to a pin point (or smaller).  Can such a person every grow, expand, embrace new possibilities?

Some would say, "No."  Others would say, "Yes, but not many and not quickly."  What do you think?  Leave your comment for the rest of us to ponder.

Uncertainty - Two

“Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal.”  Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche  

Not only do I have friends who are stubborn in the path they have chosen, I tend that way myself.  It’s as if I was told, “You play right field.  Stand over there.  

So, not thinking at all about the GOAL of the right fielder, I stand, game after game, where I was told the path was, not even trying to catch or stop balls that whiz by a few feet away.  In fact, if I ever knew the goal of the right fielder, I forgot it in the stubborn commitment to the path -- stand over there.  

How many pastors continue to lead their church in ways that reflect the path, not the goal?  How many business people learned a way of being a business person that no longer works, not longer achieves the goal, but, by golly, they stubbornly stay on the path while the business fails?

Uncertainty about the goal, and certainty about the “way it should be done” combine to equal failure, now or in the future.  It would be better to have a little uncertainty about the goal -- feeing my family, making a living, ending the year with a good profit or whatever, and a great uncertainty about the path -- the best method now for reaching the goal.

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know.

Uncertainty - One

Uncertainty and thinking often go together.  Not always.  Some people are uncertain, but do not progress to the point of thinking.  "What should I do?"  The question can lead to paralysis, not thought.  On the other hand, the question can lead to serious thinking: 

• "I could get out of this abusive relationship." 
• "I could enlist in the armed services."  
• "I could enroll in school."  
• "I could, and should, apologize."

You get the idea.  When uncertain, think.  Think on paper.  Think out loud (maybe into a recording device).  Think with someone else.  Think out loud with a group.  Think in a blog like this one. 

Move past uncertainty, where you may be stuck,. to possibilities.  Do it by thinking.  There are no guarantees that ten minutes thinking, or one hour's thinking, or even a year's thinking will lead to the "right" answer, but it beats being stuck.

What do you think?  What has been your experience?  Leave a comment and let us know. 

Creating Problems

Sometimes it's not a good idea to create problems.  "Don't rock the boat!" often means, "I will see that you don't have a job/marriage/position of influence if you stir anything up."  In some cultures it can mean, "I will see your body in an unmarked grave if you stir things up."  Syria comes to mind.
But sometimes we do well to create problems.  The railroad created a problem for canal boats and those whose livelihoods depended on them.  Air travel created problems for businesses which depended on providing land travel.  The Apple iPhone created problems for those early, clunky "cell phones" and "satellite phones" that preceded them.  And many of us have benefited. 
  How do we think, then about creating problems? 

• Creating problems might be 'bad' but might be 'good', too.
• Creating problems can be dangerous, or can provide rewards and benefits for ourselves and others.
• Creating problems comes naturally.

For instance, learning to walk creates a whole slew of problems, but most of us do it anyway and our parents and parent figures praise us.  But wow!  can we get into more trouble as walkers than we ever could as crawlers!
Even in these tough economic times we can think wisely about creating the best kinds of problems, and if we think well we will create the best kinds of problems.

What do you think?  What has been your experience?  Leave a comment and let us know.