Average Joe's Map of the Universe

From the Vedas to the Magazines

2013-04-05T15:59:00.000-04:00

A Short History of Yoga

Mysticism is a word for the philosophy or science of human transformation. Some of you may be familiar with the phrase “the method of Science – the aim of Religion” – which is a particularly succinct way of describing mysticism. Despite its contemporary, “Westernized” manifestation of rhythmic breathing and stretches or poses for building a strong body, yoga is such a system of methodical experimentation, observation, and data collection applied to the self as a means to know oneself, know reality, and unite or harmonize with that reality. This sounds a bit more intense than the activities that go on in gyms and studios across the country, so how did this stuff develop from such a rich spiritual tradition?

When trying to understand something unfamiliar, I find it particularly useful to draw comparisons with a more familiar phenomenon. For example, music is a broad subject with a seemingly limitless means of expression which can be categorized, divided, sub-divided, and organized in terms of the form, content, location, and date of a given sample. We can arrange genealogies of a particular musical genre to track its origins, and we can identify the major contributors.

But when exactly did humanity begin making music? As is the case with yoga, many people would say it’s as old as civilization.

Just as there are many places where one can study music – private one-on-one tutoring, general education in elementary school, advanced studies in college, music conservatories, etc. – so it has been with yoga. Teachings and expression may vary from one school to another. Compare the blues of Jimi Hendrix to the blues of B.B. King; though different in many ways, you still must conclude that each is expressing himself through a form of music generally called the blues or specifically electric blues.

If you don’t like the blues, if it doesn't arouse something inside you, then maybe you feel that connection with a vocal virtuoso like Luciano Pavarotti. If music doesn't stir something inside you, then perhaps for you painting, sports, or even chemistry arouses a deep, transformative sense of knowing and identifying with something that is simultaneously yourself and something greater than yourself.

Bear all of this in mind as you read this, and please note that I do not wish to diminish the significance and identity of these traditions by making comparisons to other religions or subjects. My goal in this writing is not to detail what yoga does or to give a comprehensive history. I aim to provide a coherent cross-section of this ancient mystic tradition, to clear up some misconceptions that may surround the subject (because it’s still a fresh idea in the West), and to introduce some concepts that may come up again on this blog.

Stages of Development

Academic surveys of the history of yoga usually divide it into several major periods of time: Vedic, Pre-classical, Classical, and Post-classical. Yoga itself may predate recorded history, and some scholars believe that it originated in stone-age shamanistic practices. Originally, it may have been more of a social activity performed for the health of the community. The most concrete evidence we have (literally – stone seals depicting figures in various poses) dates to about 3000 BCE. However, I’m not detailing the history of the people and civilizations of the Indus Valley here. The point is: yoga had been around for a long time before any written account of it appeared.

The Vedic Period of Yoga

The Vedic period is named for the earliest religious texts of Hinduism and spans from about 1700 BCE to about 500 BCE. “Veda” is Sanskrit for “knowledge” and the Vedas contain the earliest teachings on yoga as well as the philosophical basis for Hinduism. For comparison, you might think of them as being for Hinduism what the Old Testament is for Christianity. Individually, they are: The Rig-Veda (Mantra), Yajur-Veda (Ritual), Sama-Veda (Chants), and Atharva-Veda (after a famous sage, literally “the knowledge of Atharva”). The Rig-Veda is the oldest of these, and many consider the other Vedic texts to be exegetical or built upon and explaining the wisdom of the Rig-Veda.

Continuing the comparison with Judaic religions, the Vedas were the lessons of “inspired” individuals recorded by their students. Rishis or “seers” were those who climbed Jacob’s ladder, so to speak. They related the experience, their inspired vision of reality, and guided others toward living in harmony with the divine. The Vedas comprised the wisdom of the sages, and yoga was the practical application of that wisdom. Along this theme, it is of interest to note that the Vedas are the source of the caste system in India, wherein each caste is considered a body part of a greater being. The Brahmin caste is the head and the “untouchable” caste is the feet, for example. Thus, the division of people according to their societal role is a means of harmonizing both the individual and the greater society with a “divine” order. This may lend some credence to the above mentioned speculation that yoga’s roots are in the stone-age community-focused shamanism of the Indus Valley, but the facts of the matter are likely lost to the passage of eons. What we can conclude is that despite the apparent presence of individual disciplines like meditation, Vedic-Period yoga often included group or community participation in ceremonies and daily roles or routines that shaped the overall structure of the culture toward establishing union with a philosophic or spiritual ideal.

The Pre-classical Period

The beginning of the Pre-classical period of yoga is distinguished by the appearance of the Upanishads. Just as the later Vedic texts elucidated the wisdom of the earlier Rig-Veda, the Upanishads expound upon the Vedas. To clarify this through comparison, you might say that the Upanishads are for Hinduism what the New Testament is for Christians. They further describe the ultimate reality (Brahman), the true or ideal self (Atman), and the relationship between the two.

Also of utmost significance is the appearance of the Bhagavad Gita at around 500 BCE (coinciding approximately with the rise of the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama). If we can compare the Upanishads with the New Testament, then the Bhagavad Gita - which is just a small part of the epic Mahabharata – is like Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in importance. It is considered the earliest text dealing specifically with yoga, presented as a narrative in which Krishna advises the reluctant hero Arjuna as he drives his chariot into battle against enemies, among which are members of Arjuna’s own family. As they converse, Krishna counters Arjuna’s objections to fighting while explaining how union with ultimate truth or supreme consciousness can be achieved through actions (Karma), devotion (Bhakti), and intellect (Jnana). Some versions of the Bhagavad Gita even label each of the 18 chapters as a specific type of yoga, and there are or have been schools and/or teachers of each of these paths of yoga.

With all these various classifications or genres of yoga, it is no wonder that India has been home to so many gurus teaching different techniques. You might draw comparisons with specialty or vocational schools where students today learn the skills they need for a specific trade. Each student has similar goals – employment, prosperity, etc. – but the methods for success and the means of achievement are different. Remember that this was also the age of the Buddha and that he studied techniques of meditation and self-deprivation with a few sages through his early life. These are examples of the gurus and/or “specialty schools” of this time period (though, of course, Gautama found them lacking).

The Classical Period

Even with all these techniques and philosophic traditions spreading, yoga still did not resemble the popular versions with which we are familiar today. Things really didn't begin to shape up until a guy named Patanjali wrote a collection of aphorisms about the most essential elements of yoga. These were not a set of uncompromising laws, but suggestions for being a well-rounded individual based on Patanjali’s mastery of yoga. And yet, The Yoga Sutra of Patanjali does not contain any description of any postures – no downward dog, no warrior, no boat. We don’t have much definite information about the Patanjali who wrote the Yoga Sutra, but the appearance of this work around the second century and its influence over the next few centuries comprises the Classical Period of yoga.

Key to The Yoga Sutra of Patanjali is the Eightfold path of yoga, or the Eight Limbs of yoga. These are:

1 Yama – comprised of five moral restraints in dealing with others:

Nonviolence
Honesty
Don't Steal - physical things and intangible things; don’t take advantage of another’s trust
Celibacy (or at least refraining from meaningless sex)
Don’t be greedy (don’t take more than you need, for example)

2 Niyama – comprised of five personal rules for dealing with oneself:

Purity - practice yama, eat fresh and healthy food, be clean, etc.
Be content with or grateful for what you have
Self-discipline or cultivation of willpower - doing what has to be done, not necessarily what you want to do, for your own good or for a higher ideal
Study – especially the study of oneself or of sacred texts and literature relevant to you
Devotion or dedication to the divine or higher power – however you define it

3 Asana – posture or exercise. Not just a means of keeping the body healthy, but as preparation for meditation which requires sitting in one place for an extended period (or movement, as in Tai Chi. The point is to stabilize distracting involuntary or unconscious movement, foreshadowing dharana)

4 Pranayama – breath control

5 Pratyahara – withdrawing the senses, or directing one’s focus inward

6 Dharana – concentrating on a single point of focus, such as a mantra. Stopping the inner monologue

7 Dhyana – union with the object of concentration: mind and its contents are identical

8 Samadhi – the experience of oneness with the universe, union with the divine.

Still doesn't look much like popular modern yoga, does it? At least now we begin to find some ideas and words used in a familiar sense, but we see that asana or posture is a small physical element in a spiritual system rather than meditation being a small element of an exercise system. The popular yoga specialist Georg Fuerstein points out that Patanjali introduced an element of dualism in his teachings – the body, or physical reality in general, was something to escape by refining one’s consciousness or spirit in order to merge with or dissolve into a greater or “divine” state of being.

Post-Classical Yoga

The time after Patanjali is especially distinguished by the rise of tantric schools of yoga, now famous for their sexual rites (though this is only one aspect of some tantric schools). Rather than escaping or negating physical experience, yogis began to refine it. If human existence is defined by a spirit or nonphysical consciousness inhabiting a physical body, then the goal became balancing these elements rather than separating them. Note that while this perspective is different from Patanjali’s, it is not entirely incongruous with his 8 Limbs of Yoga. The shift is one of experiencing the aforementioned spiritual and physical elements of existence simultaneously.

Things really begin to look like modern yoga much later when Yogi Swatmarama wrote what is now probably the oldest surviving manual of hatha yoga (the Hatha Yoga Pradipika) in the 15^th century. I include Swatmarama in the Post-Classical Period because, although his manual predates yoga’s expansion out of India, hatha yoga definitely is not classical yoga. Still practiced and probably the most popular form of yoga today, hatha yoga focuses on three of the aforementioned limbs of classical yoga: asana, pranayama, and pratyahara. The original intent of hatha yoga was to be a means of preparation for classical yoga, but also developed from a preoccupation with making the body an immortal vessel for one’s immortal spirit by expanding the limitations of the body. Along this vein of thought, it might also be of interest to research alchemy in medieval India and how it may have influenced yoga, but I have no intention of delving into that subject here. Take note, however, that although hatha yoga is still practiced today, Swatmarama’s manual did not include any of the asanas you see on the covers of modern yoga and health magazines.

Yoga was formally or perhaps successfully introduced to the West by Yogi Vivekananda at the 1893 Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago. Vivekananda himself looked down on hatha yoga and did not emphasize asana except perhaps in the purely classical sense. In his time, many had taken to using asana as a means of making money, performing tricks and feats of strength and dexterity on the street, but not necessarily for the spiritual goals for which asana was intended. Vivekananda did not share the colonialist disdain for India’s lower class citizens, but his disdain for asana may have been a way of making yoga appealing to his non-Indian audience. Perhaps his true disdain was for the poverty which lead so many to perform difficult asanas for money on the streets of his homeland. Whatever the case may be, Vivekananda made a big impact at the Parliament of the World’s Religions and sparked American interest in yoga from India.

The Modernization of Gymnastics and the Westernization of Yoga

The focus on developing strong bodies was something of a world-wide phenomenon by 20^th century. Gymnastics had already gained some popularity as an element of physical education in Europe, but really began to proliferate as members of highly political German sports clubs fled to America to escape persecution in the early to mid-1800s. Despite initial success in America, interest waned and gymnastics didn't become an established sport until after The Bureau of the European Gymnastic Federation (precursor for International Gymnastics Federation) began setting standards for gymnastic competition. In this period of time, modern gymnastics equipment was developed, and the sport became distinguished from other activities such as basketball, weight-lifting, and wrestling.

Exhibitionist troupes also helped spread European-style gymnastics across the globe in the early 1900s. The British colony of India was no exception, and would-be revolutionaries began preparing for the possibility of violently ousting the British by combining European gymnastics with much older Indian combat and strength training. According to the prominent yoga researcher and author Mark Singleton, many of the asanas that are most popular now actually derive from a European fitness trend called “primitive gymnastics” developed by a Danish Nazi sympathizer named Neils Bukh. The exercises fit right in with hatha yoga, and the revolutionaries used this advantage to escape the attention of British authorities.

Meanwhile in America, women like Genevieve Stebbins had been teaching similar movement and rhythmic breathing exercises. The ideas and practices that Stebbins taught did not originate in India at all, but with a combination of the theories of French drama teacher Francois Delsarte with her own esoteric spiritualism.

Though he introduced yoga to America, Vivekananda did not establish any schools there. That did not happen until 1919, when Yogendra Mastamani began teaching hatha yoga in New York. Throughout the next few decades, various yoga teachers like Maharishi Mahesh (famous for hanging out with the Beatles and for the Transcendental Meditation technique espoused by director David Lynch) gained notoriety.

Now you can find yoga classes practically anywhere. Every time I go to the grocery or the doctor's office, I find magazines with people performing yoga asanas. You can find classes in yoga for wealth, yoga for weight loss, yoga for runners, yoga for weak knees, etc. One wonders how all of these methods are called yoga and what they have in common with Krishna's message in the Gita.

Don't just take my word on it - I've barely scratched the surface. However, I hope I've provided a good starting point. Take a class, read a book, or just follow a few of the links I've provided. More importantly, be open and don't ever brush off anything as nonsense because it doesn't do for you what other people claim it does for them. But don't go thinking that you're a more spiritual person, either, just because you've bought all sorts of yoga gear and attend classes - the lessons of yoga extend further than the mat.

Resources and Further Reading:

on yoga:
Mark Singleton "Yoga's Greater Truth"
Georg Feuerstein "A Short History of Yoga"
8 Limbs of Yoga at iloveindia.com
An introduction to the Bhagavad Gita at bhagavad-gita.org
Patanjali's Eight-fold Path of Yoga by Sherry Roberts
The Five Niyamas of Yoga at yogabasics.com
Yama at iloveindia.com
Genevieve Stebbins at historyoftheadepts.com
"Yoga As We Know It" at Fencing Bear at Prayer
"Yoga's Twisted History" at mindful.org

on gymnastics:
History of Gymnastics at isport
Gymnastics History at Iowa Health and Physical Readiness Alliance
History of Artistic Gymnastics at USA Gymnastics
Niels Bukh and Danish Gymnastics - A Dangerous Political Combination by Hans Bonde

and here's Swami Vivekananda's 1893 address to the Parliament of the World's Religions:

Be a Person!

2013-01-30T15:55:00.000-05:00

I really can not remember at all where I found this meme, but kudos to whoever made it and to Chris Rock for pointing out the idiocy of bandwagon thinking.

I think it's a great and natural kind of thing - to be in and to identify with a particular group - but not to allow that group identity to replace your own thoughts and feelings. Think! Explore your own feelings without judging them as good or bad or weird. Otherwise, you won't really get to know yourself or where you really fit in, will you?

Some Words from Philip K. Dick

2012-10-25T17:45:00.001-04:00

Philip K. Dick is one of the most influential names in science fiction. If you're unfamiliar with his name, it is unlikely that you are unfamiliar with his work. His stories have been made into major motion pictures like Blade Runner, Total Recall, Screamers, Paycheck, and Minority Report.

Check IMDb for a more extensive list.

I highly recommend that you read him. There are several collections available in print, and since many of his stories are very short, they are ideal for those times you're sitting on a bus or waiting in a doctor's office.

...and remember to check out and "like" my Facebook page for more graphics like this, and for various articles and news stories from around the web. I tend to focus on issues concerning the way that we perceive the universe as well as the way that the media shapes social realities. or something like that. Check it out!

Demystifying the Mystical - Language and The Master Who Makes the Grass Green

2012-10-22T13:25:00.000-04:00

One of my favorite authors, the polymath Robert Anton Wilson, used to discuss the koan: Who is the master who makes the grass green?

When I asked a friend this question, his logical response was chlorophyll. As we all have learned in elementary biology studies, chlorophyll is the essential element of photosynthesis by which plants absorb sunlight and convert the energy into a usable form. Without chlorophyll, grass would not appear green to us, so my friend's answer makes perfect sense. It is scientifically accurate. It is totally correct…and completely untrue.

At some disputed point in history, man became conscious in a much more profound way than any other animal known to us. Then mankind domesticated himself with language. Language is a system of substitution – I cannot transfer my direct experience of a chair to you, but I can use the symbols of written and spoken language to represent the thing that I experienced, and you will understand me. Even if I do not tell you that the chair I am experiencing is made of a wooden frame, surrounded by cotton padding, and covered in blue fabric, you can use your own experience to create your own mental image of a chair and know that I am experiencing something similar.

As I add details, you can form a more complete idea of my chair. But there is no way for you to experience my chair without coming to my house and sitting in it yourself. You can interpret my symbolic representation of my chair, thus creating a particular inner experience – though it is real, you are not experiencing the material reality. So far as you can know, my chair is imaginary. However, you trust that I know what a chair is and that the experience that I’m describing is reality because I’m talking about a common material object – it’s easy to accept that I have such a chair and that I am indeed sitting on it.

But am I truly experiencing it?

Do I experience the chair, or my impression of the chair? What I experience is an internal impression of an exchange with an object that I perceive outside of myself. However, my own experience of that chair is limited by my means of observation. I say that my chair is blue, but that blue I’m seeing is not my chair. Indeed, knowing the way that my eye functions, my brain interprets that my chair is blue because my chair reflects a particular frequency of light – truly, my chair is every color but blue. The chair that I see is my own brain’s interpretation of the frequencies of light that the chair reflects.

This issue of language as a substitution for experience doesn't really affect us adversely when we’re talking about things we consider “objective reality” – that is, the empirical facts that exist regardless of our own subjective, or individual, perception. My chair exists, I can experience it and so can you if you meet certain conditions; certainly you would not say that no chair exists simply because my chair is imaginary. If you were here with me, you could observe my chair firsthand, and your description would probably be similar to my own.

But when we begin to explore mysticism, we find that language presents different problems. I can talk about my chair, and you can reference your own experiences of various chairs to form a fairly clear idea of my chair. The subjective experience of a particular object is easy to recognize as a chair regardless of the form it takes because we have an understanding of a sort of archetypal chair, the characteristics of which are inherent in all chairs. But if I’m talking about a state of mind that I produced through a “mystical” practice, what experience of your own can you reference to know what I’m talking about? Take the Tao Te Ching, for example. The entire book is full of metaphors to define a single concept for which there is no means of knowing without experiencing.

The fact that most other people experience a similar impression of the same object does not mean that those qualities are inherent in the object itself – it means that your brain and my brain work similarly. Through language, we anchor states of being to objects – the chair is blue, the grass is green – simply because our impressions of those things are fairly static (green cannot be blue). It’s easier, more practical, and more efficient to accept the false statement that the grass is green.

These ontological issues are ancient. They are exactly the sort of thing addressed in Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” and his discussions of a “world of ideas.” Of course, Plato’s solution was that there was a sort of other plane of existence, accessible only by certain people (philosophers) through the power of reason, in which the ideal or archetypal forms of all things existed. Everything that we experience is a somewhat inexact or imperfect copy of some immaterial but tangible ideal. His advice, given in “The Republic”, was that society should train certain individuals to be philosophers and that those philosophers should rule as kings with their knowledge of the world of ideas. He wasn't the first or the last person to draw these sorts of conclusions, but that's not important at this moment.

Consider that language, in a very real way, gives shape to the way we experience the universe. It allows us to think abstractly; indeed through language, we transform concrete existence into abstract ideas. The modern brain assigns more meaning to those abstract ideas than the concrete reality; thus we generally define concrete reality through subjective belief rather than actually observing what is really there. Simultaneously, we use language to fool ourselves into thinking that the opposite is true. Language shapes consciousness - it structures the way that we think, thereby structuring the universe in which we live. We don't consciously experience the universe as it is; we experience the universe as we think it is.

Who is the Master who makes the grass green?

image courteousy of Jiri Hodan

Resources/Further Reading:

Plato: The Ideal State, The Dialectical Method, Educational Programs, The Cultivation of Morals

Plato and the Theory of Forms

Robert Anton Wilson
Robert Anton Wilson on E-Prime
Peter Russell on Language and Consciousness
"What's in a Word?" article from Newsweek Magazine via The Daily Beast

Demystifying the Mystical - Overcoming Stereotypes and Misconceptions

2012-10-01T21:13:00.000-04:00

Jacob's Ladder - William Blake

I don’t know exactly where to start – it would make sense to start with the very beginning of mysticism, but the truth is that no one can really put a date to it. It might make sense to begin with a definition, but even a definition is somewhat difficult because it is a broader term than one might think. I can turn my attention to what mysticism does, and even that might be somewhat difficult to describe in objective, pragmatic terms because of a befuddling plethora of traditions. Of course one of my main goals is to clear away all of the mystical, magical language and funny words associated with the subject so that anyone can understand what it’s all about. Greater minds than mine have attempted such introductions with the same goals – and have done a much better job than what I’m doing now – but both time and the volume of new information have put us back in the same situation as when these greater minds were at work. That is – gross misunderstanding and prejudgments made from ignorance prevent many people from taking a serious look at mysticism.

Be that as it may, ignorance isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it’s probably the very best place to begin. If that sounds strange to you, visit my previous post on ignorance to find my explanation. Otherwise, read on for an introductory glance at:

The roots of the word “mysticism”
The fundamental branches of mysticism
What mysticism is
What mysticism is not

So far as I can find, the words mystic, mysticism, and mystery derive from the Greek mystes, from the verb myein – “to shut” or “to conceal”. I’ve also found mystes defined as “one who is initiated” and as the root of the Greek mystikos, which is similarly defined. These words are closely tied to the so-called “Mystery Schools” or “Mystery Cults” of ancient Greece and Egypt. These schools dramatized the stories of the gods to divulge the mysteries to their initiates, who were sworn to secrecy. Any uninitiated person who may have observed the dramas would not have the same understanding as a mystikos, or initiate of the school.These themes of initiation and silence continue to this day, and the words mystery and mysticism still imply information that is knowable but concealed, secret, or yet to be understood. This isn't necessarily some profound arcane knowledge from some ancient tome or a mantra, but perhaps some principle that can not be communicated through words alone - a knowledge that comes from within oneself, through effort.

For now, just keep in mind that mysticism is not about looking for miracles, achieving instant results, bending the laws of physics or ignoring science in favor of “supernatural” explanations for things. Rather than escaping reality, it is about interacting with reality - through whatever means suit you - in order to know and express your deepest self. For millennia, certain individuals have used special methods for such self-development. The word “mystic” would be a proper term for those individuals and their methods, but only if we remove all of our modern connotations and prejudices from the word (and in doing so, expose those who would exploit it). The underlying theme of any true “mystical” tradition is primarily human transformation.

In The Tree of Life, Israel Regardie makes the case that the cultural and spiritual atrophy apparent in modern society are the direct result of a lack of communication with reality, and that mysticism is the only way to get us back on track. Some might say he’s a bit too idealistic or even moralistic in his ideas; nevertheless, his work has proven to be invaluable to more than myself as both a practical and academic resource. We may discuss him more in the future, but for now it is more important to note that in The Tree of Life, he also identified two branches of mysticism: Western magick and Eastern Yoga. As I write this, I can’t help but to wonder how Regardie would have classified shamanism, which (so far as we can tell) predates both magick and yoga. Perhaps shamanism is the common root shared by these branches, but my purpose here is to expose some of the common themes so that we may delve deeper into these subjects and learn how they affect our daily lives.

The word “shamanism” really describes the spiritual practices of a particular group of people in Northern Asia, but it’s become common to apply the term “shamanism” to a diverse collection of spiritual practices among various groups of people. “Shaman” has become a somewhat more politically correct way to say “medicine man” or “witch doctor.” The key elements here are that a shaman acts as an intermediary between humans and spirits for the good of his or her community. To do this, a shaman must access states of mind that allow him or her to interact with the spirits or the spirit world. Specific methodologies vary, but the common ideas are that a shaman enters different states of mind to interact with some normally unseen element of reality in order to help the community in some way.

It might surprise you if I told you that the Roman Catholic Church is one of (if not the) largest modern institution that currently practices ceremonial magick. The church, however, does not call it “magick” but mass, communion, sacrament, etc. to separate Church practice from Paganism, Satanism, superstition, and other un-Christian practice. Magick is now commonly spelled with a “k” specifically to distinguish it from spiritualism and “stage magic” performed for entertainment. That factor has done little to maintain its integrity and reputation, and interest in ritual or ceremonial magick is not usually something one shares with his or her “normal” neighbors and friends. In its simplest definition, magick is a means of causing change through the application of willpower. Building on that, a “magickal system” is a system of mnemonics in which every element of a particular working or ceremony is intended to focus your attention, imagination, and emotions. What’s important to note for my purposes here, is that magick is the form of mysticism that grew within and influenced the advancement of Western civilization.

Despite what your yoga instructor may have told you, those yoga positions you've been learning don’t have anything to do with ancient India. Most, if not all, of them were developed by a European guy within the last hundred years or so (if that far back). The oldest known writings about yoga are found in the Hindu Vedas, but there is reason to believe that yoga predates Hinduism. Most scholars divide yoga’s history into four distinct periods: Vedic, pre-classical, classical, and post-classical. The yoga practiced in your local gym has its roots in yoga’s post-classical period, but today’s yoga focuses primarily on only one or two of the eight aspects of classical yoga.

We’ll take a more detailed look at these topics in the near future; for now, let them sit in the back of your mind as you consider the differences between the East and West.

Contrary to popular belief and despite what I've said so far about magick, mysticism is not “magical thinking” nor is it denial of scientifically-tested phenomenon. It has nothing to do with Harry Potter or other fantasy, but it does require a degree of imagination and often draws upon mythology. Mysticism is a system (or a blanket term for such systems) of exerting one’s willpower to explore both inner and outer reality, of knowing oneself and learning about the universe. It is a system of interacting with and creating not only your experience of reality, but reality itself. This seems outlandishly fantastical when described in such broad terms, but it does not contradict “scientific” understanding nor is it something reserved for ascetic yogis, secluded monks, austere shamans, and mad men. It is not reserved for “goth” kids, vampires, Satanists, pagans, witches, “psychics” or the “New Age” movement. Nor is it even a wholly religious phenomenon – though it can be considered as the root of religion, one might say that contemporary religions are in a state of degradation because they have lost their mystical keys.

References/Further Reading:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

History of Philosophy at All-History.org

http://mysticisma.com/

Science and Mysticism in the 20th Century - Center for Sacred Sciences

Demystifying Mysticism - Ronda Larue

History of Yoga - Mark Singleton via Yoga Journal

A Short History of Yoga by Georg Fueurstein

History of Yoga @ ABC-of-Yoga.com

General Yoga Info @ American Yoga Association

What is Shamanism? @ Tengerism.org

Shamanism FAQ @ The Deoxyribonucleic Hyperdimension

The Tree of Life - Israel Regardie

Book 4 - Aleister Crowley

Online Etymology Dictionary

image courtesy of ibiblio.org

Poetry and Stuff

2012-09-11T00:27:00.000-04:00

I'm not really one for poetry. I still don't think I'm particularly good with words, either. But wife says me good word guy, so I pretend and type stuff.

ANYWAY, I was looking through some assignments on the Yahoo! Contributor Network over the summer and decided to take on a simple "summertime" poem. I've never attempted to write a poem on my own outside of school, so I thought it might be fun. Since summer is now ending, and it is my least popular submission to Y!CN, I thought I'd drag it out here and increase my embarrassment.

If you don't know me or don't know me well enough, I'll unequivocally state it here: I really fuckin hate the summer. I hate beaches, I hate the heat, I hate sweating without doing any work, I hate mowing my lawn in the heat every week. If I'm in the sun for too long (15 minutes is usually too long) then I burn, and that burn itches for days, weeks. I hate being itchy more than I hate sweating. Summer combines both of those; it's an eternity of perpetual damp, itchy misery.

"What Good Is Summer, Anyway?" is my tribute to how much I really hate the summer. It may have some redeeming qualities, but you're going to have to read the poem to find out.

On a side-note: please overlook the page layout. I don't have any control over that, so my content is partially wrapped around advertising space. You may see an ad, maybe you won't. But that's why it might look funny.

Why Is It Necessary to Demystify the Mystical?

2012-09-10T03:28:00.001-04:00

Let me begin by stating that this is a very incomplete thought. I typed the following words one night after staying awake much longer than I should have (a habit I have held longer than I can remember). Tonight, pain in my back makes comfort and sleep difficult, so I am currently awake at a time much later than I should be (I'm supposed to be waking up in about 4 hours).

But I've got a few things running through the back of my head - in an area of my mind of which I am conscious, but can not pull into consciousness. Somewhere behind the constant hum and chatter of my thoughts lie the machinery that creates those thoughts and its operator. When I attempt to pull the operator out of his work station - so that he may better discuss his work and the equipment at his disposal, to explain the inner workings and the mystery of it all - all I get are the hum and chatter which are the result of his operations. He speaks only when I am not awake, yet I can not share his words while I am asleep.

It is said by many in the scientific community that "Mystery is not the same as Mysticism" and I feel a deep need to combat that perspective which generates such statements, which I find - perhaps ironically - ignorant and wholly unscientific. A brief exploration of the origins of the word "mystery" immediately ties it to mysticism - it is not a coincidence that those words sound so alike.

In time, I will share much more about this misunderstood philosophy (or philosophies), which is more in line with my "pulling the operator away from his work station" than it is with superstition or using supernatural explanations to answer questions about the universe.

So why is it necessary to demystify the mystical? Many people have attempted this. Most of them remain inaccessible to the every-day person - due in part to that "scientific" bias I mentioned above, but also because the would-be interpreters have written their messages in too complex a manner. Their texts sometimes remain difficult to interpret because they are so dry, drag on for ages, and include too much of that "mystical" language. Others, much more modern in both lifetime and approach (and still almost certainly doomed to obscurity), aren't taken seriously because they openly experimented with drugs, anarchy, and humor. Some rely too much on the draw of the imagination and don't give a pragmatic, sure-footed person enough solid ground to tread.

So, I've decided that in the coming months, I'll attempt to "demystify the mystical" so that perhaps someone out there (who isn't me, who has never thought about the subject beyond a dictionary understanding) might gain a little bit of insight, a little bit of interest in what it's all about. I'm not here to share some deep understanding, or to show off some profound occult knowledge (what I know is more like a puddle, mosquitoes don't even bother breeding there) but perhaps to lead you through the door and into the parlor.

Now, what I intended to be a digression has become my caput literarum, and the thought that spurred me into action has become the digression. I will share it anyway because it, too, kept me from going to sleep one forgotten night until I took the time to type it. Like the rest of this post, it is flawed and unedited, appearing here in raw form, the hum and chatter of my operator at work behind a rusty old machine.

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

It makes sense that society as a whole should have a process of evolution or development that parallels that of an individual. It is written in our genetic code that first we are, then we are aware, then we move on to kinetic or motor awareness, and further on to more abstract cognition. Similarly, society as a whole has been moving through the same pattern. It is easy to dismiss the new age and yogic or mystical understanding of human development as imaginary or irrational. But when one strips away all of the archaic or mystical language, which is really a means of communicating the (previously) incommunicable, and apply a modern scientific and psychological approach, then one may more easily grasp the truth of the matter. Doing this, however, requires that one strip away all of the assumptions and prejudices about mysticism – which, if I may interject my own humble opinion, are really a form of brainwashing imposed upon the rational individual by an irrational social environment – and inspect evidence with scientific and logical discernment. That is not to say that all information is true…merely that one must remain open enough to change one’s opinion when appropriate evidence is presented.

I must draw attention to the perceived hierarchy of traditional mappings of the energy or consciousness centers of the human being – the chakras and the Kabbalistic Tree of Life for example. I do not wish to conjecture about the origins of these models, possible influences of one upon the other, nor any perceived correspondences between them. For now, let me say that the idea that any one chakra or sephira of these systems being any better, more evolved or god-like than any of the others is not entirely true. If it were so, then we would have much more limited models representing these systems (and truly, these models are limited in that they show only what we have mapped, or focused attention upon). Indeed, the yin-yang is the simplest and yet most profound (and yet imperfect) symbol for reality that I know. The hierarchical perspective and ranking of these individual elements corresponds more to the order in which they usually activate or begin to influence our consciousness than it corresponds to the way that they actually are. That is – we picture and rank them as a ladder or mountain slope which we climb on our divine mission to know God, but their essence is more of a radiation outward/inward from the very center of our being out/in to infinity.

This evolution or development ties closely with our physical development from a fertilized egg to the time of our death. As authors like Timothy Leary and Robert Anton Wilson discuss, as the physical body grows, certain hormonal centers are activated at particular stages of development in order to achieve specific biological functions. Socially, each culture recognizes these changes in a different way – often manifesting in various life-stages or rites of passage (ie: bar mitzvah, marriage, initiation or baptism).

Be a Good Customer, Get Better Customer Service

2012-09-06T12:21:00.001-04:00

My last post discussed the do-it-yourself attitude and an article that I published addressing some of the issues that occur regarding cable television service. Hopefully, that information will help you to determine when a problem is beyond your own abilities and when to call for a professional. But what should you do after you make that appointment?

In my experience as a cable guy, I found myself working through other problems created by customers that didn't really have anything to do with their cable service. So I published another article to show cable service customers how to Get Great Service by Being a Great Customer. The cable guy has his own etiquette for dealing with customers, but the customer should also have his or her own rules for dealing with professionals.

Most of this advice is applicable regardless of what type of professional you call - cable guy, electrician, landscaper - so my advice can and should be adapted for each type of appointment.

You may or may not know this, but many companies keep records of their customer interactions. If you are rude to a professional, he may make a notation on your account and the company may take any of your future complaints less seriously. If you have that technician's direct phone number, he will probably take longer to call you back. If the technician really did do something wrong, the company will defend him or her with more effort.

However, if you make a minimal effort to make a professional's job at your home easier, then he or she may be more willing to go the extra mile for you. This stuff is common sense for most folks - most people would probably consider it common courtesy. But too many folks expect too much from the professionals who work inside customer homes, and that's why I wrote this article.

Above all else, remember that even though you have (and deserve) certain expectations as a customer, the money you pay to a company for a service does not buy a person's dignity. A person may provide a service, but that does not make that person a servant. Sometimes a customer's frustrations get the better of them, and that's OK. It's just human nature. But if you find yourself in such a situation, and you still get great service from a professional - make sure that you pass that information on to the professional, his supervisor, or his company.

Cable Service Problems - What You Can Do, What You Shouldn't Do

2012-08-31T14:12:00.000-04:00

All of your F-connectors should look this good

I recently published an article - 5 Ways to Save Money by Avoiding Worthless Cable TV Fixes - to address some of the misconceptions that people have about cable service maintenance and repairs. I didn't write this article to show you how to avoid calling in a professional. Rather, it is a guide for avoiding typical DIY mistakes and for recognizing when a situation is beyond your own abilities to fix.

As a cable guy, one of my biggest pet peeves was the customer who thought that he knew what was causing his cable service problems. Worse yet was the customer who tried to fix things on his own. Yes - some problems can be fairly obvious, and it's good for you to point out your concerns. But troubleshooting is a methodical process, and your cable guy doesn't care about your uninformed guess - even if you're an engineer.

A do-it-yourself attitude is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, you can save yourself a lot of money by performing general maintenance and repairs that most people pay a professional to do. Conversely, a DIY attitude may lead a person to make mistakes and screw things up even more.

Sometimes mistakes are what I call happy mistakes (think: "taking the scenic route") and you wind up learning something even if you wasted some time and energy. Sometimes, though, you don't realize that you've made a mistake because some past experience lead you to believe something that just isn't true.

Why the Sparrow?

2012-07-27T13:09:00.000-04:00

You may have noticed the dedication at the bottom of this page and the profile image I use here and on Facebook, and perhaps the question popped into your head - "why the sparrow?"

The answer is fairly simple, though perhaps not obvious, and I'd like to take a moment to answer this question in brief.

The house sparrow, in particular and pictured above, is a survivor.

They tend to take over areas because they're so adaptable. Many folks consider them to be a pest, due in no small part to their habit of taking the nests of songbirds and also because a house sparrow can lay about 25 eggs in one summer (typically 5-6 at a time, with a very short incubation period). Most bird-watchers give them little notice and they are not protected by law from killing and abuse by people. In spite of this and harassment from some larger birds like crows, the house sparrow persists and flourishes.

They are found wherever people are found all over the globe - both on their own accord and by human introduction - and are quite communal themselves, tending to live in groups. One may identify the dominant male by the black feathers on his chest - the larger the patch, the higher his status. A peculiarity that I have observed - and I don't know if other birds do this - is that males often continue to feed young females after they have matured. While feeding the sparrows bits of bread from my lunch, I've noticed that a few females would often stand next to a male, open and tilt their wings forward, open their mouths, and twitter until the male obliges them with a portion of what he is eating. Each of these birds was capable of pecking up morsels on their own, but I think that this shows an ongoing relationship between the birds within a particular community. At some point, though, they stop sharing like this and can be observed literally taking larger bits of food from each other's mouths or snatching up any morsels dropped by another. I've often amused myself by watching this back-and-forth commotion while enjoying my own lunch.

This also exemplifies the relationship that the bird has with mankind. The house sparrow often relies on man-made structures for nesting. They gather in cities and suburbs and especially parking lots. Though they prefer certain types of grass seeds, they are opportunistic omnivores and will eat nearly anything that people leave behind. They are as resourceful as the highly-intelligent crows, though perhaps not as developed for problem-solving. But they are highly capable of adapting to their surroundings as necessary.

These little birds are also quite courageous. They will scatter when startled by sudden movement or noise, but have no qualms about getting close to people or other birds if a meal seems possible. This shows caution, but also a curious exploration of environment. Sparrows understand danger, but also that cautious exploration of frightening things may have great benefit.

The house sparrow is the champion of the common man, the triumph of the overlooked, the nobility of the nobody. The house sparrow shows that even a common little bird can make a place for itself. Often overlooked in favor of more colorful birds, the sparrow reminds us to be proud of our own talents and abilities and to use them to our advantage.

Just a Reminder -You can now find me on Facebook

2012-07-27T02:17:00.000-04:00

And that's where you'll find stuff that doesn't quite fit the blog here, like the image to the right. I'll be sharing things I find interesting from around the web as well as things I just don't feel that I can make into a blog-post. So check the Facebook page and be sure to "like" it!

Exercise in Kindness and Humility: Fanning the Embers of Chivalry

2012-06-18T01:44:00.002-04:00

“Not all of us can do great things. But we can do small things with great love.” - Mother Teresa

“The smallest act of kindness is worth more than the grandest intention.” - Oscar Wilde

As we walked across the parking lot, the skies promised rain. It was dark, but the evening was still relatively young. I don’t recall the reason for the trip, but when we were hanging out even doing nothing seemed to have purpose.

“Check out that van…”

“What the fuck is that? ‘The King James version is the only true bible’ Ha!”

“Yup. And the rapture is coming. Soon.”

The vehicle had been completely mummified with bumper-sticker slogans and bible verses. Since then, I’ve seen many like it. Some are more sophisticated than others, but they all stick out like a refrigerator in the woods. I was much younger, though, and this was my first encounter with such a specimen. We continued across the parking lot and through the double doors of the book store.

I don’t remember buying anything, but perhaps Mike did. We rarely bought anything. Too young or too broke (I don’t remember which) to go to a bar, this was one way we passed the time. The conversation is locked away in my subconscious, but we hovered around the “new age” section and commented on the books there. Just like internet forums and websites, you have to pick through a ton of garbage to find a scrap of something tasty. Most of the time, it’s just not worth the effort, but I guess that’s one of a few things I have in common with a crab.

Whatever we were talking about, we were into it pretty heavy when we stopped walking at the entryway to the store. We stood there in front of those big double doors when Mike said, “One of the greatest acts of kindness one can do for another is to hold the door open. Have you ever noticed that people tend toward an open door, even if the other doors are automatic? I like to think that’s what I do for people. I hold the door open.” And at this point, though he wasn’t exactly talking about the physical doors of a bookstore, he opened the door for someone to enter the store. “Some people thank you, some people walk past without even acknowledging you - as if they’re entitled. Some people will thank you without meaning it – you can tell if you look at their eyes.”

It hadn't occurred to me then, but the very first time I met Mike, he was holding the door open at our high school. He was there every day holding the door open for everyone. There was a particular rule there. Everyone must hold the door for the person behind – especially for a young man walking ahead of a lady. Mike saved us the trouble, and that door stayed open till everyone was inside.

It didn't take very long before people began to notice us standing there. Mike opened the door. I smoked, but somehow seemed to be getting some of the credit. I laughed about that for a minute before standing post at the other door. There were many thankful people. There were just as many ingrates. Some folks asked if we worked for the store, commenting that the store should be paying us. One young woman stopped to chat with us saying, “You’re single-handedly fanning the dying embers of chivalry.” That really had a nice ring to it. Mike particularly liked that. But we were just talking. Opening the door was easy. What else was there to do? The sky sent a light, misty rain to kiss our shoulders and hair with brume.

One character in particular became very interested in what we were doing. If he had walked out of the building, I don’t remember noticing. This sandy-haired, middle-aged man stopped to ask us what we were doing and why. He was congenial enough, and let us know that we were being very “Christian” in our random act of kindness. This guy owned the “Jesus van” we had spotted earlier. He had some sort of business to attend inside, but asked us if he could trust us with a radio for a short while. We didn’t have any plans, so we agreed, and he walked out to his vehicle to retrieve a small radio he had tuned to a particular Christian radio station. He left it with us, asking that we listen to the station he had tuned in, and walked back inside through the door Mike opened for him.

“What’s with this station? I’m not listening to this.”

“Well, we got a free radio now.”

Later, we spotted the man on his way out. “Oh, shit – what was that station again?” We laughed as Mike fumbled frantically with the dial, seeking out the original setting. We hadn’t really listened to it long enough to get the call signature or even recognize the programming. The man came outside, and we began to chat about God, religion, and the bible. After some time, he took his radio and his leave, and climbed into the Jesus van.

“Did he say that God forgot the Jews?”

“Yup. His chosen people…”

“People are weird…”

Perhaps we were talking to each other about this guy missing the point – of many things – when an older African-American man approached. We opened the doors and his features brightened. “Thank you! You know it really makes my day. I feel so important…two big guys opening the door for me like that, just to be nice. I feel like I should go play the lottery. I just feel that lucky – and I tell you, if I were to win, I’d come back here and share it with you, whatever I won. You know, they should have someone out here to open the door. These big companies don’t care about people…they just want you to come in and buy. But to have someone open the door like that – that just really shows that you care, that you took the time. Thank you.” And inside he went.

“Wow. I hope he picks up a lottery ticket…”

“Imagine what that guy must have lived through…he was definitely old enough to have experienced segregation…”

That exchange alone made our trip worthwhile, and it really hammered in the point Mike had made when we first stopped at the doors. To perform such a simple task for another person is very humbling – not because it makes the doer small, but because it makes the other so much greater. When the other person accepts this with gratitude, this acceptance acknowledges the greatness of both people. This is the heart of service, or the service of the heart: to acknowledge the greatness in other people as well as oneself.

Ignorance: It's a Good Thing

2012-05-21T22:03:00.000-04:00

“If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.” - Sir Francis Bacon

"I know one thing, that I know nothing" - Socrates

It seems counter-intuitive, but the state of ignorance is important to one's personal development.

How could that possibly make sense? My mind reels against the very idea - the very absurdity - in this, the "information age," where so much knowledge is readily available at the speed of the beasts that pull my chariot (modem, router, etc.) through the ethereal realms of knowledge - on safari, so to speak, to hunt down the big game and haul back the answers to life's big questions.

Ironically, ignorance is often misunderstood as being stupid or witless. It is true that ignorance can be a source of many troubles or mistakes. But is it ignorance as in a lack of knowledge, or is it ignorance as in the presupposition of knowledge (ignorance of the fact of one's ignorance) that gets us into trouble?

So how is it that ignorance should be important to one's personal development? The answer to the question is simply: all understanding and all experience begins in ignorance. To gain understanding, let go of presumption and belief. Make room for the truth; become ignorant and approach the world through the eyes of innocence.

Even when armed with the method of research - which is a skill, a tool, something of which we are born with the base elements (ie: our senses) which we must learn to refine and forge and hone - we should begin all inquiries in a state of ignorance.

The first card of the Tarot

This is the thought that lead me to begin reading about things like the Tarot. There are many people who believe in these things despite having little to no "scientific" evidence to back up the validity or the practice of such "occult sciences." On the other hand, many more people assume all sorts of things about the folks who practice such "superstitious" rituals - that they're hippies, Devil worshipers, wearing rose-colored glasses or have their heads in the clouds and so on. I'm not going into my own thoughts on that matter, nor will I attempt to persuade you toward one conclusion or another. But consider that The Fool is the first card in the Tarot (generally represented by zero). Alone or depending on its dignity (its relation to surrounding cards) it can signify great potential or opportunity...and what could possibly have more potential than complete ignorance?

If we presume to be certain of anything at all about something, we are prone to cloud our understanding of it and to start down other avenues of misinformation. But if we presume to know nothing before approaching and experiencing a thing, then we are open to the joy of transforming doubts into knowledge and understanding. Keeping oneself in a state of ignorance allows one to let go of presumptions and experience truth for what it is, rather than what one expects or wants it to be. It is ignorance that truly allows us to move forward and to learn, but one must choose to use ignorance in this way - to keep an open mind, unbiased by past experience or by the things that other people have taught you. I'm not saying that one should not endeavor to learn or forget all that one has learned, but to put Ignorance to use so that one may continue to learn.

John Hawkins is Not Worth a Grand / Exploring the Supposed Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives

2012-05-13T00:10:00.001-04:00

"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." - Voltaire

Be as Blind as Justice

So I ran across this article by John Hawkins, 7 Non-Political Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives. I don’t remember what I was looking for, but I found this article, read it and immediately remembered a critical thinking exercise from a class I took wherein we picked apart news columns (or by today's standards: the archaic version of blogs) to expose logical fallacies, poor reasoning and misleading information. Sorry, John, but your writing fit the bill perfectly, and I consider it a service to others that I should tear apart your article as an example of how too many “opinion leaders” exploit the ignorance of their readers - who, let’s face it, usually aren’t looking for compelling or persuasive information but for ideas that reinforce what they already think (see confirmation bias). Hence, most of Hawkins’ readers are conservatives looking for someone to justify their beliefs - and like any practiced entertainer, Hawkins gives his audience what they want (but not necessarily what they need).

If you don’t know, Hawkins runs rightwingnews.com and works on or contributes to several other sites. Somehow, he’s managed to interview some pretty famous conservatives and speaks at events for a fee of $1000 plus travel expenses. (I should be so lucky, LoL).

Before I get into this critique of Hawkins’ article, I’d like to make a few things clear:

While I do hold some liberal social views, I am generally more aligned with conservative ideas. I’m not attacking Hawkins’ personality – I’m sure he’s a nice guy acting on genuine sentiments and that he is of at least average intelligence. As a wise man once told me, “People are stupid, no matter who they are.” And that’s the truth. I'll give Mr. Hawkins credit for admitting that liberals and conservatives are more alike than different; but, if we truly want an informed society making decisions based on unbiased facts and upholding the Constitution through objective, nonpartisan interpretation and application of legislation so that We the People can move America forward and overcome our national difficulties, then we must learn to ignore tripe like this and hold our media to a higher standard. While Hawkins may be writing about those liberals and conservatives that are more politically active than your Average Joe, this article of his does nothing to bridge any of the gaps between these two political ideologies and serves more to create a misleading image of our political landscape. I won't accuse Hawkins of playing on the fantasies of his readers purposefully to expand his fan-base, but one must wonder.

Since this article postulates 7 themes, I’ll follow the same sort of format, but if you’d like to see exactly what Mr. Hawkins wrote, please direct yourself to his original article. Before getting into each of the 7 points, I’d like to point out Hawkins’ use of a straw-man argument to represent both liberals and conservatives (and he’s not by any means the only pundit guilty of this). When one reduces the makeup or viewpoint of such a broad entity to a single, simple generalized statement – well, it just becomes ridiculous and offensive to good sense as well as to those people who identify with such an ideological entity. Above all, it's just plain lazy and insulting to the intelligence of the reader.

Onward!

1. Conservatives are more Patriotic

Say that to any Democrat Veteran or those currently enlisted. There are some out there, and I’m sure they do not appreciate having their patriotism questioned.

Further, love of one's country is not equal to focusing one’s attention on only the positive aspects of one’s country. Would you urge a woman with an abusive boyfriend to stay with that boyfriend because he’s really good-looking, has a lot of money, and is hung like a horse? I doubt it. Loving one’s country should include the ability to evaluate that country’s policies and its impact on the rest of the world, and to seek to improve those things that are not positive. If a liberal seems to dislike the USA, it’s not necessarily a lack of patriotism but dissatisfaction with the impact our government is making at home and abroad. To attack the patriotism of another American citizen, especially one expressing their American rights to criticize government and to work toward changing government policy, is just plain ridiculous on its face. It’s a classic ad hominem logical fallacy, regardless of the source and target of the attack. Give us an example, Mr. Hawkins, and show us how his/her point of view is incorrect or un-patriotic. Do not attack the patriotism of another citizen, especially one that doesn't really exist.

2. It’s socially acceptable for liberals to lie about conservatives

Let’s get it straight: all people are capable of lying, and many of them do. People usually find it acceptable any time the lie supports what they already believe, liberal or otherwise. Take a look at this article by Michael Lind on salon.com for a few examples of lies told by conservatives.

3. Conservatives are results-oriented. Liberals are not.

I agree that any undertaking meant to make any sort of improvements should be measured by results, and abandoned if results are not made. But Hawkins offers no evidence whatsoever to back up this claim that conservatives are results-oriented – only another liberal straw-man to be burned and a pedestal for a conservatives straw man to stand upon. And btw, Hawkins, I don’t see any psychology degrees listed in your credentials – did I miss something? What is the basis for believing that liberals propose programs just to feel good about themselves? If conservatives are results-oriented, then please explain the general conservative stance on the war on drugs, for example. Again, show us an example, John Hawkins. Don't put the burden of proof on the reader - presenting proof is the job of the one presenting the argument! Lazy, lazy, lazy...

4. Conservatives care about the Constitution. Liberals don’t.

I agree with this statement when it comes to something like gun control. However, I find it inconsistent in consideration of several current topics as well as the Declaration of Independence that established the Spirit (and therefore the standard by which all legal policy within the United States should be judged) in which the Constitution was written.

The Declaration of Independence states clearly:

“all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”

Yet in general, those identifying themselves as conservatives would, for example, deny American citizens the right to marry or join in civil union with the consenting adult citizen of their choice. One argument for this blatant disregard for another person’s right to liberty and to pursue his/her own happiness is religious, and must therefore be ignored as our Constitution decrees. The other sensible argument is from a legal standpoint, in that the legal definition of marriage is union between man and woman. This argument is moot because we can change the legal definition of any legal term so that it aligns with the Constitutional rights of each and every American citizen. It is up to the people to look past our own emotions regarding these issues and to not be swayed by the emotional and religious rhetoric of those with political agendas. But the conservative (and the religiously-minded) traditionally chooses to ignore the Constitutional rights of others because it does not fit with the conservative moral worldview.

On a side note - if we really want to stimulate the economy, a good step would be legalizing gay marriage – imagine all those fabulous bridal registries!

5. Liberals are more misogynistic

A red herring, at best. Let me say this: liberal or conservative, men don’t get it. Any amount of misogyny is a bad thing; it’s absolutely absurd to argue that one side is “more” misogynistic than the other. I literally spit cranberry juice across the room when I read that statement. Anyone with a penis is prone to make a misogynist statement (ask my wife), but who is it that is trying to legislate misogyny? Take a look at this blog article on thenation.com: The Conservative War on Women's Sexuality.

6. Conservatives are happier

This is true, according to surveys performed by researchers. But correlation does not imply causation – happy people are not happy because they are conservatives, conservative people are not conservative because they are happy. Indeed, research has shown that genetics play a large part in happiness as well as other factors (see Are Stupid People Happier? and Psychologists Now Know What Makes People Happy).

However, even theories about differences in brain structure between liberals and conservatives are “best guesses” though research shows that liberals generally have a brain more developed toward decision-making whereas conservatives have a larger amygdala, which is more of an emotional center (see Liberal vs Conservative: Does the Difference Lie in the Brain?). Perhaps that sheds some light on why there's no arguing with conservatives and also begs the question: who is more fit to lead - someone more prone to emotional rationalization or someone who's brain can efficiently handle conflicting information?

Hawkins employs more of his amateur psychology here, and has even written an article specifically on this topic, but it all just paints a picture of a smug conservative in a life boat looking down on a liberal clinging to floating debris because he didn’t “earn” his own life boat because his liberal salary wouldn't permit him to buy a spot on the sinking ship nearer to the life boats. I mean they’re both Americans, off the same crashed ship… Why not reach out and share the life boat? Are conservatives happier just because they’re jerks? I’d rather be a decent human being, but I digress.

7. Conservatives are better Christians

Here we find Hawkins presenting a false dilemma – never mind the fact that the statement cannot be quantifiably measured nor has any bearing on a person’s personal ethics or choice of morality. Hawkins gives the liberal Christian two choices here – alter your beliefs to become compatible with liberalism, or tolerate liberal insults to your faith. The language he uses is a bit more disparaging (spare us the guilt trip! it doesn't validate your argument), but that's the gist.

Coincidence that there's a split down the middle?

This rigidity in thinking is primarily why I refuse to label myself a conservative. America is a land of religious (and other) freedom ("land of the free" ring a bell? a Liberty Bell, perhaps?). Many people seem to feel that this means Christian religious freedom – that if a law doesn’t conform to traditional Christian values, then we don’t have religious freedom. I say: keep your beliefs, don’t dilute them, but don’t impose them on other people who don’t share them – that’s religious freedom! If a law does not conform to your beliefs, but does not take away your freedom to have those beliefs, then you lose nothing. Not everyone shares your beliefs, just as you do not hold the same beliefs as everyone else. Why should a law take freedom from someone who wants it just because someone who does not exercise that freedom says no one should have it? Allowing that freedom to all citizens may open the doors for Christians, but they retain the right to choose not to cross that threshold. The Constitution is not a document created to preserve Christianity - that's the Church's job! Deal with it!

I encourage everyone to take a look at this list of fallacies and see how many you can apply to the things that you absorb every day. Just pick out a few that you'll remember easily, and it won't be difficult to find them written in the news papers, magazines, and TV shows you normally watch. If you don't want to do the work, suggest a blog or article to me, and I'll judge it by the same standards. If you don't need to think, I don't want to look for things to think about for you, LoL.

There was a time when the media was a means of disseminating information to be judged by rational minds - now it is the battleground in the fight for your mind. I do not leave myself out of this equation, but I'm not asking anyone to agree with me or adopt my opinions - just to arm yourself with knowledge and hone the critical thinking skills that have been all but weened out of our educational system. People are free to say what they want and to pander to whatever crowd they choose, but the media exploits the ignorant opinions of the people (deliberately or out of laziness - who am I to say at this time?) rather than letting people form their own opinions based on truthful, objective evidence. Question what you see- especially when you're looking at what you want to see.

This is my biggest problem with John Hawkins' article here. Rather than discuss issues or specific news-makers with the objective eye of reason, he panders to his audience by perpetuating a fantasy world (easiest way to make money and gain followers with a blog) and feeds the liberal/conservative stereotypes that are dividing this great nation and the ideological civil war that has been preventing us from seeing clearly. He does so with such juvenile characitures of these ideologies that it hurts my brain to imagine people buying into it.

Both sides have got to stop this nonsense. To explore that sentiment, it's funny to me that Hawkins mentions the positive impact of the USA (and the pride conservatives feel) through its participation in World Wars I and II. During that time period, who can remember anything at all of the differences between conservatives and liberals? This country united to work toward a common goal. Our troops on the front lines were not the only people who felt the impact of the fighting, we banded together at home, we suffered together. Why does that seem so impossible now, in our own time? It's not because anyone here is not patriotic. It's not because anyone here is unemployed. It's not because gay people want to get married. It's not because women want birth control to be covered by their medical insurance. It's not because the majority of us are not Christian.

So stop indulging yourself by staying in your comfort zone. Don't let your mind rot. Think! Be a Free Human Being! Occupy Your Self.

For a "tidier" version of this article, please see the version that Yahoo! published.

Nothing Is Sacred: Everything is a Product: Occupy Your Self

2012-04-29T22:33:00.000-04:00

"I claim that human mind or human society is not divided into watertight compartments called social, political and religious. All act and react upon one another"

- Mahatma Gandhi

"Your daily life is your temple and religion"

- Khalil Gibran, The Prophet

Things today aren't really that different than the feudal ages, except that now even our money is abstract. Someone else (a lord/company) owns the means of production (land/office/ factory) as well as the product (crops/cheeseburger/desk). We work for the owner in return for something we need (money, a scrap of paper with no inherent use or value or an imaginary number in the mind of a computer) so that we can trade it back to the owners-of-the-means-of-production for the very products we made. The shocking disproportion between the wealth of the owners-of-the-means-of-production and the rest of us is hidden from our eyes inside machines and left to the imagination to ponder.

Save money, live better -this is what the advertisements tell us (literally, from a Wal-Mart ad). It's a simple message, but it implies a lot more than it seems. It implies a kind of culture that we take for granted - culture that we've created, perhaps somnambulistically, in the name of societal advancement.

There was a time when we had to grow, raise, or make everything we needed. The industrial revolution did more than change the way we spent our days. It disconnected us from our products; indeed many of our modern products are abstract, intangible. Today, we are in many ways a little less grounded, a little less rooted in the earth - less based in reality than we used to be.

For example, the industrialization of our food supply, combined with business practices designed to increase profit while eliminating cost, ushered in a legion of food products made with ingredients not found occurring naturally. As a result, many foods are less nutritious or contain things that aren't really food at all: dyes, preservatives, things to prevent caking of powders, and a mysterious assortment of things we call "fillers." This discussion could go on at length, but my purpose here is not to discuss the food we eat here in the "civilized" world. Suffice to say that I do not believe that the material nutrients in our food are everything that we need to ingest to be healthy and that the industrialized processing and manufacture of our foodstuffs dilutes other essential elements.

So what am I getting at here? What we think of as an advanced society - ours, namely, as opposed to what we would call a third-world country - is a society totally dependent on big business to provide us with all that we need. Further, we can't just have these necessities; we have to pay for them. But since we cannot barter with goods and services that we can make ourselves or readily supply, we must work for big business (or start our own) to earn money. Basically, we have to earn our right to life or scrape a short, miserable life on the street.

It's always about the bottom line. I need to eat; you need to eat. So I've got something to sell you in the name of whoever is willing to take my life in return for numbers in an electronic bank account which transfers back and forth between us, the majority of those numbers winding up in the bank accounts of a few. Somehow, some people wind up being excluded from the exchange altogether or get weeded out, while others seem to grow regardless of the economic conditions. Being weeded out of society like this is feared like a death sentence, but business is conducted on cold facts. It's all about numbers, about bringing in the most money and eliminating all obstructions to the sole goal of profit. Everything else a business does comes second, and is always undertaken to increase visibility and improve reputation in order to make more money. That's the major function of typical public relations.

We have to sell. We have to eat. So we have to buy. Keep those bank accounts fluctuating. It just seems so weird to me. Why do we need to pass the money around? Without the money, we starve. Don't we all have an inalienable right to life? It doesn't make sense for these conservative, religious business types to be pro-life when all of their choices are based on the bottom line, lifeless numbers, instead of human right to life. Many folks might ask one another, "Where did we go wrong? Something is not right," and what I observe in the media (even when it's not an election year) is a lot of finger-pointing. My question instead is "Why do we continue to go wrong?"

If there is any one universal law that applies to everyone everywhere in this world, it is simply: every action has consequences (a reaction). I have known many people from all walks of life and who come from all parts of the world. I have known brave people, opinionated people, educated people, stupid people, serious people, ignorant people, etc. - but I cannot say that many (if any) of them were bad people. We all seem to want, for the most part, the same basic things - a home, a family, safety, justice, and some sense of order. For some reason, though, we are selective when sharing these values. We preach love to our religious communities, but we turn around and treat strangers poorly or without consideration. I don't mean that you have to love everyone or get along with everyone - only that we should be objective in the application of our values. If it can't be applied to every person in every situation, it should not be valued or used as a means to navigate a free and egalitarian society.

The final impact of this industrialized mechanization, this commercialization of our culture is to have dehumanized all of those people that we do not know personally. Why do so many things seem to be going wrong? I believe it is because we all continue to do wrong. Take those values that we all seem to share - love, equality, justice, peace, respect, family, etc. - and make your behavior and decisions in all aspects of your life reflect them. Even the smallest action you take - driving, standing in line at your favorite burger joint, talking on your phone in a public space, etc. - has consequences. Make your own actions such that you are willing to accept all of the consequences as if they will affect you personally, persist with all of your being, and watch the world change.

Out in Nature or Within Nature?

2012-04-22T20:17:00.000-04:00

"There is pleasure in the pathless woods,

There is a rapture on the lonely shore,

There is society, where none intrudes,

By the deep sea, and music in its roar:

I love not man the less, but Nature more,

From these our interviews, in which I steal

From all I may be, or have been before,

To mingle with the Universe, and feel

What I can ne'er express, yet cannot all conceal."

LORD BYRON, Childe Harold

I often run across folks who say that they learn much from Nature and that they often like to take time to be outside in Nature with the plants and the animals.
I agree with that - very much so. My happiest jobs have been those which required me to be outside in the night and day and every type of weather. I love being among the elements, and getting my hands dirty.

But my appreciation and communication with Nature does not end at my front door or at the parking lot (or whatever else we use to mark the border between Nature and man's dominion). I like to keep in mind that man is a part of Nature. We are not some separate thing or unnatural in any way. We might do things that destroy our environment, etc. but those are all in the nature of man - just as it is in the nature of man to recognize, ponder, and change these things.

The elements that make up the oak tree in my yard and the dirt where its roots reside are the same elements that make up me and the armchair I sit in. Within my house, I have put Nature into an order that I deem fit for myself to occupy, but the imposition of my order does not mean it is not Nature and not of Nature's order.

Sometimes, I think that's what I love about cats and my cats in particular. My cats are my reminders that just as they live within my order, so do I live within Nature. They are my tribute to all that is wild and natural, and I honor Nature by caring for them. But I never forget that if I had been born to be 3 inches tall...my cats would not hesitate to bat me around, eat my head, and leave the remains in Nature's slipper...

Deviled Eggs

2012-04-09T01:46:00.002-04:00

This story, or a similar version of it, was also published by Yahoo! here.

When I was growing up in my parents' house, my brother and I shared a bedroom. Our bedroom was the only one on the second floor, apart from the adjacent walk-in attic. Even today (or perhaps especially today), as my brother still lives in that room, it seems like its own space, hidden within and apart from that old house. When it's quiet, you can't really be too sure what is going on up there.

The entrance to this world apart is in the kitchen (a fact of which we often took advantage, and my brother to this day) right next to the oven, and if one did not know any better, he or she might mistake the entrance for some closet or pantry. In fact, the door opens to a set of stairs that ascend, turn 90 degrees to the right and continue up, as if to mimic the stairs directly below which lead from the back door of the house directly into the kitchen.

Now, I wouldn't say that I was ever a bad kid. In fact, most folks would remark to my mother that my brother and I were quiet, well-behaved, smart, and big for our age. But we were mischievous, and often kept life interesting for our parents.

One evening, my father returned from a trip to the grocery store with all sorts of the usual. My mother was getting us ready for bed as my father transferred the groceries from bags to cabinets. When he was finished and we were in bed, my parents decided to spend some time watching TV together on the opposite end of the house. That house has a rather open construction in that the kitchen at the back of the house opens to a dining room, which opens into another sort of parlor. In that room is a door, and on the other side of that door is a room that at one time was the front porch. For all practical purposes it is now a living room, but because it is rather narrow and still completely surrounded by windows, we have always called it "the porch."

Though the open organization of these rooms allows one to see from the front of the house to the very back of the house from the doorway of the porch, the seating arrangements make it impossible to be visually aware of what is happening in the rest of the house. Further, the entrance to our second-floor bedroom stood around a corner so that one cannot see it from the porch. And that is where my parents sat unaware that I was turning in my bed unable to fall asleep. My brother was just five feet away lying parallel to my position, and we'd often talk at night or I'd tell him all sorts of stories that I improvised for his entertainment. But that night, he was snoring away and I was alone in the darkness with nothing to do but look at the shadows made by the encroaching moonlight.

By this time, I had learned which of the stairs made creaking noises, and I could use the railings along the stairs to lift myself over most of them anyway, lowering myself gently in such a way that even if I did set foot upon a squeaky stair, I knew exactly how to step on it without making any noise (now they almost all creak, but stealth hardly ever seems necessary).

Despite my sneakiness, I would not say that I was a sneaky child. It did have its uses for when I did not want to be noticed. But primarily, I picked up certain habits because I did not want to bother anyone else. The creaking of the stairs annoyed me, so I thought that it must annoy other people and decided to try to avoid it. It was a game to me, like one might play at "avoiding the hot lava" and I became very good at it.

Now I stood alone in the kitchen. The only visible lights to be seen were a dim lamp in the kitchen that provided enough light so that one might walk from the kitchen to the porch (or vice versa) without banging into any furniture, and the faint bluish glow from the TV visible past the doorway to the porch.

To this day, I do not know why I decided to go downstairs. I did not have any particular goal in mind, and really, if I had gone to join my parents they probably would have let me watch TV with them until I fell asleep leaning against one of them on the couch.

But I stood silently alone in the gloom. And as my eyes scanned the room, they fell upon the single item my father had neglected to put away - a dozen eggs. I can not tell you why I decided to take them...just a few at a time so as not to arouse immediate suspicion...or what I planned to do with them. I had no plan to speak of. But I took them, and crept silently back up the stairs.

There slept my brother, zipped up in his footie pajamas and tucked to the neck in his blankets, the moonlight gently caressing his fine blonde hair through the nearby window which stood between our beds. I wondered just how soundly he was sleeping and if he might decide to turn about in his bed. So, I laid my haul down on my bed, selected a few, arranged them neatly around my brother, and waited to see if his movement would crack them. It was an experiment. I wanted to see if he would crack the eggs in his sleep, and if that cracking would wake him.

He did not move.

Obviously, I was going about this the wrong way. I removed a few of those eggs and unzipped his pajamas. They slid easily inside. He did not wake. He did not move. The eggs would not crack.

I looked for the lumps formed in his pajamas by the eggs and squeezed. One by one, slowly, the eggs cracked. My brother did not wake. This was getting interesting.

I cracked eggs all around him now. And when he did not stir, I went so far as to lift his head from his pillow and place an egg underneath. Even this did not wake him, and I was amazed. But all this sticky wetness did not go unnoticed, and eventually he began to stir. I was out of eggs by this point, and at his first movement, I dove into my own bed and pulled the blankets up to my chin.

My brother woke up.

Confused.

He made his way downstairs and found our parents. When my mother tells this story, she says that when he appeared from the darkness, she immediately thought "Oh my God! Billy got sick!"

She took him in for a bath without inspecting his pajamas or really bothering to inspect much of anything, thinking that despite a lack of fever or any other symptoms he had just vomited in bed.

I lay still, eyes closed, blankets up to my neck. I could see the lights turn on through my eyelids and I thought "Well, this is it..."

But my father, thinking that my brother had simply been sick, grabbed the blankets without a second thought and replaced them with fresh ones. It was late by now, and he just wanted to get Bill back to bed and climb into his own.

I pretended to be asleep until I finally fell asleep.

Because I had fun and did not get caught, I decided to push my luck the next night.

Somehow neither of my parents seemed to take note that a dozen eggs were missing, or at the very least did not put it together - how could they suspect anything else? I had been asleep the whole time, and my brother had merely gotten sick.

I proceeded this night as I had the previous, but this time I had the specific intention in mind. My goal was set, and the plan was already in place. My parents had put us to bed and were watching TV on the porch...just as I had expected. My brother lay asleep in his footie pajamas and just as soundly as ever.

My brother awoke, confused and sticky. My mother proclaimed, "Oh my God! It happened again! We should make a doctor's appointment..."

But this time, as she undressed him for the bath, my mother began to find the egg shells inside his pajamas...

Likewise, as my father loaded the blankets into the washing machine, things did not seem to be as they were...

And a quick check revealed that many of the eggs he had bought the previous evening were missing...

I was in bed, tucked to my neck, and upon closer inspection - obviously feigning sleep...

My father has never been easy to anger, and I can recall only two or three times that he ever spanked me. This was one of them. I think I got ten strikes across the backside.

As he rendered punishment, my father asked, "Why did you do it?"

Without any other answer coming to mind, I tearfully replied, "The Devil told me to do it!"

My father, being the reasonable man he is, then asked me, "Well, if you knew it was the Devil...Then why did you listen?"

I still have no answer for that question, except that if I hadn't we would not have that story to tell.

And Justice For All: Santorum's Dogma Has No Place in U.S. Politics

2012-03-16T01:02:00.000-04:00

Why is it that Fox News is always talking about the "Liberal Media" as if Fox News is both bipartisan and not part of the Media? It doesn't make sense.

Not to rant about Rick Santorum, but here is the very reason I sincerely hope that his (and anyone else of like mind) political career ends soon: the very fact that his platform includes the religious, "moral" agenda of preventing gay marriage.

I know that so far, I've talked a lot about civil issues relating to homosexuality, but the fact that homosexuality and the issue of homosexuals' rights regarding marriage - or anything else that they do - is both perplexing and troubling to me. It just doesn't make sense.

For instance - the Constitution proclaims that our government will not make any law respecting any religion. We can not regulate legal marriages based on a personal preference. The various religions can, however, regulate marriages based on religious law. But a religion has NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to regulate a union that falls outside the bounds of that religion's law (which extends only to those people who follow that religion). A church can excommunicate or otherwise disavow or disapprove same-sex couples wishing to be married, but it has no legal right to mandate legal marital laws for the citizens of this country. Define marriage however you want - no morality has the right to deny two people of being recognized as a joined couple for legal purposes.

Further, for the laws of the country to recognize the validity of a religious teaching on morality, would be to set the precedent for the Constitution to be altered to fit the moral dogma of any religion. When we cross that line, we are taking a step away from Democracy and opening the door for all of the evils from which we seem to be convinced we are liberating people in other countries.

Here is a bit of morality for Santorum: every individual is different, but every individual is capable of love, integrity, morality. We have no legal or ethical right to deny another human being the freedom to express these characteristics in the way that they choose...so long as they are not getting in the way of another individual's rights to do the same. That is a morality that transcends religious dogma and adheres to the Spirit in which this great nation was founded. That Spirit itself is the Constitution of the USA, anything opposing it is not American, and I, for one, want an American to be President.

A Cracker Is Just a Cracker, But An Idea Applied to a Cracker...

2012-02-21T23:00:00.000-05:00

The inner experience of reality is just as valid as the perceived outer experience. To try to understand reality only in terms of what one finds "outside" of one's mind is a denial of oneself and a step away from understanding the whole. If you can't get a grip on yourself, how can you hope to get a grip on the outer world your-self is experiencing?

Imagination is not apart from reality, imagination is a part of reality.

Anyone who's played sports has probably had a coach tell them something like "just breathe, relax, and picture your shot going in."

I don't think that belief in deities is much different. Maybe they really are all existing only in our minds. It can be sad to think about it like that.

But I don't think that makes them any less real, valid, or useful.

Which is one reason that P.Z. Myers' desecration of the Eucharist pisses me off.

Is that "cracker" really a piece of God? Well, yes, in a kind of literal, cosmic understanding. But no, not really, for the cold, objective reality of it. Or at least scientific discovery has yet to show us otherwise.

But the experience of it as such is totally real. The "cracker" and the act of consuming it are outward expressions of inner realities.

However, the same can be said of its desecration.

I think that science, psychology, and religion are very much a part of one another and that inner and outer realities are intertwined in a way that most people don't understand. I think that Paganism, Occult Metaphysics, and New-Ageism helps many of us bridge that perceived gap between them. Though there is a lot of information coming from "the lunatic fringe," that discredits serious study and application, causing many people to ignore these and similar perspectives.

That being said, I feel sometimes that I haven't really made up my mind on the subject of deity or deities. I've considered myself to be an agnostic for years and like to think of myself as skeptical although some experience and my deeper feelings tell me otherwise. I guess you could say I believe that they are real forces of nature, but perhaps only so much as we allow them to exist within ourselves. Opening up can be the hardest (and most frightening) thing when only what you can physically touch is all you think you can know.

I don't worship any particular deity, though I do occasionally eat a hot dog on a Friday, as suggested by the Principia Discordia. Meditating on the examples of compassion provided by Krishna, Jesus, and his mother Mary (whom I consider a deity, and to whom my grandmother was especially devoted - which has been a strong influence on my life upon becoming aware) helps me to make my life into a sort of worship. So that whatever it is I am doing, I try to do it with unconditional love. As Khalil Gibran said, "Your life is your temple and your religion."

It is difficult, and I falter. But it is love that sustains me, reaches down into whatever dark hole I've receded into, lifts me up, and makes me whole again.

I know that sounds greeting-card ridiculous.

But it is a very serious thing, and we have been conditioned to separate ourselves from ourselves and to not think about things like this in an open and honest kind of way. Being "cool" or "mature" or "realistic" or even religiously dogmatic (and not necessarily about religion) has lead us to live lives that are far from the ideals that we all espouse and accuse each other of not following. All of that finger pointing just distracts us from ourselves further, allowing us to slander and kill each other over beliefs and the perceived wrong-doings of others, and creating all sorts of dis-ease that begins in the mind and eventually manifests in our bodies (both individual and social).

I don't think that it matters how you reach this conclusion, but until we all do, mankind will not evolve and we will be just like insects crawling on the face of the earth - consuming incessantly, fighting over territory, devouring each other for the sake of our own perceived colony, and missing out on the big picture

As above, So below

See Myers' post at Pharyngula to read him missing the point for yourself

Is a "Golden Age" Even Possible?

2012-01-18T01:32:00.000-05:00

I am here

To tell you all that you are idiots.

I've been on this planet for some 30 odd years, and it certainly has been odd. I’ve seen blowjobs make major political news and banks squander away the livelihoods of Americans. No one can be patriotic these days without wondering what happened to the country they grew up in, and every generation hearkens back to a golden age when things were better for everyone. Sometimes it seems difficult to believe that any later generation will have any chance to enjoy two weeks of vacation and health insurance, let alone retirement or a shrinking national debt.

"So why am I an idiot?"

This is my "pondering" face

Because you let it happen, you dumb bastard! It is the American way, or at least we have let it become so. Pass the buck on to someone else, usually (these days) a generation that hasn’t been born yet. Our “democratic-republican” way of life has lead us astray.

When our country was founded, it was under the assumption that all of our citizens would remain as patriotic and involved as our founding fathers were, and that was a stupid assumption. Our “founding fathers” are icons, myths, and legends that we have created from romantic memories of days gone by. They were men of great stature, land-owners (which means something much different today than it meant then), and of great financial worth (by the day’s standards). Our founding fathers were a rather close-knit group of men with common financial interests who happened to share a philosophy. We have kept their ideals, but we have fallen far from their methods. The public is mislead by media focus on individual celebrity politicians and manufactured controversy while all sorts of madness goes on at local levels - where the politics are almost unseen and the consequences so ubiquitous that ordinary people don't notice until things get really bad.

The decision-makers of today's America may still be a close-knit group of citizens, but they seem to me to be mostly out-of-touch with the pulse of the people...both ideologically as well as in more immediately recognizable physical contexts.

I believe that the potential for a "Golden Age" exists within the ideological structure - that's why I love this country - but our current political landscape has serious entropic leanings.

My fear is that the Spirit responsible for this nation has left its people and we are too stupid to realize it.

My hope is that We the People can reconnect with this Spirit, and work toward making this country into that ideal we've always hoped it could be, to the nation that we've always thought of it as.

Drinkability

2012-01-10T11:02:00.001-05:00

I just saw Jon Huntsman on CNN talking about how he has "electability" and it got me to thinking about Budweiser's "drinkability" ad campaign.

I always got a kick out of these ads, but not because they're funny.
It's because they go on about how Budweiser is "easy to drink" compared to other beers (which I do find funny). Bath water, urine, and bacon grease are all drinkable...and I think I would prefer them over any Budweiser beer. The point that Budweiser seems to be making is that you can choke down more of their beer, getting even drunker than you would if you had bought another brand of beer. Except they can't say that outright, so they've got to focus on the taste and how smooth the beer is...

But if Budweiser tastes so fucking great and is so drinkable, why don't they have a non-alcoholic brew?

I'll tell you.
No one drinks Budweiser for the taste. They drink it because:

It has alcohol in it
It's cheaper than many good beers, but a bit higher in quality than that off-brand stuff you sometimes find at some convenience stores
Its bland flavor appeals to a wider range of people
You can buy it pretty much anywhere
The cans have specific aerodynamic qualities that allow them to fly further out your pickup window, and make a lovely accent to the otherwise boring roadside scenery

Happy New Year

2011-12-31T22:40:00.002-05:00

This is the first annual drunken post.

I don't know about you, but I've spent my night so far reading about Tarot cards and watching Sesame Street movies with my wife while sipping on Southern Comfort and Coke.

This past year has been fairly lousy for me.

I lost two cousins within a couple months of each other while simultaneously losing my job. While I normally get sick just once or twice a year, this year I've been sick several times with bronchitis (and am now hacking and coughing, wheezing and rasping) as well as developing and passing a kidney stone.

But there are always many blessings to count among all this discord.

New years and new beginnings.
The scythe of Chronos sweeps by, cutting down all the old so that new may grow. It's the natural progression of life.

"the nature of will is to move from one point to another, and the nature of love is to move to one point from another, and both of these things not only require a change in the environment, but depend on such a change in order to have any meaning. If the aim of magick is “to cause Change in conformity with Will,” then it follows that the ultimate “purpose” of the physical world is to allow for the manifestation of such Change."

This is what the Baby New Year character was all about, if you even remember him, and why the Old Man or Death always accompanied him. We seem to be moving away from such easily identifiable universal symbols like this.

This is the inevitability of the physical meeting the promise of youth and the new.

At Voodoo initiations, even the Devil is present, because he represents another mask of the Divine that contributes to the progression of the Soul. I don't know why I felt the need to say that, but it is true. I believe in giving thanks where it is due. I also believe that not everything that we experience is wanted or deserved, but that through acceptance and non-attachment we can learn and benefit.

I am hoping to find plenty of change in the year coming.

Cultural revolutions seem to be happening all over the world right now - unfortunately many of them are violent. Here in the quiet comfort of my home, it seems like all I can do is send my thoughts to those who are suffering. But the level of consciousness seems to be growing, with much help from the electronic web by which these words reach you. If nothing else, it should serve to show that "where there is a WILL, there is a WAY" in that even where individual opinion is suppressed, the proper investment in willpower will lead to revelation and connection between individuals.

More than anything, let 2012 be a year of Love shining through.
That is my New Year's wish.

Through Love, let us find understanding and tolerance. Let the artificial boundaries of race, religion, and politics be transcended. Through Love, let solutions be realized.

Happy Repeal Day! Some Thoughts on Prohibitory Laws

2011-12-05T20:04:00.000-05:00

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."

This quotation is often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, but I have found that no one is 100% certain if he truly is the source. Regardless, I think that it is a powerful statement and remains applicable.

Today marks the 78th anniversary of the repeal of the 18th Amendment and the end of the era of Prohibition in the United States. If the Noble Experiment taught us anything, it is that legislative attempts to temper or cease certain human behaviors are unwise. Consumption of alcohol may be regulated with a degree of success, but ending alcohol consumption by making it illegal is impossible. In fact, history shows us that criminalizing alcohol created more problems than it solved by raising crime rates, overall drug use, and police budgets.

It is true that abuse of alcohol can have some pretty heavy consequences on a person's body, mind, family and social relations. But those consequences lie in the individual's treatment of the substance and not with the substance itself. When we accepted that truth about alcohol, we were able to move from a model of enforcement and punishment to one of treatment and prevention.

"The Prohibitionist must always be a person of no moral character; for he cannot even conceive of the possibility of a man capable of resisting temptation. Still more, he is so obsessed, like the savage, by the fear of the unknown, that he regards alcohol as a fetish, necessarily alluring and tyrannical." - Aleister Crowley, in Absinthe: The Green Goddess

Bearing these thoughts in mind, I wish to turn now to more modern dilemmas regarding man's appetites and how we regulate them.

For one thing, it has been said many times over that America is losing the war on drugs.

Why is that?

It is illegal to possess, manufacture, distribute, and use certain substances. The U.S. has spent billions of dollars seeking out illegal drugs, arresting and imprisoning offenders, and breaking up manufacturing organizations.

And still, more and more drugs make their way into the U.S.

The demand for them has not weakened one bit.

Maybe it's time that the general public reevaluates the way that it views illegal drugs.

I just think that if you try one thing over and over again for decades, attaining nothing but more frustrations and none of the results that you had aimed for, then maybe it's time for a complete overhaul of your method. Maybe you've got the wrong idea about the matter at hand to begin with.

In this same vein, I think we should reevaluate prostitution in the U.S. as well. It may be really odd, but hear me out on this one.

Prostitution is commonly called the world's oldest profession. And prostitutes have pretty much always been thought of as scum. By most folks.

But we still have prostitutes. Everywhere.

Sex is an animal instinct. It is a genetic necessity. It is one of the principal motivations for human behavior, and the source of many of our neuroses and anxieties.

Prostitution is blamed for breaking up families and spreading diseases and I don't know what else. But the fact is that prostitution is not something that is going to go away no matter how many hookers and johns we arrest.

So obviously, keeping prostitution illegal is not going to prevent it from spreading diseases. Nor does it help prostitutes to find lawful employment. But if we accept it as a relatively stress-free way for men who are not interested in relationships to engage in sexual activity and regulate it as they do in the Netherlands, I believe that we can minimize the damages that prostitution causes while possibly improving the lives of those people engaged in such activities.

We are not going to be able to change the appetites that a person has. Human beings are always going to want to get high on something. For some adrenaline does the trick, for others it's sex. Some people like beer and others prefer to smoke some grass. Each of these things has its good points and its bad points, and abuse of any of them will result in some unwanted consequences. But legislation that criminalizes these behaviors is not going to prevent people from seeking some kind of high. In fact, criminalizing these behaviors has prevented us from being able to control the consequences and minimize the damages caused by them.

Average Joe's Fashion Tips

2011-11-29T00:27:00.001-05:00

Let me begin by saying that I don't understand fashion at all. I think it's very weird that some people think of fashion as an art form. It's very difficult for me to imagine what it's like to care so much about how one looks to justify spending a lot of time and money on one's wardrobe. My own take on fashion is more pragmatic, and if it wasn't for my wife, I'd still be wearing clothes older than Justin Bieber. I'm happy as long as I'm warm in the winter, and everyone else should just be happy I'm not naked.

Minor Detail or Social Suicide?

So, my "fashion tip" is practical, easy, and cheap.
If your shoes are looking haggard, you're in a rush to get to a meeting, and you can't find the shoe polish you stole from your dad ten years ago...try Armor All.

My shoes are old and cheap. I dug them out of the deepest part of my closet to find that they had been beaten to hell by all of the other stuff that's been piled on top of them for the past few years.

On the bright side - they're basically made out of the same stuff used to make car interiors. So, while I didn't have any polish handy, I did have a container of Armor All wipes.

Look at that shine

In about a minute or so, my shoes were looking as good as new.
Probably even better than new.
I don't know. I can't remember when or where I bought them, and I haven't even worn them in at least a year.

But I'm married now, and am not allowed to look like "a hobo" anymore. There have been times when my wife has outright refused to leave the house with me until I changed clothes. Out in the world appearances mean much more than they really should, so it's necessary sometimes to know what costume to wear and how to look like you care when you really don't.

Exploring the Modern Crusade Against Homosexuality

2011-11-15T10:54:00.001-05:00

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34

It may be said that there are many ways in which Jesus brought the sword – even literally when one considers the violence of the crusades of the middle ages. In an often more subtle way, the philosophical crusades posed by evangelical movements apply that sword to the fabric of society, attempting to cut down the opposing viewpoints and establish the beliefs of a particular Christian sect as the social norm.

Most of these social crusades are relatively benign, though one may or may not agree with them or be willing to consider the message. Here I point to the Jehovah’s Witnesses as an example. Many of us have had a member of a local branch knock on our doors, offering information and asking questions about our own religious practices. I am regularly visited by these folks and find that they are generally pleasant, assertive (but not pushy), willing to answer any questions I might have and leave politely when they’ve made their point. They always invite me to read the Bible with them, but never condemn my own interpretation. Maybe it’s not the same for you, but that’s my experience.

However, there are more extreme crusades on the march here in the USA, and some of them are downright frightening both in the ignorance of their crusaders as well as in the hate behind their messages. The inspiration behind this post is my own reaction to those among us who use the Bible as a basis for denouncing, attacking and otherwise condemning homosexuals – Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas in particular – a self-described “Old School (or, Primitive) Baptist Church.” (see HERE)

Maybe I’ve been living under a rock to have missed some of the documentaries and news stories that have focused on them, but I finally became aware of their existence when I saw a video clip of someone interviewing their members picketing. After looking into them a little bit, I’ve been offended so much on so many levels that I just can’t let it go without saying something on the topic myself. The evangelical movement espoused by the Westoboro Baptist Church (WBC) is founded on the idea that God hates certain people. This idea is prominent in just the title of their official website (www.godhatesfags.com) let alone their picketing signs, which include the messages:

“GOD HATES FAGS, FAGS HATE GOD, AIDS CURES FAGS, THANK GOD FOR AIDS, FAGS BURN IN HELL, GOD IS NOT MOCKED, FAGS ARE NATURE FREAKS, GOD GAVE FAGS UP, NO SPECIAL LAWS FOR FAGS, FAGS DOOM NATIONS, THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS, FAG TROOPS, GOD BLEW UP THE TROOPS, GOD HATES AMERICA, AMERICA IS DOOMED, THE WORLD IS DOOMED.” (see HERE)

Not only do they believe that God hates homosexuals, but that God takes direct action against homosexuals and those who sympathize with them in the form of both natural (ie: AIDS, accidents/deaths caused by weather) and man-made (ie: acts of vandalism, bombings) disasters. The WBC views this as a modern Sodom-and-Gomorrah-style judgment by God upon those who break Biblical law.

But just how accurate can that be? And why is it that a Church using Old Testament scripture to justify their beliefs lists a seemingly anti-Semitic website among their sister sites?

Much of the basis for their homophobia derives from the often contradictory or ambiguous laws set forth by the God of the ancient Hebrews. For example, in Leviticus 19, God asks the Israelites to love their neighbors and to not seek revenge or bear a grudge (also to not wear clothes made of 2 different fabrics, plant 2 different types of seed in one field, or to have sex with a slave that has been promised to another man). But in the very next chapter, Leviticus 20, (and this is one of the big ones used by WBC and other bible-thumping homophobes) God lists homosexuality among offenses punishable by death. God goes on to tell the Israelites that He has set them aside, and that the nations that currently reside in the Promised Land are guilty of these offenses and will be cast out. Naturally, when your tribe is surrounded by large civilizations you aim to push out of a territory by force, it makes sense to condemn sexual activity that does not increase the population of one’s tribe, but I digress.

I find it odd that so many Christians and Christian ministers develop their own interpretations of the Torah without considering the ways in which the Jewish people interpret these ancient texts. Even among Hebrew scholars, there are disagreements on how homosexuality is interpreted and what was originally conveyed within the contexts of the time period. On his website, Rabbi Gershon Caudill, states

“…that the Hebrew word that orginally conveyed the concept of what we today refer to as "homosexual” is the word סריס (saris), commonly translated "eunuch.”
Simply put, homosexuality is defined as a man desiring another man for his sexual partner. In ancient times, a eunuch was chosen to guard the king's harem. The eunuch could be trusted to guard a king's harem, often because he had been castrated and could not produce offspring.... It is my contention that what the English translators thought of as a EUNUCH, in many cases, was what the ancient Israelites thought of as equal to what we today would call a homosexual. Who better to guard the harem than a man who has no sexual desire for a woman? A castrated man (the traditional eunuch) would still be capable of having the desire to have sex with the king’s wives...”

Further, Rabbi Jacob Milgrom, in an article [also posted on Rabbi Gershon Caudill’s site but originally appearing in Bible Review. 9 (6) (Dec. 1993)] states that

“…the prohibition is severely limited. First, it is addressed only to Israel, not to other nations. Second, compliance with this law is a condition for residing in the Holy Land, but is irrelevant outside it (see the closing exhortation, 18: 24-30). Third, it is limited to men; lesbianism is not prohibited. Thus it is incorrect to apply this prohibition on a universal scale.”

So we begin to see the Scripture as something of a living document, constantly being reinterpreted even by the religious tradition responsible for it.

“The fault of orthodoxy is that though it has a legal circle, it tends too often to act as though merely to be within the legal circle is enough (Schaeffer, p191)…It can only be beautiful if inside the legal circle we have a personal relationship which speaks of the personal God who is there” (Schaeffer, p192).

What personal God is there that tells us to intentionally sow the seeds of discord and willfully intrude on the funeral rites of someone like Matthew Shepard? The WBC proudly declares that it is the God of the Old Testament. They may claim that the Bible lacks any form of the phrase “God loves everyone,” but as I’ve mentioned above, the Bible does include God’s commands for his people to love their neighbors and to judge one’s neighbors fairly. Even if we take the Bible literally, should we do as God does, or should we do as God commands? The WBC's stance is fairly obvious if you take a look at their examples of God's hate and compare it to their own actions.

It is understandable that some people feel this way about homosexuality – it is indicative of a characteristic behavior of human beings. Individual accepted “norms” in socio-sexual roles are programmed into one’s personality by his or her “tribe” – that is, the group of people around them from birth who adhere to a shared set of customs, rituals, beliefs, etc. A human baby is born with the potential to learn and exhibit any number of ideas and behaviors, but learns sexual roles and behaviors from the people closest.

“There is one omni-purpose taboo which exists in every tribe. That taboo stipulates that sexuality shall not be unregulated by the tribe…Every tribe has its own set of verbots and thou-shalt-nots, but no tribe allows the individual to choose his or her own set” (Wilson, p126).

It is not my intent to open up the nature vs. nurture debate here in regard to homosexuality, although there is plenty of evidence of homosexual behavior occurring among a variety of animals. I merely wish to point out that the views held by folks like the WBC are not necessarily wholly the fault of the individual member of such a group. Despite my own acrimonious feelings toward these folks, I do feel sad for them in a sense. If we look at the social construct of the human tribe as a living organism, we see the same drive toward self-preservation that exists within the individual. Indeed, meme-theory views ideas as a sort of life-form in themselves, using their hosts to propagate themselves in the same manner that biological organisms spread their genetic code. The purpose of a society is not to create a well-balanced, self-possessed individual,

“but to create a semi-robot who mimics the society as closely as possible – both in its rational and its irrational aspects, both as the repository of the wisdom of the past and as the sum total of all the cruelties and stupidities of the past” (Wilson, p140).

Their minds have been abused by their tribe, and that abuse manifests itself in their public abuse of those who do not fit with their tribe’s take on reality, which is based, of course, on a very literal interpretation of a possible misinterpretation of the ancient religious texts of another tribe taken out of the context of the time period and geography and language in which they were written.

Hopefully, I’ve made my point clear by now. Having said that, let me now state that I am not a homosexual myself, nor do I consider myself a Christian although I respect the character of Jesus. If anything, in this context, I prefer to identify myself as a patriot attempting to use common sense and reason to defend the civil rights of other American citizens against the evils of ignorance and intolerance that would strip away the freedoms of expression and choice that should be enjoyed by all individuals. I do not believe that it is possible to use the sword to carve your ideas onto the heart of another individual – doing so only breeds resentment and hurts one’s cause. One must accept the other, forgive their faults, and communicate as equals in order to be accepted by another, forgiven for one’s faults, and listened to as an equal.

Sources and Acknowledgments:
All direct quotes are distinguished by text color.
Links to original source content are provided within my text where applicable.
Video clip found on YouTube but the original content was created by Brick Stone and can be found at http://godhatesbrickstone.com/
Information about WBC is quoted directly from their site http://www.godhatesfags.com/
Quoted Bible verses can be found at http://www.biblegateway.com/ - I used the New International Version
Printed Materials:
Schaeffer, Francis A. The God Who is There. 30th anniversary ed. Chicago, IL: InterVarsity Press. Sept. 16, 1998
Wilson, Robert Anton. Prometheus Rising. reprint ed. Tempe, AZ: New Falcon Publications. 2009
Sites For Further Reading:
Rabbi Gershon Caudill’s site, http://home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/index.html
Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality - article by Walter Wink
Web directory on Judaism @ www.bible-researcher.com
Homosexual Behavior in Animals - Wikipedia article
A Brief, Illustrated History of the Gay Rights Movement
GodSmacks - a WBC blog
Wikepedia article on WBC - contains lots of resources