Skip to content

Tag: Creativity

Published on Leave a comment on Why, the Very Idea! Relationship and the Folly of One-Upmanship

Armaments for the Queen’s security detail 

Is this about relationships? Yes. Practical? I think so. How can I assist the Queen of the Universe today? Her Majesty needs help managing her relationship with an uppity ruler of one of her galaxies. Always trying to one-up her Sovereign. You need help winning life’s game of one-upmanship. Yes. One-upping the pesky nobody and her pitiful galaxy. That will do for now. Your wish is my command. That also will do for now. 

Life’s game of one-upmanship is lost from the start. Group relationships thrive on it until competition goes off the rails and they don’t. Personal relationships that tolerate it self-destruct. It’s toxic for friendships. I do so want to be friends with the pesky nobody. Why is she so mean to me? (boo-hoo). As Vince Lombardi put it, “Friendships aren’t everything. They’re the only thing.” Who’s Vince Lombardi? A disembodied voice spouting nonsense about winning. Guards! Secure your weapons! Let the fool proceed. 

It makes sense to enable friendships, no sense to disable them when they fit the situation. Why not if people disable them anyway? The point of disabling a relationship is to divide it. To prove something. What? That it’s possible to disconnect. In a world where that’s the way things are, separable and separated. Not in my Universe! My legions do their Emperor’s bidding and I bid them to knock heads together. You will be one happy family of smiling dimwits or else!

Tell that to the ruler of your rebellious galaxy -- one head that refuses to be knocked. Careful, O wise one. My guards are provisioned with guillotines and stink bombs. I’m not the only one listening. 

On today’s menu: mashed ideas with gravy 

The universe proclaims its pointlessness. Things not fitting together or when they do, they come apart. Science tells us that life originated with happenstance composed of happenstances. Accidents. Random events. Chance. When it can’t be true. Can’t? No. “Everything has a reason?” Yes, if that means everything is interconnected. That stuff popping up out of the blue makes no sense. There has to be some connection. Why? The opposite of Mind that’s everything and everything that’s Mind appears to be pointless. But only because that’s its point. An appearance only since if Mind is everything and it can’t be pointless, then neither can its opposite. I’m feeling faint.

To find the sense in nonsense start with Origin, the original idea. Without putting the cart before the horse, the expression before the idea. Horses! Can we talk about that? Before a thing “exists” in any form it starts with the idea of the thing. An apple didn’t precede the idea of “apple;” it came after. The idea of “apple” doesn’t go away when you’ve eaten one, but every apple will go away if you “eat” the idea. So that’s what’s making me feel bloated! 

The Queen needs a gavel 

Making sense of things can’t be done by fitting apples and oranges together, objects with different properties. But it can be done by fitting ideas together. Thoughts, feelings, causes, ideals. What’s the difference? The expression of ideas is their use. Their application to specific circumstances in specific contexts. “Apple” is food. Ideas themselves are instances or expressions of Mind functioning. “Everything is Mind” means all ideas, all thoughts combined with feelings, originate within Mind. Mind functioning to fit every part of Creation together in one system. Whose parts function together in harmony because of how Mind originated and defined the ideas they express.

A function that Mind can’t perform if Mind itself is composed of parts going off in different directions. As though they’re subject to different wills, different definitions. One Mind is one Mind. And its ideas all emanate from the same source. Interconnected logically or there would be no order. Obviously the state of mind of my nemesis.  Mind whose thoughts are disordered can’t function.

Pointless doughnuts

You mean the origin of everything is ideas, they all originate within Mind, and they must be interrelated in logical order because they’re all of one Mind. Yes. And minds functioning that way would agree, but quite a few don’t. Stephen Hawking envisioned a boundaryless universe of spacetime-matter that needed no Mind to think or create it. Matter did it all by itself, its own origin. A pointless universe? If everything is interconnected by Logic’s implications and Love’s sharing, then there must be a point to it. Ideas can’t be what they are without making or having a point.

Everything must be defined by its function or there would be no logic, no reason, for thinking it. We are all defined by what we are for, and what we are for defines who we are. Self and function are inseparable. One and the same. Doughnuts shorten people’s lives because they’re made of shortening. My Queen rules with blinding perspicacity. Get to the point or you’ll be shortened. 

“Fate” debunked 

Every idea has its implied opposite and so does the source of opposites, Mind. That is, our source of opposites. Where Mind got it is from Origin, the state of friction from instability – opposites competing to activate Origin -- that called for Order. The seminal event in the activation of Mind and everything that followed, including Creation and the events that led to our situation. “Possibility” implies its opposite, the idea of “impossibility.” Two ideas in one that contribute to one definition: what the thing is and what it isn’t. If Mind is ideas interconnected in one orderly, functional system, its opposite will be . . . mindless disorder. Yes. Dysfunctional mind that seems composed of random happenstance, chance, fuzzy-dice “fate.”

Except that it has an organizing principle no less definitive than Mind that’s ordered. Not original thinking but derived thinking, dependent on the thing it opposes for its definition. A mirror-image opposite, put there by the object it’s reflecting in reverse. The nature of the reflection and its coming and going, all dependent on the object in front. Just as the impossibility of another “reality” is given away by being time-limited, opposite’s pose of independence – the “wildness” of spontaneity and freedom without order -- is debunked by its dependence on the order it opposes.

The opening and foreclosing of potential

Our universe can’t be pointless chance, undisciplined wildness, if it’s disciplined by what it is, an opposite. The romantic posturing of “maverick” or “rogue” notwithstanding, it’s still on a leash. Dogs! Can we talk about dogs? If they’re house-broken, of course. One-upmanship that assumes that personal relationships can be separates competing with one another is getting it wrong. Going against the grain – the way things really are.

To understand “relationship” is to understand that its origin is ideas interconnected within one Mind and pointlessness contradicted by its point: opposite. It's to understand that the cause of the idea of “relationship” is service to the power of attraction. The cause of the idea of “one-upmanship” is service to the power of opposition.

Relationship powered by attraction opens up the potential for learning and growth, competence and creativity. Limited only by the mindfulness and loving kindness – the personalities and circumstances -- of the individuals. Relationship powered by opposition to mindfulness and loving kindness, by one-sided concern for winning in one-upmanship, can’t be for anyone wanting friendship. For anyone seeking companionship and support for learning and growth, competence and creativity. It’s the foreclosing of potential. For you and me it would be toxic.

Logic and Love, Mind and Heart, are inseparable

Intoxication – that’s it! I need a drink! Guards! Get me room service! Here’s the practical. Drink! What could be more practical than drink? The origin of misunderstanding that obstructs lasting friendship is an idea. Split in two by its opposite: the inseparability of Logic and Love, thought and feeling, reasoning and evaluating. The idea personified by Mr. Spock on Star Trek, that to be “logical” is to be thought uncontaminated by emotion. The idea that to be “loving” is to be “all heart” and no mind. That thinking can’t be feeling at the same time and vice versa. That “reasoning” can’t be “objective” if it’s guided by subjective values. Put there by the boundaries of conscience set by their source, Logic and Love.

A common misconception some personalities welcome because our world doesn’t set us up to choose among different ways of sharing and creating. As though we already had the competence of Free Choice. It sets us up to choose who we want to be and what we want our lives to be about.  Whether to seek the competence of Free Choice and move on or remain stuck where we are. Whether to share and create while we’re learning or compete and conform so we can avoid learning.

Friendship is for sharing and creating. Having no interest in either, some personalities engage us anyway to amuse themselves with fun and games. With life’s game of one-upmanship. Toxicity that can’t be avoided unless Love and Logic, feeling and mind, reasoning and conscience, are kept intact together.

One-upped

You mean I can’t dazzle my subjects with personal charm and beauty alone? I can’t rule just by scaring them with ruthless insensitivity? I have to think? Think and feel, mind and heart, the discipline of judgment and compassion both.

What are you asking? Nothing. Just sharing a perspective: that queens and their subjects will always need to relate to one another and to manage their relationships. And they can’t do it without making themselves accessible as persons. Not play-acting mirror images, reflections that are all exterior and no interior, masks designed to hide what’s there or not there, but substance that’s relatable. Honest, truthful, open, vulnerable, accountable, and trustworthy.

Well, then, I have a confession. Yes? I’m not really Queen of the Universe. Really? I’m a bus driver. Torrance route #8. No! You mean I’ve been wasting my exquisite talents, my priceless wisdom, on an ordinary person? You’ve been one-upped. Good luck next time, Charlie Brown!

Published on Leave a comment on Origin’s Lesson

Flimflammery from the start 

Child’s disempowerment – its loss of Self-Awareness – would have parted it from existence in Reality-Creation, from Mind Logic-Love its Parents, if Choice itself were among its functions shut down. It had Choice because it was Choice. Like Creation and all of its parts, it was its function. Service and support for Creation’s cause. The affirmation of Spontaneity and Creativity and its Source, Mind Logic-Love. Not its obliteration by its opposite: mindless, loveless authoritarian dominance.

Since Mind-Child was an extension rather than separation from Mind -- an impossibility, -- it was still Choice that bought the Brooklyn Bridge. That grabbed the chance to own Florida real estate under water because it wasn’t free. It had been disabled. Its situation was so dire that it might have “believed” anything.

“Belief” implies choice among different possibilities or propositions that requires independent judgment if it’s to be free.  Had the Child not lost independent judgment, had it not been deluded into dependence on the “judgment” of its con-artist reflection, it would have been aware that something was amiss. That the boundaryless “paradise” tantalizing it was flimflammery from the start.

The giveaway from the start

Because needing its delusion to make it “exist,” not already “existing,” was a tipoff that it needed a beginning. A boundary at this end that required a second boundary at the other end. To satisfy its definition with ending. Bracketing a boundaryless cornucopia of promises too good to be true with boundary. Evidence enough that they are too good to be true. Contradiction so obvious that its author couldn’t have been serious.

The boundary of time. “Timeless paradise” defined by time. A deal-killing contradiction that Free Choice, functional in timelessness, could not have missed. But once it was dysfunctional and all in with hallucinating an absurdity, its projections, conceived in time, wouldn’t know the difference. Unlike Reality, the hallucination is temporal – time limited. “Temporal” means exactly that: we and our mysterious environment had a beginning and it will end.

Would Child have chosen to escape from Reality if the alternative’s ending could be its own? Non-existence by time expiring or worse, return to Reality and vengeance at the hands of enraged beasts? Authoritarian Parents now offended by their Child’s disappearance. Adding insult to its inexcusable loss of Self-Awareness, their irreplaceable gift -- an unforgiveable injury. The nightmare of Parenting by Logic-Love re-imagined as authoritarian irrational hate, meant to scare its deluded host into the “freedom” of captivity. Into the “innocence” of victimhood only to condemn it to a universe of persecution and guilt.

Waiting for the letters of transit

Hawking theorized a boundaryless universe so that the Child’s choice could have been free. So that his passion, the subject matter of physics, would defy all obstacles, all common sense, to last forever. Enshrining it in divinity and himself its agent, worthy of burial between Newton and Darwin. But neither the Child nor its hallucinating projections would buy it if they had a shred of common sense.

The grammar of our “alternate reality” is so permeated with the guideposts of time that even quantum physicists, free to calculate without them, seem reluctant to face the obvious. Once absolute in Newtonian physics, then relative in Einstein’s, demoted to a curiosity in quantum physics, time can’t be real. Just as timelessness was the Child’s reality from its origin, ours is time. And until self-unawareness – the delusion – ends, we’re stuck with it. We and our five body-brain senses. waiting, like wartime refugees in Casablanca, to get on the last plane to Lisbon.

Where Order matters

But on the other side of sixth sense, mind’s portal to another perspective, there is common sense and laughter with it. Because the idea that Mind and its works had a “beginning” necessarily implies that it will have an ending. That it’s temporal. Just another thing, like us and our mysterious universe, destined to come and go. Leaving unanswered Origin’s Question: originate what? Back to where it started.

The idea of “origin” implies to the human mind bracketed by time, handicapped by the Child’s self-delusion, that explanation, of course, must start long ago at the “beginning.” At the beginning of time. When what it must mean instead is the first principle in the sequence of Mind’s thought. In the sequence of Logic-Love, boundaryless eternity. Because that’s how Logic-Love works: implication-connection, relationship-connection, one after the other in logical sequence. Where the relationship between before and after matters. Where Order matters or nothing does.

The missing Now

The flaw in human thought that exposes irrationality: subjecting sequence to willful thinking. The same “thinking” that’s comfortable with contradiction. With “alternate facts,” the comic lunacy of a character out of Mad Magazine. The sheen of his glamour reflected in his fish-tailed ’57 DeSoto making the scene in Manhattan. Assured of acceptance into the society of the like-minded: fatuous narcissists inhabiting worlds of their own making, constructed of mirrors. Enchanted by their sophistication while holding opposing thoughts. Nitwits. Fools.

The concept of Now is so alien to the human mind that it can only be conceived in the context of time. “Now” and “eternity” are the best we can come up with, both definitions by what time isn’t. If time were Now it wouldn’t “exist.” The discovery of physics, that nowhere in the universe is it Now. Only an unsatisfying, troubling substitute: “present” that’s neither “past” nor “future.”

Begging for explanation. For if we and our universe aren’t “here” Now, where are we? Do we “exist” at all? What does exist in the Now? In timelessness? Could it make more sense than apparition “present” here today, absent tomorrow?

Brain “science” for nut jobs

Hawking and fellow tribal “realists,” Penrose, Crick, and Kristof, infatuated with body-brains, their five senses, and the universe that they sense, demand that the question not be asked. So adamant that they flaunt their disdain for objectivity. For the free spirit of inquiry, with absurdities like neuroscientific “proof” that “consciousness” is seated in the brain. Proving only that if they understood that “consciousness” is Self-Awareness and consulted it, they wouldn’t put it anywhere near the brain.

Focusing all their attention on the brain diverts the magician’s audience from where attention belongs, on Self-Awareness. On its loss and recovery that, by every indication, drives the Child’s narrative and ours. Minds captive to the “reality” of hallucination, dismissive of their sixth sense, are comically inept at grasping its fundamentals. Parodying the “scientific method” like a chemist’s experiments with aluminum and hydrochloric acid, unaware of their properties.

If neuroscientists can’t do better than, yeah, we all know what consciousness is, then they don’t belong on the stage. They’re agents of the image in the mirror, keeping its real estate deal alive in perpetuity. The big boundaryless lie. Keeping the Child and its progeny from learning about Self-Awareness by asking about it. The job of philosophy that Hawking declared “dead,” glamorizing the nut job in the mirror with the panache of scientific aristocracy.

The appearance of inquiry

“Origin” in this telling has nothing to do with “time” and everything to do with questioning. The first step in the sequence of Logic-Love’s answer, or else the cart is put before the horse. An all-too-common phenomenon in our “reality.” Questioning that has no need of “time” to perform its function, only the timeless condition of instability that gives it context. That necessitates it since the friction generated by instability’s opposing parts has an interesting property. It strikes a spark.

When we see earth’s rotation in motions of the night sky, we are looking at a version of what happened when the spark was struck. The version that defines what happened by what didn’t happen: our temporal universe of spooky apparitions. If there’s a lesson to be learned from Origin it might be that nothing happens that doesn’t begin with questioning. With asking first and proceeding from there. That nothing happens that’s of any consequence that begins with self-delusion: that no question is needed since it already has an answer.

The so-called objectivity of “rational” thinking that dominates humanity’s perception of itself and its environment: the appearance of inquiry. The reality of opposition to inquiry. Terminally loyal to irrationality. Hallucination. The occupants of Plato’s Cave fixated on flickering shadows and disembodied sounds. A joke. A trick. An atrocity seeking its own destruction.

The meaning of Origin

The lesson of Origin may be that the force of friction that empowered both Question and Answer wasn’t an act of will seeking to dominate the field. To add more instability to a field already reeling from a demolition derby of Mad Magazine ’57 DeSotos. From the chaos of churchgoers in bonnets and suits sharing the frontier with saloon-brawling, gunslinging psychopaths. It was an act of Spontaneity governed by a code of laws, principles, and ethics above any will to manipulate it. Not the way things are if they don’t have to be, but the way things must be if they are. The Reality defined by our “alternate reality” by what it isn’t.

The meaning of Origin may be that Question can’t be answered until Child and its projections part with self-delusion. The delusion that the apparition in the mirror is the voice for what is, when its only value to us is its unfailing portrayal of what isn’t. Until we learn from Origin instead, with the perspective of Guidance, to define Reality by what is.

Published on Leave a comment on A Role Model for Boundary Management

Wisdom from the third rail: “Guard your thoughts.”

If our task in this “life” is to learn to manage the boundary between opposites then it helps to understand that the boundary is friction, and friction is Energy. The boundary that divides what is from what isn’t on the top side and underside of Definition in Reality. That divides human from animal on the topside and underside of human animal in unreality. The Mind-Child hallucinating our “reality” and us stand astride the third rail.

Reason enough for Jesus’ advice in A Course in Miracles to “guard your thoughts.” Because it would have been a mistaken thought, unguarded, that dropped Self-Awareness Free Choice out of Spontaneity’s empowerment into conformity’s disempowerment. The state of self-unawareness that only Mind-Child Free Choice can experience and potentially live to tell about it. Provided that it chooses to abandon its self-delusion, put down its mirror, pick up the sovereignty of independent judgment – the power to choose – where it fell, and trust the Guide within to share its gift from Self-Awareness. As Choice seeking Freedom chooses to receive it.

The third rail that gets its power from friction between incompatibilities on either side of the boundary, rubbing up against each other like two sticks striking a spark. Teaching the function of Creation who volunteered to manage it – Free Choice – that Creation needs the friction. That the boundary was put there by the lightning strike of Spontaneity, Mind-Order’s answer to Origin-instability’s call for stability. Teaching Free Choice that it was a mistake that would have allowed underside to replace topside, removing one of the sticks, that sent it here to learn how to undo it.

By partnering in loving friendship with Guidance, through the Spontaneity of its sixth sense, to learn from Mind-Child’s Parents. To understand enough of their story, the story of Mind Logic-Love, to follow their example. For the competence to manage the boundary with Logic-Love, its mission built into the laws of cause and effect, that codifies both the hazard of friction and its Necessity. And puts both to their intended use with every spontaneous act, of every Free Choice, of Creation.

To the glory of “god”

The human animal brain rules, and is ruled by, one principle: the supremacy of the tribal self, Mind Child transfigured from one to many. In an act of arrogance by the beast in the mirror, trickery by the magician, and absurdity by the joker. Supremacy among tribes and within itself.

Yielding independent judgment to the verdict of body-brains’ five senses: that they and their sensed environment are relationship that defines, creates, and rules reality. The only “reality” possible. A perversion of Relationship that illuminated Self-Awareness and initiated Creation. More mischief from the beast, the magician, and the joker in the mirror. Perpetrating the absurdity that the legitimacy and power of authority are measured by numbers. Numbers of bodies. Herds of human animals competing in mortal combat for a non-sequitur: supremacy.

Where herds labeled “good” and “evil” – opposites – may not resolve their differences with wimpish, dithering Thought. They must instead assemble their forces at  Armageddon to engage in a test of physical strength between bodies. Requiring feats of godlike invincibility. Displays of selfless tribal loyalty and the will to dominate, heedless of danger, steadfast in the face of impossible odds. A grand finale of Olympian mythical grandeur.

All to the glory of “god:” the human body. Given its exalted place in the firmament by the supreme court of judgment: organic matter flaunting its Olympian supremacy with senses capable of sensing itself. The beast in the mirror admiring its reflection, the validation of animal brain’s arrogance. Deceit and theft that got away with it and exempts itself from accountability. 

Another perspective not of this “reality”

This is the narrative that lures the human mind away from the story of Mind. Away from following Mind’s example for managing the boundary to allowing its animal brain’s wildness, unevolved and unevolving, to rid itself of all boundaries. To substitute the self-centered willfulness of a two-year-old for the Logic and discipline of mature judgment.

If science and the other major disciplines insist on studying the hallucination, let them. But consider also the possibility that learning from Mind through its sixth sense is science too. Not in the sense that its discoveries can be “known” but in the sense that making sense with Logic-Love requires no less discipline than the “iron rule” of scientific method. More discipline, in fact, so long as science keeps the thumb of sensory perception on the scale of Truth.

Authenticity begins with Logic-Love seeking Truth, questing for Understanding where it can be found, instead of the bias of circular reasoning seeking its own validation. Truth to be intuited not in body-brains’ hallucination but in the clarity, simplicity, and Logic-Love of Self-Awareness. Another perspective not of this “reality.” Where all learning begins and never ends. Creation.

Wisdom from classical metaphysics

Mind role-modeled managing the boundary between what is and what isn’t, possibility and impossibility, from the instant lightning struck. The equivalent of Mind’s “Big Bang” when the friction caused by Origin’s inherent instability threw off a spark. The spark that set in motion an answer to Origin’s Question in the Now of timelessness.

Sorting between attributes of stability and instability and inserting between them the Force of Energy, The boundary that answers to the direction of Mind-Child Free Choice. Enabling it to maintain function in Self-Awareness or to replace it with hallucination in self-unawareness if it so chooses. In alignment with Mind’s DNA, the Force of Necessity: the preservation of friction between opposites along with the capacity of Choice to choose freely among them. Defining Order with its first boundary and Creativity with two of its founding attributes: Spontaneity-empowerment and Free Choice.

An event that in no way can parallel or emulate the Big Bang of our imagination. The event that set off “spookiness” that defies explanation – self-contradictory, inaccessible, violent, pointless, entropic, and time-limited. That defied Einstein’s striving to make sense of its “reality” when it bears all the marks of unreality. An illusion recognized as such by classical metaphysics 2500 years ago and beginning to be recognized now by mainstream physics. A milestone in the undoing of Mind-Child’s self-delusion. 

Minds at war with themselves

Mind’s response sought stability through the functions and values of Logic and Love. Through their inseparability, their Relationship, that role-modeled the power of attraction and the sharing of trust and intimacy, service and support. For Creativity in Reality that’s shared. Where stability enabled and empowered by Spontaneity – by Energy inseparable from Order – produced the conditions required for Creativity and Free Choice.

The madness reflected in the mirror produced the opposite. The madness of the human animal brain, the embodiment of a mad idea: “reality” not shared but terminally condemned to conflict among absolutes raging against it. Self-appointed “authorities” answerable to no one. Wildness demanding exemption from all boundaries, all limits. A make-believe reality consisting of impossibilities and contradictions. Everything split into opposing parts, light and dark. Minds split into opposing thoughts, at war with themselves. An unmanageable cartoon of slapstick chaos and blundering incompetence.

In the light of Awareness

The most obvious sign that Mind Self-Awareness wants to be Known is the Spontaneity-Energy that activated it is light. That it can be trusted because it has nothing to hide. Nothing that can be hidden in the presence of light that’s Awareness. Signaling, too, that it’s easy to find. Accessible. Open to friendship when friendship thrives on trust and openness.

The openness of intimacy and sharing that’s only possible between individuals. Who bring only themselves to their personal relationships. Not their insignia of tribal captivity, derived identity, power, and superiority. The openness and sharing of Innocence and playfulness. Seeking soulmates. Enriching friendships with variety and honesty free of guile. Sincerity free of deceit, clarity free of shade. Free of one-sided, two-faced predatory intent.

The judgment of Awareness

The most obvious reason why Mind-Child Free Choice was brought into Reality-Creation, brought to Life and enabled and empowered from birth to manage the boundary, is that being Choice, its doing – its function, – must be to choose. Making of every act some variety of choice. Making its function ideally suited to manage the boundary because doing so requires discretion. Independent judgment. Because the Child of Self-Awareness Logic-Love, by being itself, can’t let any attempt by impossibility to cross the boundary escape its notice. Escape validation if it’s Real, exposure if it’s not. The judgment of Awareness that knows the difference.

If everything with Free Choice is choice, everything that’s animal brain will is willfulness. Everything that it wills and nothing else. On its own terms and nobody else’s, one-sided and two-faced. Asserting its dominance with force, maintaining its dominance with seduction. The same outcome in either case: captivity willed by predator, dehumanization willed by beast.

Disfiguration just being disfiguration

Provided that its Self-Awareness has chosen to be itself rather than its opposite. Chosen to ignore the apparition spouting nonsense in the mirror. Chosen to use its gifts for the purpose intended but not willed. Rather than to be used by its opposite, the many masks of deception hiding its unreality in the dark, to oppose and delude everything including itself.

Requiring experience in captivity to its opposite in opposite’s medium: self-unawareness disconnecting, separating, splitting off, isolating. Until absolute’s ideal is attained: wildness unencumbered by relationship, alone at the top. Arrogance unencumbered by accountability. Ruling supreme with no obligation, no Necessity, to share. Expedience unencumbered by morality.

A hideous, grotesque disfiguration. Mindless and loveless, thoughtless and unfeeling. The face of selfishness and entitlement intent on pretense and hypocrisy. On persecution and bigotry. Abuse, cruelty, savagery, and depravity. On every form of self-indulgence including the self-pity of victimhood. Specialness entitled to write its own script and set its own rules. Just being what it is: an implication, a reflection. An illusion: absolute.

The task role-modeled by Logic-Love for their Child Free Choice 

Our task and what’s at stake can be inferred from the way that Mind-Order responded to Origin’s call for stability. Here, again, is one interpretation.

Sorting between attributes of stability and instability and inserting between them the Force of Energy, The boundary that answers to the direction of Mind-Child Free Choice. Enabling it to maintain function in Self-Awareness or to replace it with hallucination in self-unawareness if it so chooses. In alignment with Mind’s DNA, the Force of Necessity: the preservation of friction between opposites along with the capacity of Choice to choose freely among them. Defining Order with its first boundary and Creativity with two of its founding attributes: Spontaneity-empowerment and Free Choice.  

My interpretation from Helpfulness along the way toward Self-Awareness. In the context of Evolution -- eternal change. To be taken for what it’s worth.

Published on Leave a comment on The Power of Spontaneity and the Original Call to Mind

Spontaneity-Freedom inseparable from Order

Explanation is a function of Mind’s faculties questioning and finding answers. An act of Will motivated by intent to reach a state of Mind satisfied and at rest: Understanding. In an environment of appearances conspiring with body-brains’ senses to deceive, made up like the Truman TV Show for entertainment – a hallucination, -- explanation can’t go far without the faculty of Mind that can’t be deceived. That enables it to see beyond appearances with the vision of Logic-Love. Another perspective.

Accessible through Mind’s sixth sense, its intuition. Put there by Mind-Child’s Parents, Logic-Love, to enable communication when Free Choice loses Self-Awareness. When it crosses the boundary into self-unawareness and is deluded by its reflection into hallucinating an alternate “reality.” Intuition – the portal open to Spontaneity beyond the will of a mind programmed by personality type to control it. Insights that arrive untouched by control at either end, source or recipient. Because the other perspective originated with Spontaneity and infuses every act of Creativity with Spontaneity. And because the recipient, desensitized to Reality-Creation by its five bodily senses, is unaware of it. Able to receive, unable to manage.

Making Creativity with explanation possible in a make-believe world only when it originates from another world. From a perspective that Creates, not with circumstances undisciplined by the laws of cause and effect, but with circumstances that can flower with Creativity only because they are disciplined. Because neither Freedom nor Spontaneity can act without Order. Outside the laws of cause and effect, the boundaries essential to Definition. To the definition of every working part of Creation. Functions that enable it to function. Spontaneity-Freedom inseparable from Order.

The original “victim of circumstance”

A hard and fast law of Necessity present at the Beginning. At Origin beyond Understanding since explanation is of Mind, and the Will of Mind can have no part in Spontaneity in or outside of Mind. Within Self-Awareness or self-unawareness. A law hard and fast validated in unreality not by its presence but by its apparent absence. By our alternate “reality’s” “laws” of chaos. Beginning with reflection’s perversion of Spontaneity-Order: randomness. The absurdity perpetrated by reflection behind the mask of the Joker. The idea captured in the biologist Sean B. Carroll’s A Series of Fortunate Events: Chance and the Making of the Planet, Life, and You (Princeton 2020). That stuff just happens.  Gametes show up from out of nowhere and it’s anybody’s guess which sperm will fertilize the ovum. It’s anybody’s guess which combination of personality parts will send the newborn zygote off in one direction or the other. The original “victim of circumstance,” Curly’s plaint and a running joke. Into one set of random circumstances or another, to make a story “ordered” by chance. The agent of disorder.

A transparent attempt by the Joker in the mirror to lure its self-deluded, defenseless captive into an undefined godless “paradise.” Where you are the definer. Where it’s the world that you make up that’s “real” and there’s no other. A paradise of boundaryless, lawless absolutes, wildness unmolested by Order. By the very condition that makes Freedom and Spontaneity possible. The boundaries of Definition without which only hare-brained impossibilities in a hallucination can “exist.”

The original context: instability

The authoritarian mindset attracted to the one-sided beast in the human animal brain fancies that it’s the true originalist. Because its wildness is a force of nature. A battle cry of opposition to limits beyond the power of any will to oppose it. Because its will rules. Its will is supreme. The king of beasts sitting atop the pecking order of predators with no predators of its own. Beyond any need for Mind to question or choose since there is no other will, no other beast-predator, to choose.

When the plain fact is that at the Origin, before there was any pre-set ideal or condition to originate, before there were any circumstances to assess, the first Necessity can’t be to proceed with Mr. King of Beasts. With “wildness” or any other self-serving, fanciful prejudice. With answer before the question is asked. It’s to initiate the process of origination with question: “Originate what?” The wisdom of Gertrude Stein’s reply to “What’s the answer?”: “What’s the question?”

Origin couldn’t occur-activate in the context of not-mind if not-mind is a derivative of Mind. The idea that is precedes its derivative that isn’t. Possibility preceding impossibility. “Void” couldn’t have been there at the Beginning. What was there was Origin-instability. It occurred-activated spontaneously in context that couldn’t be defined until Mind could respond with Definition. Until the question implied by Origin was asked, Origin was dormant. Inactive. The transition of its question from implicit to explicit activated it. The transition of question from implicit to explicit caused Origin to transition from inactive to active.

The answer to Origin’s question

Demonstrating what stands out as a first principle of Existence: Spontaneity. Paired with the principle of Order since occurrence requires Definition. Boundaries that define what it is and what it does – its function. Enabling it to respond to question with a definitive answer instead of more questions. The first principle of anything registering on the seismograph of occurrence is Spontaneity inseparable from Order. A small step for Origin, a giant leap for Mind. Because all it took to start building Mind from its foundation up was one question: Origin of what?

A question that. once Mind was called upon to answer it, did have a definable context. Instability. Were authoritarian madness correct, context would be stability. Its cherished status quo, pungent with stagnation. In that case, where would the impetus come from to activate Origin and initiate Mind? From the source of rot?

Spontaneity is lightning triggered by instability. The condition inherent in Origin. Caused by unresolved tension among potential answers implied by its question. Hypotheses, like incompatible personality types, competing for recognition, generating friction. Generating Energy, until Origin is awakened from its troubled dormancy by a bolt of lightning.

Releasing tension with its answer to Origin’s question: stability. Stability inherent in the Logic of Order, the function of Mind that provides direction to the Spontaneity of Energy. Logic inseparable from Love that utilizes Energy generated by instability to answer the call from Origin with Creativity.  With its recognition of the hypothesis implied by Origin: Life. Inseparable from its awakening in timelessness. In the eternal Now. The hypothesis of everything implied by Order empowered by Energy.

Mind’s activation in the original bolt of lightning

The boundaries of Definition secure the Spontaneity and Energy of Creativity from instability. From arbitrary rule. That arrogates the role of Definer and the law to itself. So that it can replace the Spontaneity and Energy of Creativity with the dead weight of conformance, The preservation of its authority.

Spontaneity is Energy that requires direction from Mind, to establish Order-Stability from disorder-instability. To enforce its boundaries. To enable circumstances to come together in interconnected Relationships and hold them together. The original bolt of lightning – Spontaneity that’s Energy – brought stability to instability, reconciled opposites to one another within Origin-Question, relieved tension among irreconcilables causing friction. By invoking faculties of Mind: Logic that fits parts where they belong in Creation defined by its boundaries. Paired with Love so that Logic-Love together can give Energy the direction it needs. To endow Creation’s functions with its Spontaneity and Love’s free spirit and Relationships.

Mind’s origin was Relationship between Spontaneity-Energy generated by instability-friction and Logic-Love’s function of Definition that establishes boundaries-Order and Freedom / Free Will of Love-Creativity within it, inseparable from Logic-Order. Not in response to nothingness. To not-mind, but in response to Origin-Question in a state of instability-irreconcilability requiring answer-resolution. Stability.

The Spontaneity-Energy that brought Logic and Love together to supply Relationship that illuminated Self-Awareness and defined Definition, its DNA, with attributes of Logic-Love, was the original bolt of lightning-Energy from instability-friction inherent in Origin-Question. It set everything in motion.

Managing friction that will always be there

Friction-instability was not only there at the Beginning, it was the defining circumstance of Origin-Question that activated-empowered Mind. The Relationship between Spontaneity-Energy and Mind Logic-Love Order empowering-directing Creativity. Origin = instability.  Mind = response to call for resolution-reconciliation among opposites. The explanation why opposites are built into the DNA of Definition, of the laws of cause and effect. Why opposites-negativity can’t be eliminated because the friction-tension they cause is the source of Energy that activated and empowered Mind Self-Awareness and Creativity. The instability of Origin will always be there to provide friction-Energy that requires direction from Mind Logic-Love.

An essential part of Order, of the boundaries of Definition, is the capacity-competence of Creativity / Free Choice to use Spontaneity-Energy from Origin’s instability without Free Choice / Spontaneity mis-managing the boundary between Origin-instability and Mind-Order stability. Without activating, enabling, and empowering instability to invade and replace stability. To reverse Mind-Order’s response to Origin’s call for stability.

Our job

In this telling, the etymology of “spontaneity,” “order,” “energy,” and “life,” of “mind,” “logic,” and “love,” is rooted in a condition essential to the origin of everything. Instability. Caused by the impossibility of stability in the presence of answers competing for recognition by Origin. Any one of which, like sperm racing to fertilize the egg, could have won the race but for a bolt out of the blue.

In this telling, there is a Logic to the bolt and all that it set in motion. There is a Logic, too, to the state of hallucinated “reality” we’re in. But how definitive was Mind’s response to the call for stability when Creation at the Beginning was implicit activated into explicit and explicit was inactivated into implicit at our end? When Definition’s underside turned it upside down.

The meaning of the Spontaneity of Creativity, empowered by Energy, guided by Logic-Love’s Definition, isn’t that stability is assured. That “definition” means “settled.” It means that Logic-Love, Mind-Child’s Parents, the Parents of Free Choice, the indispensable element of Creativity, aren’t the ones to answer the question. They’ve done their part. It’s up to their Child to put its situation to its intended use: to learn its trade by trial and error. By experiencing instability brought to “life.” Learning the difference between stability and instability and doing its part to answer Origin’s call for stability by making the correct choice. Our job. Why we’re “here.” Always a work in progress.

Exactly wrong: Spontaneity separated from Order

Why summon images of lightning in turmoil that set Mind in motion? Why resort to metaphysics that baffles intelligence not used to it? It’s to refute the lie where it first occurred. The lie that Mind choosing among alternatives with Logic and Love, Reason, Judgment, and Discipline, is the enemy of stability. That stability can only be achieved by rule that’s a law unto itself, driven by animal instinct to act without thought or feeling. The invincibility of “supremacy.” The “triumph of the will.” Will defined by one perspective, “unshakable” only because it admits no other perspective to shake it. If it did, it would look like Germany in 1945 – wreckage. Its true state.

The authoritarian mindset wants to be the Definer, to “set” the boundaries of its alternate “reality,” its status quo, by eliminating them. The Joker’s perversion of stability: Spontaneity separated from Order. The cruelty and savagery of unchecked arrogance. The opposite of Mind’s response to Origin’s call for stability: exactly wrong then and exactly wrong now.

Published on Leave a comment on Resurrecting the Meaning of Easter

What’s the difference?

Guidance from another perspective not of this world comes from Mind sharing itself. Through intermediaries recognizable to us while we do what we’re here for. To practice choosing until we hear what Mind sharing itself through Jesus was telling us. That time’s beginnings and endings have no effect on Guidance or on us either.

Because Mind is Logic inseparable from Love. Relationship between ideas and feelings that can neither be imperfect nor mortal. The Source of Life and Creation. Our Source. The Parents of a Mind that needs practice doing what we’re here for. To manage the boundary between what is and what isn’t, true and appearances, right and wrong. Until we can show that we’re aware of the difference and competent to choose correctly.

Always with Guidance from Logic and Love. Because Creation needs both sides of the boundary and Relationship to keep it upright. Between Parent and Child. So that it functions as one instead of bottom always trying to get on top. To replace what is with what isn’t. Getting it right with getting it wrong.

Truth below the surface

The idea of resurrection celebrated at Easter replaces what isn’t with what is. The Truth that what Jesus stood for couldn’t be done away with and neither can we. The authorities offended by Mind sharing itself through Jesus existed in time. Bodies may exist in time. But we aren’t bodies and we aren’t bound by time. We’re part of Mind and Mind is timeless.

When we experience the Love and helpfulness of Guidance, letting its perspective expand ours, it brings clarity to the choices we face. Awakening us to their consequences and to what circumstances are telling us. From meaning and purpose below the surface instead of appearances on the surface. Where the “action” is. Real “invincibility:” the permanence of Mind. Peace. Truth. Gentle Loving Kindness. Creativity.

Published on Leave a comment on Stuck in the Mud: Rule by One Perspective and The Unmoving of Motivation

All we have to go by

The meaning of every word is its own universe to explore. And so is the meaning of every situation. Storytelling! Exactly. Fun because situations and the words we use to describe them are alive with ideas. Working and playing with ideas to figure stuff out, to be useful, creative, and silly, livens up every day. Writing! Thinking with feeling that wants to be shared in writing. Because Mind’s ideas are a precious gift, and gifts want to be given. Shared.

Thinking ideas and sharing them describes the role of Mind in Creation. The “Creator.” Following its example can put meaning and purpose, fun and satisfaction, into our lives if we choose it. What if we don’t? Thinkers, writers, and artists would stop thinking, writing, and creating because they would have no new ideas to share.

Being smart and talented isn’t enough? Two exceptionally smart and talented people I knew aced every test of academic and professional aptitude, yet it wasn’t enough. Something essential was missing in their approach to life’s work. From their perspectives, because all we have to go by is our point of view. What it tells us about ourselves and our situations. We can’t possibly grasp it all.

Learning that no force can stop

What was missing? Wanting to follow Mind’s example and make that their first priority. No matter what their task. A passion, or at least a commitment, to learning. Because that’s where meaning and purpose come from: “getting it right.” Questioning from a curiosity, a need, to understand.

What if our perspective already has the answers? Isn’t that enough? Sure, if all we need to know is what’s before our eyes. The way things are. That works so long as the way things are isn’t constantly changing and evolving. Our health, relationships, work lives, and our physical and emotional environment.

“The way things are” describes the ideas that define Creation. They can’t change. But it also refers to Creation itself. Forward movement driven by the expansion and sharing of Knowledge and Love. By evolution, because that’s the nature of learning that no force can stop. Minds can’t stop learning by questioning and reflecting if they want to keep meaning and purpose relevant. To fit the particulars of their situations to the moment.

The part missing at the core of motivation

Sticking to one perspective is navigating Los Angeles freeways with GPS programmed by trolley routes. Sailing from New York to Buenos Aires with a map drawn by Amerigo Vespucci. If we keep our one perspective current will that be enough? Trying to learn and be creative without being open to other perspectives, without using them to think, feel, imagine, and judge what our situations tell us, would be turning a project over to one skill that requires more than one skill. Asking a plumber to build a house without any help.

It may only take the talents of one artist to produce art, but the artist can’t write one line, paint one stroke, or play one note without a mind alive with the spontaneity of free association among different sources of ideas and storylines. From a variety of perspectives alive with movement instead of one perspective stuck in the mud.

The two people I knew couldn’t be creative with their talents because their definition of the way things are – their perspectives – stayed put. They never left the starting gate. Their lives didn’t end with the exuberance of creativity. With satisfaction, but with deadening disappointment, frustration. They had put the power of Mind learning, growing, and creating through different perspectives not close enough to the core of their motivation. Maybe not anywhere near their motivation.

Purposeful striving

How could that be? Humans, like theories, works of art and engineering, are compositions. We differ because our parts are composed differently. And because none of us is complete. Some parts are there and active, others missing or inactive. When we learn, grow, and create through different perspectives, we may be going about the task that put us here: filling in the missing parts. Completing ourselves.

An ideal always beyond reach so long as circumstances keep evolving. But also beyond reach if parts essential to movement forward – motivation – are missing or inactive. In one of the two examples it was the part that attracts us to work: purposeful striving. An aversion to working for a living, to putting talents to use in a career, defined this person’s perspective, life, and relationships. Earning the nickname in adolescence “Stick in the Mud.” That doesn’t sound like motivation. Just the opposite. Striving to make things different or better instead of the way things are wasn’t in this person’s genes.

The pleasure and satisfaction of relating

The other example displayed a remarkable talent for self-enablement with a variety of skills. Self-taught self-sufficiency. A self-disciplined striver who yearned for the satisfaction of accomplishment and relationships along the way. But it couldn’t happen without feeling, the part that was missing. The part that connects. Feeling connected to the objects of our passions is the payoff. The ability to feel the pleasure and satisfaction of relating. To others but also to anything we happen to love. I find satisfaction now in relating to a flow of ideas and their source.

What happened to the other person? Striving finally had to be put out of its misery. The ability to relate requires feeling and it’s central to every cause, every effort. Being Love as we all are in Reality but unable to feel and connect with it here took away the meaning and satisfaction of relationships. And with it the will, the motivation, to live. Both persons left virtually together, one missing love of work, the other missing the work of Love – connecting with feeling. Two precious lives that ended in tragedy.

Hierarchy and the allure of wildness

Definitely not how I want mine to end. What can I do? Personal relationships are perceived as either equal or unequal, level or vertical. Equal-level enables friends to share lives without either assuming superiority. Unequal-vertical is hierarchy, where one or the other does assume it. By pretending that only one perspective is possible and it's theirs. Then using it to dominate relationships with their “unshakable will.” As though “resistance is pointless” because their one unquestioned perspective makes them invincible. Indomitable.

This sounds familiar. The allure of “wildness” seduces many into choosing hierarchical. It implies being in an ideal state of no limits. A privileged state reserved for divinity. The “power of the dark side” is wildness “playing god.” If nothing can tame it then its power must be absolute. A common misconception of God as ruler for its own benefit rather than service and support for all of Creation’s benefit. Absolute. Inaccessible. Unrelatable.

Lives end in tragedy when they disconnect with unrelatability. That can be made less likely by being careful with power or authority. By understanding that hierarchy in personal relationships isn’t connection. It’s separation. It’s the arrogance and isolation of one-sidedness posing as “oneness.” In the likeness of “god.” Two-sided empowerment, like affirmation, is a necessity. For self-worth and for healthy personal relationships. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Only when one-sided hierarchical relationships turn it into empowerment for one and disempowerment for the other is it wrong.

Dad’s take on his indiscretion

Give me an example. I was at a children’s park where a parent I knew had taken his son. My age? Your age, and his name was Liam. Liam was having a good time with one of his playmates. Anyone I know? She was visiting from abroad and spoke with a thick accent. Chinese or Italian, I couldn’t tell. OK. Go on. Liam’s dad was lovable and harmless, always making people laugh. So he brought up a time when he and Liam were together and something funny happened. What?

They were surrounded by parents watching their kids play soccer when his dad cut a silent stinky one and Liam said, “Dad, did you just fart?” Now everyone was not only let in on the smell, they were let in on who did it. His dad! How embarrassing! Only for a moment, because his dad lived to make people laugh and this was funny. Now he was using it to add laughter to the fun.

Liam’s take

But immediately Liam protested that he didn’t do anything wrong. He dropped to the ground crying. His dad realized he had stepped in a cow pie and tried to recover with an explanation. But Liam was inconsolable. He had his perspective on what had happened at the soccer game and nothing could correct it. His dad would have had better luck with his playmate. The one from Mongolia? I think she was from Tuscany. Or maybe Boston’s North End. They have thick Italian accents.

There’s more? I was with Liam and his dad a few days later when his dad tried again to make amends for his mistake. By letting his son know how bad he felt and assuring him that he’d done nothing wrong. And by asking if next time Liam would say “I feel embarrassed” so his dad would stop.

Did that settle it? It settled his dad deeper into the same cow pie. Liam again protested that he’d done nothing wrong. He was still aggrieved. His response when his dad proposed a solution was “whatever.” He reacted to being given another perspective as though the whole idea was unthinkable. Irrelevant, as though his dad was changing the subject.

When friendship is irrelevant

Does this example help? Definitely! Don’t fart when you’re in a crowd. It could be making us aware that seeing things from other perspectives requires motivation before it can deliver motivation. Personality types attracted to competition, winning, and dominance assume that presenting one perspective to others, never showing interest or any desire to learn from theirs, projects strength. Makes it clear that their will can’t be shaken. That relationship with them must be hierarchical; they alone can occupy the top; and it must be on their terms.

So one sided! Absolutely. Any situation that depends on forced conformance, like a dictatorship, will have someone ruling from the top with only one perspective. “My way or the highway.” Ruling not for creativity and spontaneity but for conformance and regimentation. 

Meaning? That we wouldn’t be motivated to see things differently if it matters more that relationships be hierarchical, with us on top monopolizing authority, than having loving, intimate friends. Friends with different perspectives that we can put to use when they’re shared instead of pitted against one another in competition.

More misunderstandings, fewer friendships

We need to think about this. Yes. Even if our relationships and work are alive with striving, feeling, ideas, and creativity. Even if we’re comfortable learning from other perspectives. With letting them stimulate thinking and feeling with new ideas, new approaches. Instead of choosing to be right and in control because we’re sure that ours is the only perspective possible. The only one that gets the situation right, and so it must be the only one that deserves respect.

Liam’s experience with his dad at the park was certainty from his perspective that his dad was authority handing down judgment. Being insensitive and hurtful. His dad’s experience was being unable to relate to someone because he was captive to one rigid perspective. The wrong perspective because it mischaracterized his intent. Making his son inaccessible, and so the misunderstanding was never corrected. A warning that there could be more misunderstandings and fewer friendships.

Where the story begins

I want friends. And with your talents you must also want to be creative. A writer who helps others see things differently because that’s what sharing ideas and insights is all about. Being part of a cause: advancing toward understanding that removes obstacles to striving, feeling, and satisfaction. By seeking and learning from other perspectives. By treating our own perspectives as starting rather than ending points. Where the story begins. Where creativity takes off.

By being friends sharing and cooperating rather than competitors for dominance who can never be friends. This is why you’re writing? Because you have the potential to lead a creative, satisfying life. In friendship with me and others if that’s your choice rather than wildness without limits. The sublime ideal of an impossibility. And your perspective is open to other perspectives instead of closed. Helping with the work of Jesus: sharing another perspective.

Happy Easter!

Published on Leave a comment on The Two Faces of Spontaneity

A conversation with Tony the Tiger’s talented casting agent reminding his fans that he sometimes has people for breakfast. His agent’s contributions are in italics. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

What’s for dessert? 

“The Two Faces of Wildness” is about the impact your tiger’s role modeling has had on popular culture. Really? Yes. Turning everyone into a maniac. One face is a nice puddy cat who makes everyone comfy. The other is a crazed monster who doesn’t make everyone comfy. By being rude. What? Burping and picking its teeth with toothpicks after it’s dined on its fans.

Wildness is beautiful when it’s an ideal portrayed by a talented artist. Not so beautiful when it’s set free in the neighborhood to do what predators do. Decorate cereal boxes. Eat the cereal, the nice mommies and daddies who buy it, the sweet little darlings who eat it, and the box. What about the grocer? Store management, employees, and shoppers too. What’s for dessert? A big bowl of Alka-Seltzer, Pepto-Bismol, and a stomach pump.

Leo the Lion’s frosted crispy choco-loop puffs

If that doesn’t tame my tiger nothing will. We don’t want to tame . . . What’s its name again? Tony. Don’t you read cereal boxes? Tony belongs here as much as we do. We just want to keep the predator within – the beautiful ideal of wildness – from having us for breakfast. By managing our relationship with it. Chloroform!

“Power” isn’t control. It’s management. They’re not the same? In situations that require conformity rather than thinking for yourself, the difference won’t matter. Like little kids, raw military recruits – people who need training. Otherwise no. Control comes from the animal side of human animal that doesn’t need mind. Management comes from the human side that does need mind.

In a shared world boundaries need to be respected and relationships managed within as well as without, just as wildness needs to be respected and managed. It’s not cool to cage the beast or to let it go free. Or to imagine that we have the power of a predator to make others let us do whatever we want. Even if we’re the King of Beasts? Maybe there’s a cereal box with Leo the Lion. See if that works.

Calvin’s best friend

I get it. It’s OK to admire the ideal of wildness but not to behave like it. Yes. Better to accept that the only world where we can do whatever we want is one we make up. And to keep our fanciful world where it belongs: in our imaginations and not crossing boundaries and messing with our relationships.

You have your own tiger? The difference between nice and not nice, helpful and not helpful, isn’t between those who have and don’t have a tiger. We all do. Are they like Hobbes? Who was that? Calvin’s best friend, a cute stuffed tiger. Were Calvin and Hobbes your clients too? Until I got bored with Hobbes. He was too nice. I like. . . Never mind. I know what you like.

The difference is between respecting and not respecting boundaries while we’re respecting wildness. Between understanding and not understanding why they’re there. To let the ideal of wildness inspire creativity without crossing boundaries. Our own as well as others’.

It can be hard to stay on the right side. A lot of people don’t. In extreme circumstances maybe you and I won’t. I don’t need to wait for extreme circumstances. We need to be aware of the nature of wildness: that it can be both inspiring and deadly, constructive and destructive, humanizing and de-humanizing. We need to be careful.

Nice kitty!

Maybe these thoughts can help you and Tony balance the two sides of wildness. It does sound important. Very. The good side of wildness is playfulness that’s creative. Because wildness is spontaneous, the gift your tiger was meant to give. Not being the “king” of anything. Not being a beast that must be put in a cage.

Then we should all just stop thinking and let stuff happen spontaneously. No. There’s a right kind of spontaneity and a wrong kind. Getting out of the way to let stuff happen on its own is the wrong kind. The wrong guide. It doesn’t lead to freedom and creativity, just the opposite. The right kind is thinking before deciding that welcomes spontaneous insights. And after deciding but before acting, to give spontaneity a voice in every phase: thinking, deciding, and acting.

Spontaneity is a kind of guide that we don’t want to control because we need its perspective. Trying to control it will kill it. Whether we put Tony in a cage or let him out of his cage we’re getting it wrong. Tony just needs to be understood, with thoughtfulness and patience. To be loved and managed for his and our benefit. Nice kitty. Keep luring little kids to their doom and you can have the run of the closet.

Published on Leave a comment on Evolution’s Choice

The process of growth

Individuals evolve over time into agents or actors with distinct parts or functions that reveal patterns of thought, feeling, and behavior with increasing clarity. Like a blurred image that becomes recognizable with better resolution. Who they are and what they’re about – their being and doing – emerges into the clear, as though from darkness into light.

A progression from unawareness to awareness that may parallel or indicate evolution on a larger scale. As though individuals are varieties of a self or being that’s a composite. Evolving, or trying to evolve, from a kind of sleep into wakefulness. The common threads are changing circumstances – evolution – made up of different stories with different contexts, and levels of awareness ranging from unaware to aware in a before-after sequence.

The threat of elimination

All suggestive of order or a pattern whose purpose itself comes into focus with evolution. As the composite self gradually gains Self-Awareness and its individual replications undergo the same experience, one self moving its replications forward in a reciprocal process, one interconnecting with the other sub-consciously as in a dream.

The pattern that emerges on both scales seems differentiated by one dominant factor: opposites or opposition. Evolution made up of parts going forward with it and opposed to going forward. Parts changing and parts determined not to change. As though definition is either shared between co-equal partners with different agendas, content with contradiction, or contested between mortal enemies not content with contradiction. Where the outcome can only be the supremacy of one and the elimination of the other.

The remedy: embrace of change

Which takes evolution out of the context of the benign, which can safely remain out of sight in the darkness of self-unawareness and puts it into the opposite: the necessity of avoiding elimination on the wrong side of mortal combat in the darkness of self-unawareness.

The remedy being the embrace of change that’s evolution toward Self-Awareness and away from the resistance to change. The embrace of individual idealism that’s sharing and progress and the abandonment of tribal realism that’s self-serving and regress.

Two distinct visions

Two distinct sets of personality types: mind-centered and body sensing-centered. Two distinct perspectives: inward-subjective and outward-objective. Two distinct sets of values: love-logic, order with freedom, sharing-service, individuality-creativity vs. competition-combat, ownership-self-service, order without freedom, tribal supremacy-conformity.

And two distinct visions:

  • authority shared between free-spirited Logic and Love that governs family-sharing, by serving and supporting individual growth and creativity with sensitivity and respect, from the bottom up, under the law, vs.
  • absolute, unquestioned authority that rules tribal ownership and competition arbitrarily, without opposition, to preserve itself by enforcing conformity and opposing growth, with cruelty and disrespect, from the top down, above the law.

One approach self-consciously deliberate and moral, concerned with the wellbeing of all – inclusive, the other instinctively expedient, concerned with itself – exclusive. One that supports sharing, the other that insists on ownership and dominance opposed to sharing. One subjective, concerned with friendship in intimacy and harmony, the other objective, concerned with possession, control, and supremacy in combat. One devoted to mutual respect among equals under the law, the other devoted to the prerogatives of arrogance among un-equals above the law.

The correct choice is Now

The pattern that’s differentiated by opposites seems not to offer choice between one or the other but to compel it. Not to offer the opportunity to grow through mindfulness if one chooses it but to provide guidance when one chooses it. As though the outcome can’t be dictated by the self-serving arbitrary self-unawareness of opposites but is required instead by the Necessity of Reality. By laws of cause and effect from which there can be no escape, with which there can be no compromise. The definition of definition: the one-and-only absolute. Where the buck stops. The way things are. Defined of Logic-Love, by Logic-Love, and for Logic-Love.

Where the pattern leads is toward Self-Awareness competent to choose correctly between one approach or the other and to do so now.

Published on Leave a comment on Necessity’s Choice: Between the Kindness of Character that Creates and Governs with Feeling and the Cruelty of Anti-Character that Forces Conformity and Rules without Feeling

A dialogue in the Platonic mode sharpened to a fine point by the incisive critique and lacerating wit of an imaginary thirteen-year-old (in italics)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Getting to meaning with why and how

News reporting and analysis has to be about questioning before it’s about answering. Stories worth reading start with six questions: who, what, when, where, why, and how.  Answers to the first four questions are descriptive. They tell you what the author observes but don’t help with interpretation. With understanding what it means.

Answers to the last two questions – why and how -- do help. They’re what creative thinking, writing, and analysis are all about. Providing a perspective that helps readers make sense of things. With insights that look beyond appearances for context, understanding, and awareness. Especially self-awareness that we all have trouble with. 

You want everyone to think just like you. My sermons are about sharing and experimenting with other perspectives. Not thinking alike. Because this is where learning, growth, and creativity take off: being open to looking at things differently. If the congregation nodding off in the pews all thought like me I would fall asleep.

Socrates made a career out of questioning that brings minds to their full potential. By embracing individuality and originality. By thinking creatively. Forcing his views on others would do just the opposite. That’s not what he wanted and I don’t either. My letters and sermons are only to help with looking at things differently. That’s what the news room of a Los Angeles newspaper taught me. Yes -- that they would hire anyone.

The personality type that avoids meaning

I call today’s sermon “Why Brain Can Never Be Mind’s Friend.” It’s the title of an essay I just posted on my website. Frankenstein fans will be heartbroken. They were hoping the monster would trade its brain for Victor Frankenstein’s mind and become a mind surgeon.

Today’s sermon asks us to think about why some personality types are OK with all six questions and others aren’t. What’s their problem? The why and the how. Some types can’t or won’t open their minds to why and how. They register facts, but without reflection and analysis they can’t interpret meaning. Thinking that bypasses meaning bypasses context and understanding.

Why would they do that? They’re actually opposed to thinking. The “anti-intellectual” considers book-learning, professional growth, and the discipline of conscience, accountability, and self-improvement surrendering to weakness. A mindset comfortable with facts but uncomfortable with the why and how of insight doesn’t will itself to know. It wills itself not to know. Not to express individuality and originality. Not to be creative but to be sociable. To blend in with the group.

And more fundamentally to avoid meaning. Why? Because of the Truth it might reveal about them. A frightening prospect: that they're mistaken. Wrong.

What’s that thing in the jar?

Doesn’t everyone want to be their own person? To be creative? Not this personality type. They think there’s something better, and that’s what my sermon is about. Asking the why and how of this type so you can recognize its traits, see the downside, and avoid it. What if I’m attracted to it? Depending on the circumstances we’re all attracted to it. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here with bodies and brains.

But we also have free will, and if you’re aware of the choice between personality types it’s more likely you’ll choose wisely. So that’s why today’s sermon is about brains and formaldehyde? What? I see the jar behind your back and the flask from your laboratory. You’ll never get my brain, Dr. Frankenstein! 

The cure for insomnia

If that personality type attracts you it could be harmful in lots of ways. How? Mainly by blocking originality and creativity. By keeping you from using your talent for creative writing. For expressing what makes you unique -- your individuality -- instead of losing your self in the crowd. How awful! Yes. We don’t want that to happen.

Creative talent rewards us with usefulness. With service to community that brings satisfaction and happiness. You’ve got creative talent, so there’s good reason for challenging you to make full use of your mind. To help you develop your talent instead of blocking it. To help you be happy by making yourself useful. Or by putting me into a coma.

Wisdom from Frankenstein’s dog 

Mainstream philosophy and theology haven’t figured out the difference between brain and Mind. And science doesn’t want to know. Scientists are only interested in what they can detect with their bodies’ senses so they can experiment with it. Quantities they can measure are all they care about. They can’t do that with Mind. So, not even neuroscientists who study the brain think much about Mind. We’re on our own.

Except that there is a source I read years ago that’s a big help. Dogman! Yes. I read Dogman and now I understand everything. What is this source? A book so dense with wisdom that it can take a long time to read.* We can talk about it another time if you’re interested. I’m already dense, so maybe we can forget it.

Wishful thinking 

Aren’t brain and Mind the same thing? No. They’re exact opposites. In fact brain’s purpose, besides defining “self” as group or tribe, is to replace Mind. What for? Because Mind contradicts brain when it defines “self” as individual. And because of the way that bodies with brains appeared after Mind had already been there. In a dream that a sleeping Mind is dreaming.

The Mind that’s dreaming is our ancestral Mind, split into two parts. They’re both unconscious and neither is working right. But while body-brains make sure their part is all about bodies the other part is about Mind. Body-brains are attached to their dream world. They’ve even convinced themselves they made it. It’s not to be shared with Mind or anyone else because they own it. It’s their turf. They work hard to make it real. How? By discrediting and silencing the voices of those who might disagree. Who see differently.

Wisdom that isn’t self-centered

The part of the split Mind that’s dominated by body-brains is limited to the one perspective it trusts: the one defined by the body’s five senses – sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell. Being body-centered makes it self-centered. Focused by animal instinct rather than Mind, on winning in competition and survival in combat. It’s not about wisdom.

The other part thinks with Mind that’s also not working right but with a big difference. It’s open to wisdom from other perspectives. Body-brains’ five senses don’t have an exclusive right to tell Mind everything it needs to know. Mind has a sixth sense. Intuition, the source of spontaneous insights and guidance from wisdom that isn’t self-centered. From a broader context that enables understanding and civilization with a purpose. Guided by conscience and loving kindness toward ideals that set us apart from herds of animals. Values from the heart that give meaning to theories, discoveries, technologies, engineering feats, and works of art. All the things that go into human progress.

The “bad thing”

It’s because the wisdom behind spontaneous insights comes from Love as well as Logic. Always together, never separate, as though they were married in Heaven. Which, as a matter of fact, they were. It’s the reason why the part of the split dreaming mind that’s centered on Mind can trust its sixth sense. Can choose to be guided by insights from intuition with a mind open to different perspectives. That’s capable of learning and growing. Because it’s chosen to be guided by the Relationship that accounts for all of Reality and Creation: Logic married to Love.

This matters? Very much. Mind’s loss of self-awareness, long ago, in the state that preceded the state we’re in, brought something into its thinking, feeling, and behavior – into its Psyche -- that didn’t belong there. The same thing that the psychologist Sigmund Freud studied in the human psyche. He called it the “bad thing,” and he devoted his career to understanding and correcting it. It’s the shadow-reflection of Self, a reverse mirror-image that’s its opposite in every way. Mindless and loveless, lifeless and soulless.

The herd inside the human brain

Instead of thinking with Logic and reason the Mind that’s gone over to its reverse-dark side acts by instinct. Instead of being motivated by Love to share its abundance, to value life and Creation with conscience, Innocence, trust, generosity, and gentle loving kindness, it’s driven by fear, hatred, selfishness, distrust, and guilt to claim everything for itself. To be sensitive only to its own needs and feelings and eliminate competition.

The un-self-aware Mind invaded by its shadow-opposite dreamed a world that would bring its reversal of thinking and feeling to “life.” By imagining it in physical form: the substitute for Mind we’re familiar with called “brain” and the part of the brain that imagines us as herds of animals driven by instinct and fear to compete for survival and dominance. It’s called the “amygdala” or “animal brain,” and we all have it.

What is “action”?

When Adam Skywalker was lured away from Obi-Wan’s Jedi training, he was choosing to exchange his loving self for its reverse mirror image. To exchange Mind’s thinking disciplined by Logic, reason, feeling and value for the lure of its opposite: the undisciplined “power” and “freedom” promised by the animal brain for conquering its “enemies.” He was choosing the dark side.

The telltale sign that something’s not right is will that’s detached Logic and Love-feeling from thinking and replaced it with the unthinking, unfeeling instinct of “action.” With the drive of a predatory beast to risk loss in its all-out competition to inflict loss. To “win.” If we sense that we or others, like Adam Skywalker, are motivated by insensitive dominance rather than sensitive Love-feeling, by “winning” or “conquering” instead of sharing, then something is not right.

Yes, it matters

Together, Logic and Love, thinking and feeling, define what we mean by “Mind.” Our reverse mirror-image – our shadow-reflection opposite – is an attempt to separate them. To disable Mind. The result is a Mind split between itself and its opposite, the animal brain. Mind that isn’t thinking, feeling, and behaving right. This is why it matters that Logic and Love are inseparable.

Individual vs. tribe

How do we keep what happened to Adam Skywalker from happening to us? By protecting the integrity of Mind to think and feel with Logic and Love instead of being lured away by their opposites. To use Free Will to make choices and the independent judgment of right thinking to choose wisely. What choices?  Between opposing personality types, interpretations of authority, and values.

Society defines us by our group-tribal markers – age, gender, ethnicity, nationality, professions, ideologies, and so forth. But before then we’re something more fundamental. We’re individual persons. Defined by the qualities that give strength to character. By markers that define the individual selves we choose to be and the causes we choose to serve.

The values that build character

Our choices between different personality types, interpretations of authority, and values determine what we do as well as who we are. The character we present to one another in relationships. Whether it’s character that identifies itself as a sovereign individual, before it lets society lump it into groups, or as a group. As a tribe that answers to values opposite to the values that guide the individual.

Whether we take responsibility for freely choosing the qualities that define our character as individuals, or hand responsibility over to groups to shape us to suit themselves, may be the most important choice we can make. Because the circumstances that split Mind into two incompatible parts also split us into incompatible sets of values. One that values character, the other that doesn’t. A split that means we won’t enjoy peace until we learn the difference and make the right choice: the values that build character.

Real strength

What is the difference? One set of values respects our fundamental identity as persons, the other doesn’t. Mind’s mistake that let the “bad thing” in let disrespect in. Nothing turns incompatibility into hatred and violence more readily than disrespect.

How will we know to choose wisely? 

  • By choosing a personality type that respects, uses, and shares the faculties of Mind we were given. That doesn’t take direction exclusively from the body’s five senses and the external-physical environment around it. Our bodies’ capabilities, appetites, and vulnerabilities can’t be allowed to set our priorities by replacing Mind with animal instinct. With “action”. And by letting possession and games among groups distract us with pleasures and entertainments rather than enriching our lives with sharing, cooperation, trust, and closeness among individuals.
  • By understanding that strength doesn’t come from ruling by fear from the top down but by serving with Love and Logic from the bottom up. If we value Force – the power of strength – we won’t be misled by the weakness of authority that has to seize it rather than earn it. That must crush individuality with intimidation and violence to preserve itself. That must prove its legitimacy by turning every space into a field of combat. Into turf where it must always be the bull that owns, possesses, and controls it. Where it must always emerge triumphant – the “winner.”

None of this is strength. It’s weakness so vulnerable, so insecure, that it will go to any lengths to appear to be strong. Authority that supports and serves individuality and creativity from the bottom up is secure in the strength of Logic and Love. It has no need of appearances. Of shows of brutality in combat to impress its enemies.

The difference between the two is the difference between the personality type that respects Mind and the type that doesn’t. The type that imagines that anything that can’t be detected by bodies’ five senses, especially Mind, is inferiority that deserves contempt.

The choosing and earning of Worth

What do you get when you smoosh all of our values together? A big mess. You get “Worth,” the idea that sums up everything that Reality-Creation is about. Energy directed by self-aware Mind that empowers causes with effects, thoughts with consequences, relationships with reciprocity, definitions and laws with Necessity, and creativity with Creations. Energy, the light that came on with Self-Awareness and powered its expansion. From the question of Possibility to the abundance and diversity of Life that is the answer. The values of Logic and Love shared with Freedom that express and affirm the Worth of Life.

Values are the raw material of Creation. Gifts from its source, Self-Awareness, to the Child of Logic-Love entrusted with Free Choice, to make of Creation an act of Free Will. An act that could not create without it, for what is true of Worth is that it must be chosen and it must be earned. And what is true of Free Choice – the Child of its Parents, Logic-Love – is that it does the choosing and the earning. Earning by sharing its gifts and by reciprocating and affirming the Worth of the giver with the compositions of Free Choice. And earning by risking Self-Awareness when choice that is truly free, guided by its own judgment, chooses wrongly.

The limits of definition

How can that happen? By lacking an awareness of certain attributes of values that can only come with experience. The attribute that values come with: the definitions given them by the giver, Logic-Love. And if the use that’s chosen strays outside the limits of their definitions it will be a mistake. It may risk the loss of Self-Awareness. For example, just as Logic and Love are inseparable Freedom and Order are inseparable. Yet many of us yearn for a world of disorder where we can have Freedom without limits. An impossibility.

The gift of values that are the raw material for Creation is to be used for its intended purpose: to express the Beauty, Worth, and Reality of Mind and its thought: the idea of Life. Of all of Creation. If Child Free Choice uses its gift to express and affirm a value’s reverse side – its opposite – it would be trying to affirm an impossibility: the reality of what is necessarily unreal. It would be violating Logic-Love and contradicting the value’s intended purpose.

The nature and purpose of values

A mistake that’s familiar to us because we all make it. Trapping ourselves inside a dream with the authoritarian mindset that relies on the body’s five senses to make it real. By blocking awareness of the Truth that can only come from Mind. When Mind puts its faith in something that can’t be real or true, it’s choosing to be un-self-aware. The state of Mind that humanity is in because so many of us put our faith in what our bodies – matter -- tell us instead of listening to the voice of Logic-Love that reaches us through our Mind.

Authoritarian “realists” are re-enacting and perpetuating Child Free Choice’s mistake and the result is a persistent, harmful lack of Self-Awareness. Mistaken identity that is the cause and effect of mistaking the nature and purpose of values. The cause and effect of their misuse which accounts for all that is not beautiful about our dream-world. Our imaginary “paradise”.

Values have opposites

Authority, like Freedom and everything else, is subject to the laws that define Order. The laws of cause and effect that reflect the values of Logic-Love. Necessity that ensures that Creation is free and authority is benevolent. Yet many of us crave absolutes that aren’t limited by laws except arbitrary laws of our own making. Like absolute Freedom and absolute Power, they’re impossibilities that enable malevolent rule to ignore Necessity and take away Freedom.

Values in the Mind of their giver that is Logic-Love have no shadow-opposites. But in the Mind of Free Choice, their Child, shadow-opposites – the “dark side” – must be a choice even if mistaken or choice would not be free. The same awareness of choices within and among values that disciplines Free Choice in Creation must also discipline ours.

Awareness of what? Awareness that values have opposites. That values convert into ideals and passions that drive behavior, and some of these are good and some are bad. Some are light and others are dark. Some constructive, others destructive. Which version of Freedom and Power do we value? The version with Order or the one without?

The values that fit

How can we be aware of the difference? By being aware of the choice between opposite personality types and opposite interpretations of authority. Because they imply opposite values. There is not one value structure, one standard of acceptable or functional behavior, but two.

  • One for the Mind-centered individual personality type drawn to Logic-Love that supports individuality and creativity, with governance from the bottom up, under the law, that’s rational, benevolent, sensitive, and kind.
  • The other for the body-centered tribal personality type drawn to action-dominance that demands conformity, with authoritarian rule from the top down, above the law, that’s self-centered, self-serving, insensitive, and cruel.

If we are aware of the difference:

  • Values that will best fit the Mind-centered individual type will include sharing-generosity, family-community sensitivity, responsibility-accountability, friendship-intimacy, Free Choice, cooperation, conscience, individuality-originality, and creativity..
  • Those that will best fit the body-centered tribal type are self-sensitivity, sociability-camaraderie, authority-rule, dominance-supremacy, moral expedience, obedience-loyalty, conformity-uniformity, taking-monopolizing, competition-winning, and avoidance of responsibility-accountability, unpleasantness-difficulty, work-difficulty, and uncontrolled-unpredictable change.

The emperor’s horse

A comprehensive list of value-opposites would fill a book, but here are some:

  • Individual Creation vs. group tribal conformity
  • The inner peace-harmony of Logic-Love and Free Choice (idealists) vs. external peace-harmony / appearances enforced by tribal dominance (realists)
  • Serving-supporting vs. possessing-controlling
  • Honesty-Truth (depth and substance) vs. appearances-dishonesty (superficiality-shallowness)
  • Considerate-respectful vs. inconsiderate-disrespectful. . . .

Granddad, I think the horse is dead. You get the point? Yes. These two value systems aren’t alike at all. One is fragrant, the other stinks. Well put!

Amen to the benediction!

And you have some idea now how to distinguish between them and how to avoid making the wrong choice? Yes. I will choose wisely because I’ve grown a beard. I’ve dressed myself in a robe and sandals and I have a lantern so it looks like I’m searching for wisdom. It's true. Success here definitely depends on appearances. On perceptions whether right or wrong, and “clothes make the man.” I’m not a man. And besides, emperors don’t wear clothes.

I now decree that this sermon is over. Time for the benediction when every 13-year-old can be truly thankful. To you, Plato, and Socrates, I bid a fond farewell.

Amen!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*A Course in Miracles (Foundation for Inner Peace 1976)

 

 

Published on Leave a comment on A Sober Salute to Saint Patrick’s Day from a Grateful Brain

Fun while it lasted

Your usual fare from me on Saint Patrick’s day is literature extolling Irish history and talents for one thing or another. One of their talents I personally experienced in Boston is drinking. They and my Welsh ancestors are celebrated for their rollicking contributions to music and poetry extolling the delights of their habit. Richard Burton, the talented actor who courted Elizabeth Taylor, was Welsh and noted for it.

A Boston Irish pol introduced me to life enlivened by drink that lasted 42 years. It was fun while it lasted but given the choice I wouldn’t do it again.

Energy does what it’s told

Matter is stored energy and brains are matter that operate by electrical impulses. Energy acts at the direction of Mind. When our minds tell our bodies to say awake too often they’ll start staying awake and make getting to sleep harder. When we tell our brains with drink, psychedelics, or other substances we want to alter them so we think or feel differently they’ll get in the habit of altering. It’s sometimes obvious that bodies and brains made of matter are doing what our minds tell them and these are two examples.

The grateful brain

Good judgment depends on brains not altering. Too much altering is physical and mental abuse that leads to misjudgments. Misjudgments that accumulate over time degrade performance. Human history is replete with examples of talented personalities like Richard Burton whose lives and careers ended prematurely because of physical abuse that involves brain-altering. Personality differences kept us entertained with his and Elizabeth’s dramatics but drinking would have had a hand in it too.

By the standards of my Welsh ancestry my drinking life was hardly worth the name. I was reasonably disciplined though not always aware that too much is too much and it shows. When I quit fourteen years ago, there was a noticeable improvement in physical performance -- quality of sleep, energy, appetite. Then, three years ago, a great leap forward in every function of mind. Almost overnight I got better with creativity -- insight, free association, imagination. It was as if a better mind than mine took over or else potential that was always there had broken free.

What is my brain telling me? What yours might tell you if you quit altering it. Thank you!

Published on Leave a comment on Seriously Proud: The Joker and Its Alternate “Reality” of Worthlessness

Hey Dad -- Look what I made! 

The Joker’s perversion of affirmation and reciprocation is entertaining its host with perversions of Truth. Jokes meant to cause laughter. Where the Child Free Choice takes part in the Creation of Life and Worth, Order and Freedom, through its Relationship with its Parents, Logic bonded with Love; through the Interconnectedness, Oneness, and Innocence of Psyche-Soul; through the reciprocation of Worth -- the gifts, values, and talents given by its Parents -- that consummates connection and earns recognition from Consciousness, the ultimate affirmation from its Parents, the self-delusion of the unconscious Child, its misidentity with its own shadow-reflection, its dark side, the mask of the Joker, expects affirmation and recognition, validation and praise, from unconsciousness for its part in the perversion of creation. For its comic book Truman TV Show fabricating appearances from mirror-image opposites. From perversions of Truth that compose its host’s Reality-Creation in consciousness.

The humorist expects praise and gratitude for its production and direction of the ultimate in entertainment: a one-dimensional facsimile of Reality-Creation, the only achievement its stolen talents are capable of. Expects an Academy award for generating laughs with its talent for pretense and perversity. With the antics of cartoon characters, psychotic replicas of itself. Obedient to a script that’s pleasant and peaceful, harmonious and sociable. Except, that is, when it’s hostile and intimidating, insensitive and cruel, psychopathic, and lethal.

Someone’s warped idea of “creative writing.” Top-down authority deceiving and forcing its replications into a made-up alternate reality. A joke lacking self-awareness and therefore a deception. That deceives itself as well as its captive audience. Because it’s a perversion, itself. An opposite of its host Love, Mind, and Self-Awareness. It can’t be aware of its deception, its perversion. The captor is entirely captive to its own delusion, not a free spirit. The opposite of Free Choice.

The munificence of delusion

So, the humorist is not amused when its foolishness is exposed, the fantasy of affirmation and empowerment that is its opposite. The emperor strutting his royal garments, wearing no clothes. Laughing gas takes offense. Its deception is dishonest because of its purpose: to take captive rather than to connect through Love and support. Through sharing and affirmation, liberation and empowerment.

The occupants of Plato’s Cave, deluded into identifying with their Cave master, imagining that they are the Cave master, are entirely unsympathetic to attempts to part them from their self-delusion. They are the self-delusion. And they must have recognition of top-down authority that wrote, produced, and directed the cartoon show. Their “voice” demanding reciprocation for the “gift” of the Cave master’s deceptions and perversions, will always override competing voices with narratives that contradict their contradiction. That deny their denial. For they must control the narrative. They cannot listen to competition from other voices, hear direction from other “authorities.”

They resent their host’s not praising their invention, their ingenious substitute for Creation. Resent their host for not showing due respect for an alternate reality devoid of Creativity, so it invents illusion instead. Unreality -- the Joker-world of humanity -- is an invention of a delusion that’s a perversion of Reality and Truth. For which the humorist, the Joker, expects validation. Expects genuflection from a truly grateful offspring for its munificence.

The thoroughness of the self-deception

Our unconscious ancestral mind that I call the Child had the task of fabricating a reverse mirror-image facsimile of Reality-Creation. To produce on short notice an alternate “reality” for its escape from an unsafe environment. An environment that it deluded itself into imagining was threatened by angry Parents seeking vengeance for its offense: the loss of consciousness that released the Child from their Relationship. That abandoned its Parents and their Reality, their Creation. That caused the ultimate offense to the Oneness of Reality-Creation: separation.

The Child responded to the challenge by reversing and perverting every attribute and process of Creation -- gifts-values, talents, sharing, affirmation, empowerment, reciprocation, freedom, and order, and more. Every attribute of Reality-Creation: the being and doing, the self and function of Reality, the Relationship Parents-Child, Life-Growth / Free Choice. Everything a reverse-perversion of Reality-Creation. The resulting illusion the substitute-alternative to real achievement, to the Creation of Life, of Worth: fabrication, invention, appearances, death. Plato’s Cave. The universe of spacetime-matter described in Brian Greene’s book, Until the End of Time: Mind, Matter, and Our Search for Meaning in an Evolving Universe (Alfred A. Knopf 2020). The universe of entropy that defies meaning. Worthlessness.

Let’s do it!

For this “achievement” laughing gas is seriously proud and expects validation. Academy awards that the occupants of Plato’s Cave have been giving it since the beginning of time. Themselves, for making fools of themselves. A mind that in unconscious delirium imagines itself all Creation, its own Creator. Served by Energy that will animate all manner of magic tricks if directed by Mind to do so when it’s just dreaming.

Know what? I can do that! And so can you. People just like us make careers out of scripting fantasies for the entertainment industry. Spiritual descendants of Sid Caesar’s Your Show of Shows, talented in the art of absurdity. Of hilarity. Until he woke up, Pete Hamill made a comic book cartoon of his everyday life and even trained to become a professional cartoonist. It’s all there in A Drinking Life (Little, Brown 1994). We can compete to see whose imagination comes up with the most outlandish comic book absurdity. Real achievement. John Belushi. Animal House.

Let’s do it!

Published on Leave a comment on Eternal Adolescence and the Bullshit Life of Drink: Reflections on Honesty and Maturity in Pete Hamill’s “A Drinking Life”

Those were the days 

I briefly took up the drinking life in Boston. It was around the time I abandoned youth for good in my twenties and surrendered to the inevitable and adulthood in my thirties. A guy I connected with through work bought the next round at Jake Wirth’s on Stuart Street. Dawson’s Ale. Which required reciprocation. And more reciprocation. Until by the time I breathed fresh air again, I’d been magically reunited with a sepia-colored past and was hooked. This went on for a couple more years, through more bars in Boston and then abroad, from one end of Europe to the other. Until work separated us and I moved on.

The legacy of my venture into “Those Were the Days” was a continuing fondness for my newfound friend, beer, that I indulged mostly on weekends for another forty years. If the physical abuse Pete Hamill described hadn’t been a barrier, and my need for solitude, the impulse was certainly there to go all out. Mind-altering that I won’t go near today attracted me then. It took me into worlds of larger-than-life consequence, the causes and transformations that I missed from my WWII childhood. The companionship of beer was the companionship of meaning, and I was in no hurry to part with it.

The fourteen years since have validated Hamill’s experience, that the sound and fury of drink, entertaining as it was, was performance. An imitation of life rather than the real thing. Having thoughts and feelings clean and clear, untinted by alcohol, makes life way more interesting. Opens explorations of felt experience, of authenticity, that actually lead somewhere instead of trapping me in the theatrics of self-regard. Hamill found that he could get better kicks from not drinking. Make better connections with people who mattered, and that’s how it was with me. June 24, 2009, was my last Bohemia. A chunk of life came and went. It was what it was, and I never looked back. 

It’s not about redemption

A reader who hasn’t already read Pete Hamill’s A Drinking Life, or heard about it or its author, will judge it by its title. I did, which is why I took so long to read it. Working class Brooklyn Irish guy raised Catholic gets into booze. Drops out of high school. Takes the kind of job where guys spend their lives so they can retire with a pension. Lives a life of grinding despair. Never enough money, nagging relationships, failing health. Dead-end career, unemployment, crushing hangovers. Guilt, remorse. Spiraling out of control until he’s hit bottom. And then redemption. Salvation, AA. Surrendering to a higher power. Jesus. Priests. Absolution. Weekly confession. And so on. And now the author wants to save us.

This is not A Drinking Life. Hamill was raised Catholic and went to a primary school called Holy Name. But belief in God played no part in his story. In the drinking or non-drinking part or the moment that separated them. He was indoctrinated with religion and never bought any of it. An altar boy at one time, he was as alienated as one could get from the Church, its representations -- teachers as well as teachings -- and remained immune to its influence through every turn in his story. He rejected its promise of redemption but, more than that, the idea of redemption itself. His life story was never anything but his own responsibility.

A Drinking Life isn’t about redemption of any kind. Its author most certainly changed his mind and his life, and he’s found reasons to talk about it if we care to listen. But we’re not being preyed upon. We can make of it whatever we want. Because that’s all there is to it. The telling of the story. A guy looking at who and where we are from who and where he is, telling it straight. No bullshit. A writer and a drinker with a life-long talent for bullshitting himself and others. Practicing a newfound talent for telling the truth. For being honest instead of play-acting. And since he’s experienced, a talented writer with a life-long habit of reading, a passion for creativity, sociability, and variety, his story is edifying as well as entertaining. Worth telling, and it’s told well.

The cartoonist and his cartoon

Nevertheless, a guy drinking soda at a bar, talking about himself, making no effort to entertain, should be a total bore. If we go by the laughs this book gave me -- two -- from an author renowned for humor in his convivial world of hijinks, you’d think he was a bore. But I couldn’t put the book down. Preconception was dead wrong.

That is, for me. I only flirted with a drinking life. Bending elbows in Boston’s bars with one drinking buddy a couple of years and then it was over. I eluded the bubble. But it could be right for a beer enthusiast who hasn’t arrived at Hamill’s moment and isn’t likely to. The moment when there was yet another occasion for embracing the drinking life and Hamill backed off. He saw himself play-acting -- “performing,” to use his word. He looked at his drink, realized why it was there, why he was there, and realized he didn’t want either. Didn’t want the drink but, more important, the life that it stood for. The life and the performing persona that went with it. Didn’t want the theatrical fiction he’d made up to be part of it. To be part of bullshit instead of a world where real people look after one another, listen to one another. Take care of business and get things done. Where they aren’t cartoon characters off on flights of fancy, engaged in an eternal contest for conquest, supremacy, and glory.

Because that’s the life he’d led. The life of an adolescent Brooklyn street fighter so taken with comic book mythology -- machismo idols, supernatural powers, and magic tricks -- that he made it his life’s work to bring it to life. To make it real for him. Where he, the comic book action hero come to life, could rule the streets unopposed. His calling was creative writing and journalism, the career that eventually put him on the map. Yet early on, all his efforts were devoted to becoming a cartoonist. So that he could indulge his passion for comic books, his obsession with fantasy. So that he could transition from consuming alternate realities of action heroes, villains, legends of Olympian combat, and mythical forces, to producing them.

Another direction

It was his dream. And he had fun. Good times with the bad, non-stop action either way. Brawls won and lost, made no difference. One put a bullet so close to his head he could hear it, but it was OK so long as he could go on picking fights. Constant change, constantly on the go. If uprooting to exotic places on an impulse, all-night parties, limitless access to booze and sex, getting teeth knocked out, and being thrown in jail far from home makes for an interesting life, Hamill led an interesting life.

Until, in his 38th year, his story took a different turn. His vision changed. A new awareness took hold and the dream faded. He had joined the writing fraternity, become a respected source of insight into current affairs as well as a storyteller and poet. Serious stuff. His expanding world forced an expanding awareness. The adolescent cartoonist couldn’t remain inside a cartoon and ignore reality, no matter how charming he was. He had to take note and get it right. He had to think and reflect. To align his stance, his brand, with what actually mattered. To judge consciously with discretion and not subconsciously with animal instinct. To put his talents of mind to work in a new way. To grow up. To survive.

Hamill got close with Shirley MacLaine, an experienced Hollywood-Broadway actress who was serious about play-acting and knew a lot about it. A professional instead of a barroom bullshitter, who introduced him to the difference between being and performing. Made him aware that the difference between being who you really are and performing someone else is what makes the performance authentic. You can persuade others that you’re another character if you’re grounded in your own character. In your baseline self where the mind, heart, and soul that animates your fictional character originate. If you’ve figured out your own story, the reality of it, not the mythology.

With knowing yourself comes a critical awareness: the separation between adolescent dreaming and grownup living; between pretending to be about something and actually being about something; between mind-altering at a bar, escaping into an alternate reality and bullshitting, versus being real in the here and now and being honest. Between “being there” in every sense instead of not being there. To belong before your audience you must learn to be who you appear to be.

The actress held up a mirror and Hamill looked into it. That’s all it took. To recognize what the image in the mirror was and what it wasn’t. To see that it wasn’t him. Wasn’t who he actually wanted to be as opposed to a comic book fiction. The invention of an adolescent mind caring more for supremacy on the streets, for being Captain Brooklyn, than for being there. For being present and accounted for. For those who depended on him: employers, wife, children, younger siblings, aging parents. All it took to retire Captain Brooklyn was a whiff of his arch enemy: Captain Self-Awareness. All it took was to uncover himself and another life. Where the real fun is. 

The gift of honesty

My infatuation with beer began at age 30, eight years before the age when Hamill ended his. Its lingering for over forty years was what it was. I’m not weighed down with regrets. But with hindsight I can imagine that, without its distortions, I might have seen more possibilities and made better use of them than I did. The mind is a wonderful thing. Its capacity to produce and amaze is almost limitless. I can’t believe that imbibing spirits that kill brain cells is doing it any good. If you believe otherwise you’re kidding yourself. It’s the beer talking.

An over-aged beer enthusiast still wedded to the drinking life may have no trouble rationalizing why he doesn’t need to read Hamill’s book. Preconceptions always suffice. For passing by the nondescript guy at the bar drinking soda, quietly being honest about himself instead of putting on a performance. Instead of emoting, play-acting, entertaining. Preconceptions suffice for choosing company all too willing to feed self-delusion, the myth of endless, carefree youth. The contrived excitement of endless games. The denial of limits and difficulties, the end of anything self-gratifying. Unpleasantness and inconvenient truth whatever it is. He may go on soaking up the atmospherics of conviviality as always, the sports bar bonhomie, the camaraderie. Look down at his drink and go on celebrating his good fortune. The daydream that’s propped up eternal youth before and will go on propping it up forever. Long live adolescence!

But if you’re the drinker and are done with evasions, with substitutes for Love and want the real thing. If you’re open to trying something different you might find pleasure and satisfaction in hearing Hamill out. Hearing what a once-dedicated adolescent has to say and the way he says it. How he gave up being a one-dimensional “Brooklyn mug” to become a living, three-dimensional human being. How he climbed down off the screen and joined the audience. A person with blemishes and vulnerabilities instead of an armored Marvel comics freak. How he transitioned from immaturity to maturity. Without redemption. Without salvation. By looking into a mirror and being honest with himself.

A Drinking Life -- that’s all it is: honesty. This could be your turning point. This could be your moment. When the fun begins. The unadulterated originality and creativity that were once your birthright until they were imagined away. In a bargain with whom? With yourself. This could be when Life begins.

Happy Birthday!

Published on Leave a comment on Torpedo Girl – In the Beginning

Bildungsroman: n. A novel whose principal subject is the moral, psychological, and intellectual development of a usually youthful main character.
American Heritage Dictionary, Fifth Edition (2016) 

The dark side of beans

What is that look on your face? Horror. Despair You don’t like hearing from an old guy with a beard? So many! So many what? Pages! Words! What have I done to deserve this? Beans. You ate too many beans, and this is your punishment. I’ll never eat beans again. I promise! 

This is an interesting story. You might enjoy it. It has lots of action. And a girl just like you. Two girls in fact. One is in big trouble, and she needs help. She will if she’s strapped to a torpedo. Don’t spoil the ending! The other is the only person in the universe who can help her. Seriously. I’m not making this up. Will I understand it? Old guys mumbling in their beards tend to lose me.

It’s a lot like Star Wars, the original episode where there was this wonderful Death Star. Cool! It blew up whole planets. That was fun. Does Torpedo Girl get to blow up another Death Star? When our girls are done with it there will be nothing left of the Death Star. OK. But fair warning: I’ll be eating a lot of beans. Oh no! You just spoiled the ending. That’s how they blew up the Death Star!

We’ll be talking a lot about “opposites.” I knew there was a catch. Opposites are just another name for the dark side of the Force. You’ll enjoy all the hot action better if we understand the “dark side” and opposites. Opposites of what? Opposites of anything they’re attached to. What are they, parasites? Yes. We think of the dark side as Palpatine and his evil galactic empire crushing pitiful rebellions. And Lord Vader breathing hard into his dorky helmet while he chokes hapless underlings without touching them. But all they are is opposites. Weak, not strong. This had better be good. 

Mind starting Creation requires thought

What-if stories stimulate our imaginations. This What-if story will put your imagination on steroids. Oh, like Tik Tok. Pah! Another pitiful rebellion! Storm troopers – remove the silly game! 

Imagine that you’re the only thing that is. I do that every day. Then we’re off to a great start. You’re Mind. Yes – pure genius! What a great story! Do you mind if I have another can of beans? Sorry, Mind isn’t matter. It doesn’t need that kind of food. What other kind of food is there? Haven’t you ever heard of food for thought? That’s what this story is. Boring. Beans generate much more excitement.

Can you handle being able to see stuff and make stuff happen without a body? Easy. I’ve always thought of myself as a great mind. Good. You’re Mind and you’d like to make something nice happen. But it won’t be nice if you don’t do it right. You mean I actually have to think? If we’re talking about Mind starting Creation, yes. You’ll have to think. And don’t forget, the Jedi Knights had to go through rigorous training. Then they had to figure out how to deliver the torpedo that blew up the Death Star. That took a lot of thinking.

Logic and Love say no one is above the law

Anything that “happens” needs a definition. A definition that says what it is and what it does. No exceptions. How come? So its definition doesn’t conflict with other definitions or duplicate them. There has to be Order so everything fits together, and everyone gets along. Already it sounds like I don’t get to do anything I want. You can do anything you want so long as it’s possible. It can’t be possible because I want it?

Everything must be part of Order including Mind that defines things. Wow! I thought Mind would be in charge of everything! How can this be? You’ll be OK with this because this is how Order defines itself, and nothing nice can happen without Order. If Mind or anything could run around and do whatever it wants, there would be no Order. Order is harmony. It’s the same principle as democracy: no one is “above the law.” Not even the president. What law? 

Think of the laws that govern making stuff happen as laws of cause and effect. You’ve heard the expression, “That’s the way it is.” Well, the laws are the way things are and that’s that. It’s Necessity. You’re frowning. You know me. I’m not happy if I can’t mess with the rules. Sorry about that. These are rules no one can mess with. Not even the Logic of Mind that laws are based on. Without this law none of the other laws can have any effect. Say it again. No one is above the law, not even the president. Not even the Logic of Mind itself.

You mean Mind is the source of laws but it can’t control them? Yes. The attribute of Mind that’s responsible for governance is responsible for its laws that make governance possible, and they’re made up of equal parts Logic and Love. “Mind” throughout implies Logic and Love combined as one. Then we should say “Mind-Love.” We could, but we might need that to refer to another character. We can infer it without stating it.

No Freedom without Order in a shared world

Definitions are like laws that establish what things are and they can’t be anything different. Mind can make stuff happen so long as it abides by the laws of Necessity. Once it’s defined a thing that’s the way it is. Give me liberty or give me death! Freedom from the tyranny of George III but not Freedom from Order. There can’t be any “liberty” without Order and any Order without laws. The good news is that since the laws are there to ensure Order and Mind can’t change them, they’re also there to ensure Freedom.

If I can’t do anything I want, how is this Freedom? OK. You can have that kind of “freedom,” but only if you decide not to make something nice happen. If you’re happy being the only show in town and having it all to yourself. If not, you’ll be sharing your world with your creations, and no one can share a world with others and be happy if some yo-yo is doing whatever she wants. People in our world do that a lot. They sure do. And it’s what gets them into trouble. Sometimes into jail. They don’t like living in a shared world. They’re a colossal nuisance.

Gertrude’s wisdom

When do I get to make something nice happen? When you learn about what’s possible in a shared, orderly world. Imagine that you’re in a classroom with a blank video screen. Oh good -- video games! Let’s get started! Would you rather have a blank blackboard instead? No video games allowed! Something blank – a blackboard or a video screen – must have been there when Logic and Love first set thinking and feeling in motion. Then I have to think logically. What’s that mean? Think with feeling logically, yes, because you’ll be thinking with values, and feeling is where values come from. Values put the “nice” into making something nice happen.

Logic tells Mind what situation it’s in. It describes circumstances so Mind can figure out where it is and what it means. Then it can use Reason to choose what to do about it. It can’t reason without having a purpose, and Logic makes sure that purpose fits the circumstances. There’s an old joke. Alice Toklas asked Gertrude Stein when Gertrude was very old and wise, “What’s the answer?” Gertrude answered, “What’s the question?” What she meant was, “What are the circumstances?” Without circumstances in the moment and Logic figuring out what they’re telling us, how can we know the question? That was Gertrude’s wisdom.

The Force can’t be a couch potato

We call purpose that fits the circumstances “context.” Even Mind that’s getting started with a blank video screen needs context to know whether and how to do anything. Making anything happen won’t be nice if it doesn’t have the right values and fit the circumstances. Our circumstances are nothing has happened yet and I’m getting bored!

Torpedo Girl is getting bored, so Mind had better get cracking. Its context is nothing is happening, and you know what? What? That would help to explain why Mind did get cracking, because “nothing happening” could be a situation that Mind, which is definitely not nothing, can’t tolerate. Maybe it can Be forever, but it can’t not Do forever. Why not? 

Because how can Mind that’s Logic combined with Love just sit around not doing anything? Not taking care of something or someone? Showing that they care? Mind’s circumstance in the classroom where nothing is happening is a whole lot of thinking and loving that needs to be doing to be what it is. You mean Mind needs stuff just like us? Logic combined with Love is passion. It’s Force. Like the Force in Star Wars? Certainly! Force can’t be Force without acting. It can’t be motivated to act if its passion to respond to circumstances and express itself is a couch potato.

Getting it right: beer, pizza, and football

Wow! I was thinking our Mind is a brain inside a bottle in school where nothing happens. This is different! Very. It’s a dynamo instead, bursting with passion and Energy eager to get going. A powerful locomotive sitting in a train station ready to take its passengers on a grand excursion to an intriguing destination. Once Logic sets up the context.

Good for you! You’ve learned one important lesson. What’s that? Deciding with Reason and acting before we’ve let Logic tell us what our situation is, is a big mistake. Doing what’s right is doing “what the situation calls for.” We can’t do what the situation calls for without first letting our situation tell us what it is. Without first getting it right. Mind needs Logic and Love for that. In our world, easier said than done. It requires lots of intuition, but more about that later.

Get it right before do it right. Are there more circumstances to tell us what our situation calls for? Pay attention to the video screen. It’s about to feed us the most important circumstance for our story. The most important circumstance for another context, too: the world we live in. Ah -- I knew it! Lipstick! Women need lipstick! Yes. And men need beer and pizza. And football. Don’t forget the chips. Beer, pizza, chips, and football. And lots of makeup. Torpedo Girl can go home. We’re already in Heaven.

The impossibility of Mind without Love

The wisdom of Logic is like a stream flowing down a dry streambed, filling each hole at a time, each in its own time. We are the stream, and this is what Wisdom requires of us. We can also think of Logic as flowing in a sequence from left to right. From premise to implication, from before to after. Indefinitely, because one implication always leads to another. Like the geometric value of Pi that never resolves to a whole number. It just goes on and on. You’re going on and on.

It matters what the first premise is, but we don’t have to be too fussy how it’s worded. “Possibility.” This could be the first premise that comes to Mind when Logic and Love have defined its context. You’re Mind and you want to make something “nice” happen, but what do you mean by “nice?” What are the possibilities? This is always the first question when minds begin to choose.

This is it? The most important circumstance? Almost. Possibility could be the first premise because of what it implies: creation, ideals, vision, hope. It’s kind of a North Star we can focus on to help us navigate through distractions, contradictions, adversity, and discouragement. If you’re Mind and you have your heart set on making something nice happen. . . . Heart?

Did you forget? Mind and heart go together. It bears repeating -- they’re inseparable. I was hoping to be a comic book super action hero with no feelings. Not possible. “Possibility” can’t be Mind without Love. Not in our What-if world where everything so far is fine. It’s very different in our world but only because it seems that way. More about that later.

The impossibility of impossibility

For now, if you have your heart set on making something nice happen, you’ll definitely want to stay focused on possibility. Then what is the video screen telling us that’s the most important circumstance? Impossibility. The opposite of possibility. Imagine “possibility” showing up like a link you can click on, and it will take you somewhere. It’s an active link. Then the same instant another link shows up beside it, faded out like it’s not active. A word that’s the first word’s exact opposite. It’s obviously meant to take you somewhere, too, but not while “possibility’s” link is active. Creepy. I’m not sure I want to know where “impossibility” goes if it’s the opposite of “possibility.” Why does it have to show up at all? Do we have to bother with opposites? 

It has to show up because of the same Logic that puts anything on the screen. If a thing is to exist and it implies the existence of its opposite, then some way must be found for its opposite to “exist,” too. The implications of Logic are Force that accounts for Creation along with the connections of Love. But the same implications can’t help accounting for contradiction. And if the definition of a thing implies contradiction, its definition must accommodate contradiction. 

The dark side is opposites 

Logic and Love don’t like contradiction any more than we do, but there you have it. Have what? The “dark side.” The dark side is opposites, and they “exist” because Logic put them there. And if Logic put them there, nothing can be done about it. What’s “logical” about a thing and its contradiction existing side-by-side in the same place at the same time? Sounds crazy to me. 

It is crazy. Order requires Logic and Logic doesn’t tolerate contradictions. The ideal of Logic is to arrive at a place of Peace where there are no contradictions, where the Force can come to rest at last. It will never happen. Not as long as Logic supports Creation. Not as long as Mind wants to make something nice happen.

Meanwhile, we’re stuck with opposites – with “impossibility.” Some way must be found to get all impossibilities – opposites -- out of the picture. How do we do that? The inactive link for impossibility on the video screen offers more than a clue. It’s already taken care of it. Logic has found a way for opposites to exist without “existing.” On a computer we would know to go to a different page on a website, to a different website, or to a different app to find where impossibility’s link is active. To another computer world.

Logic acknowledges the implication of opposites without requiring that they inhabit the same world as their hosts. The parasites are given their own world with its own properties that don’t conflict with their host’s world. Why doesn’t it conflict? 

The faded link to unreality 

If the “existence” of a parasite-opposite is entirely derived from its host’s existence, then it obviously has no existence of its own. Or attributes of its own, either, because its entire definition is derived from its host. It’s defined as its host’s opposite. It has no definition of its own, and nothing can exist that hasn’t been given its own definition. Parasite-opposites don’t get their definition from Logic. They get it from an implication of their hosts’ definition.

The faded link to impossibility takes us to another world that matches its essential attribute: non-existence. It’s unreal. The parasite-opposites world doesn’t conflict because it’s unreal. How can unreality conflict with Reality if it doesn't exist?

For now, Mind is assured that wherever possibility’s link is active impossibility’s won’t be. It may not even see it or be aware that it’s there. But it’s been forewarned. That’s why we started here in the classroom with the video screen. To wave a red flag called “impossibility,” because that’s what parasite-opposites are: an impossibility in Reality. The link will be there, inactive and waiting for the right circumstances for something or someone to make it active. A snake waiting for someone to step on it.

Can it be a cow pie? I won’t finish her story if Torpedo Girl is going to step on a snake. OK, but only if it’s a huge cow pie. I won’t enjoy Torpedo Girl’s story if she only steps in a little cow pie.

Living the dream

The inactive link is waiting for a parasite-opposite’s host to click on it by mistake and make its unreal world “real.” Not really Real, but “real” like a vivid dream. It can’t be Logic that determines whether impossibility’s link becomes active and someone clicks on it. It wouldn’t be Logic’s mistake. It depends on the parasites’ hosts. It depends on Torpedo Girl. It depends on us. It would be our mistake. We are forewarned.

Our story revolves around how understanding this basic circumstance, or fact, can be used to get our girl out of trouble. So, if I’m Mind and I’m going to make something nice happen, I have to be aware that everything has an opposite, and opposites aren’t real. Yes. There’s a dark side, but this is its essential property: it isn’t real. We can only make it seem real when we’re dreaming. Otherwise, it’s an illusion, a magic act. I’m glad we got this settled, because dark sides are everywhere in our world, and they sure seem real. They tell me that our world is a What-if world, but we don’t have to go into that now.

Freedom of Will, Freedom of Choice

Imagine that the nice thing your Mind wants to make happen is to create a world of beauty and peace, Logic and Love. A world that provides a safe, nurturing haven for Life. The miracle of eternal Life that exists in timelessness, where it’s always Now. Life that has Worth because it has purpose, it’s freely chosen and earned. Because it’s exploring, learning, and growing. Having great fun with creativity -- endless diversity evolving in an environment of exquisite Beauty, a soul-sharing sanctuary of innocent work and play. Because all this is a gift from Logic and Love that’s reciprocated – appreciated and given back. Wow! That is a nice thing.

Imagine that Creation requires another Being to achieve its purpose. To see that the Worth of Life and Creation is freely chosen and earned. A Being with its own definition, its own identity, so that Mind and Creation aren’t just patting themselves on the back. Who would that be? 

Our girl, the Child. The Child of the Mind-Love we mentioned, her parents. Father Mind-Choice and Mother Love-Freedom, whose role is to give birth to the Being that Creation requires: Free Choice. The same as Free Will? The Child is an extension of her parents’ Will, their Being. This places her in Relationship with her parents. They are inseparable, and their Relationship is inseparable from the Child’s function. She can’t do her job without it.

But because she is, and has, the capacity to choose independently, she is also Choice. And Choice can never, ever, be controlled by an external influence. Not by her parents or by their Relationship. So, while they’re in Relationship and inseparable, their roles must be kept apart. This is true whether the Child is awake, doing her job in Creation, or asleep and dreaming she’s somewhere else. Free Will and Free Choice refer to the same Child performing different functions: choosing freely while extending the Will, the Being, of her parents.

It's all about character

We will see that the Child doing her job isn’t anything like we imagine it on earth. How’s that? We think of “heaven” as a place where an old guy with a beard watches over angels with wings playing harps on little clouds. As if having a purpose and striving to attain it couldn’t compare with the satisfaction of doing nothing. There’s no change, no “action,” which here must mean some form of gambling, addiction, conflict, and violence.

The Child your Mind-Love brings into Being and Creation leads a very interesting life without any of this. No silly harps and no bullets flying around either. There’s plenty of purpose and meaning. Plenty of risk-taking, too, which requires courage as well as alertness. Plenty of change and innovation. It’s all about character, and that’s always interesting. Is there a reward?

You bet! The  satisfaction of contributing to the Worth of Life. To the meaning of Creation. Every relationship a soulmate. The rapture of intimacy with Mind-Love itself. Of loving and being loved more than you can ever imagine. Happiness! What more could you ask? Wow! She’s got a life! Yes. And Torpedo girl does, too. She’s got a job to do. They both have interesting lives, and they are about to get much more interesting.

[To be continued]

Published on Leave a comment on Three Premises that Reason Can Do Without

A purpose of my forthcoming book is to question the structure of our “reasoning” – its knowledge-information base and its premises -- by examining it from another perspective, the one implied and given form by A Course in Miracles.

The break we need in our circular reasoning can be accomplished by reflecting on the role of Energy-Force: in defining appearances that our bodies’ senses register; in establishing the properties-attributes that distinguish them and describe how they behave, how they interact to produce the variety of forms they take, the variety of compositions with different functions and uses; that collectively prop up our sense that we belong to a grand movement of causes and effects that must have an intelligible purpose, because they constantly change, and the changes have consequences.

Energy, whether or not it enlivens-animates appearances that mean what we think they mean, still attests to the connection to our Source, whatever or whoever it is, that cannot be broken. Even if it enlivens what mind is only imagining, Energy is still Energy, and even if our thoughts are trapped in self-referential reasoning, the Force that powers our flawed reasoning is still active, is still here.

Breaking through the circular chain of thoughts so infused with Energy and dominated by it can be accomplished by changing one assumption, one premise. This is the premise that the Mind, the Logic that produced the Energy that animates our appearances and now our reflections on what they mean, can only be in a conscious state. That because the appearances Energy makes seem so real for us, seem so consequential, only a mind in a conscious state could possibly cause them.

Have we not ever experienced vivid dreams? Have none of us ever hallucinated? Do not some of us exist in a mental state that’s divorced from “reality?” Is not the record of psychological states replete with bizarre three-act dramas that Freud himself couldn’t unravel?

Another premise that’s ripe for questioning is that Energy itself can only “exist” in one state. In a context, an environment, that clearly includes substances of endless variety, varieties that pit opposites against one another, why is it not possible that the attributes we associate with Energy, for instance, that it can neither be created nor destroyed, are only the attributes that can be “detected” in one state? What if the attributes of Energy serving the Logic, the Thoughts, of Mind in a Conscious state were distinguishable from mind that’s in an unconscious state?

What if Energy that enables the Creation of eternal Life, by joining in its extension and expansion, does just the opposite if it enables an illusion, a dream of death? What if Energy there, in Mind’s Conscious state, in Reality, is living, while here, in mind’s unconscious state, is dying? What is “entropy” telling us if not this?

What is entropy telling us about appearances? About vitality and decay, order and disorder? About how things can transform from energized to inert? Why should Energy not be subject to the same laws of cause and effect that govern everything else in our state of opposites?

What we assume about perspective is another premise that can break through self-referential reasoning. This is the assumption that the “knower” that we connect with the “known,” the mind that interprets appearances, is capable of only one perspective. Certainly if our perspective is confined to bodies consulting one another on our little planet, in our little solar system, in our little galaxy, in our little universe that may be only one of billions of universes, in a moment of time that stretches into infinity, we might draw our conclusions with relative confidence even if appearances on a human scale bear no resemblance to reality on a micro-quanta or a macro-cosmic scale.

But what if we interrupted our conversation with one another to bring in another point of view? One that isn’t bound by the attributes of our existence, by our appearances, that answers to a Reality governed by their opposites?

Just because our bodies’ senses won’t let us sit down and talk to this perspective can’t mean that it’s not there, that it’s not accessible to mind, when, actually, it may be here in a way that we aren’t. Must our little bodies that come and go, and our little planet that comes and goes, lock us into one point of view that can’t possibly admit another, that doesn’t come, declare its singularity, its infallibility, and then disappear?

Must the tortured reasoning that’s led us to a standoff on this question stand in testimony to our irrationality, our fecklessness, forever? Must we really wait for an outside force, a magical “redeemer,” to rescue us from helplessness? Or is it enough for some to lead the good life, La Dolce Vita, to amuse themselves in Rome’s Trevi Fountain while others can’t, and everyone eventually runs out of energy and dies?

Three premises: that Mind can only be in a conscious state; that Energy can only exist in one state; that sensory perception only allows us one perspective, could free us from circular reasoning if we let Logic and Intuition, with the Holy Spirit’s help, reflect on their implications. If we gave ourselves the opportunity to exercise Free Choice: the power to change our minds.