Revisiting Bukowski (again).

Several years ago I wrote a post reviewing a documentary called Born Into This, which portrayed the life and times of Charles Bukowski. It was a movie that stuck with me, as I have a lot of interest in the author's work. I've said it before, but it bears repeating- Bukowski inspired me to try writing. He also made me appreciate poetry for the first time in my life. When I first got turned on to his books, I devoured any of his titles that I could find. And it was difficult to find them. There was something about the early '90s that made his words live especially vividly. Perhaps it was the growing rejection of the materialistic 80's. There was so much fakery and emptiness in that decade that made any form of authenticity seem fresh.

It takes a special form of genius to make an existence of degradation sparkle. Many of us in the "X-Generation" were taken with the seedy undercurrents of the street that Bukowski represented. In retrospect I feel that I received a precious gift by having come of age during the popular resurgence of "Hank Chinaski". I was able to enter almost complete dissolution without sacrificing the social ties that such a lifestyle usually precludes. It is true that I engaged in it all in a self-conscious way. I managed to avoid the kind of mistakes that allow no full recovery. Unlike many of the people I knew during that time, I emerged relatively unscathed. Yet I realize that "fate's caprice" had much to do with it. I can't accept all of the credit.

Last night I watched Born Into This once again. I've been showing selections from my DVD collection at a local bar every Sunday night. I was pleased to get the chance to share the story of a Twentieth Century icon with anyone who wanted to see it. Oddly, a couple of the folks who watched it with me are still unfamiliar with Bukowski's work. This fact seems a bit surreal to me given the role the great scribe has played in my life. How is it possible that I have old friends who I haven't shared this work with? These are people who are firmly placed in my demographic. How have they not found Bukowski on their own? I know we are in the midst of an illiterate era, but it seems odd that such an accessible writer would be ignored.

It could be that Charles Bukowski is becoming increasingly irrelevant with time, but I suspect that this is only a passing phase from which society will eventually awake. The hardscrabble times in front of us could spark the rediscovery of his genius. He knew the most visceral and simplest of pleasures. He celebrated them above all else. He was constantly on the lookout for phonies and poseurs. He could sniff them out as soon as they approached him, and he wasn't too shy to let them know their true quality. I could only hope to emulate his example. Certainly I would employ a greater degree of diplomacy. After all, I never took the kind of beatings that he did growing up. But I took my share of blows from the bitches of "fate".

I'm sure that Charles Bukowski would be turned off by some of the artifice I employ. He was, after all, an iconoclast. He seemed to have an unwavering conviction that he was right, and most others were wrong. I'm much more of a relativist than he was. My rejection of metaphor is not complete like his was. And in some strange way, I feel that Bukowski was a bit of a romantic at heart. He held tightly to his ideals, and was often uncompromising in a way that I can scarcely imagine being. Yet he could turn a phrase unlike anyone I have ever read. He could cut to the marrow of a special kind of squalid existence, and make even the idea of loneliness a bit appealing. In that respect he was a magician.

Thinking with my stomach.

This has been an almost excruciatingly long week, despite the fact that I did an awful lot of sleeping. My consciousness was especially tuned in to bodily function, in a way that it seldom is in this modern age. I guess to some degree I am more prepared at my age to pay attention to my physicality. Our bodies are, in a way, akin to the proverbial "canary in a coal mine". They often signal (or reflect) problems in our lives that we may not be actively addressing. Objectively I knew that I would become more aware of my physical health as I aged. This is certainly no shocking revelation. Anyone who has ever had living grandparents has probably been exposed to this reality. Things fall apart over time.

Still it is a bit astonishing just how quickly we gain information about our bodies as we age. I've done a lot of thinking recently about the idea of the "Achilles' Heel", or tragic flaw theory of mortality. Somewhere I heard that the seeds of our own destruction are already within us, even when we are feeling perfectly fine. That concept has poetic resonance. Perhaps we are all born with a number of potentially devastating genetic defects, and the environment selects the one that will kill us. Or maybe we do the choosing ourselves. I don't really care whether or not the trigger is external or not. There's just something useful about contemplating what our own burden might be.

I would expect that if you give it some honest and sincere thought, you could probably identify the part of your body where your life's stresses manifest themselves most acutely. Some people get migraine headaches, and no matter what they do they can't seem to alleviate them. They just have to suffer through. Others find their hearts racing, and quickly learn that they need to control their emotions, lest their pacemakers explode. There are folks that seem to get all twisted up when things go poorly. Their muscles get kinked and knotted. For each of the body's biosystems, there is no doubt a corresponding affliction which can let the careful observer know what emotional state the individual is experiencing.

It was obvious to me quite early in life that my own stress seems to accumulate in my stomach and digestive tract. If I am feeling a lot of pressures, or even "existential angst", I soon experience difficulties in digesting my food properly. The specific symptoms that pop up are a bit too viscerally disgusting to describe in detail, so I'll let your imagination be your guide. Perhaps if you are like me, and you often have similar problems, then you know the scope of the possibilities. If not, then you probably get a "stomachache" now and again, and leave it at that. The details aren't for you. Like Eskimos and their snow, some of us need an expanded language to express the nuances of these phenomena.

To have my digestive capabilities completely go haywire this past week was alarming. In a way that wouldn't be necessary if I got stress headaches, I began to think about how my lifestyle specifically affects my processing of food. I also thought a lot about the things I pick to put into my mouth without much thought. All of this may sound sort of pseudo-mystical to those of a purely scientific bent. But if you are able to, allow yourself some time to contemplate what your area of most profound vulnerability might be. Remember that there is always something that ultimately kills you. Whether or not you want to monitor that ongoing process is up to you. As for me, I can feel it in my gut.

The Sky Has Fallen... (or was that just the dollar?)

WE all know the American economy is suffering. Just how bad it's going to get is a question on everyone's mind. Turn on the news and see how long it takes for a reminder of our plight. Wait for the latest announcement of huge corporate layoffs. Listen to the terms "stimulus package" and "bail-out". Suffer through the poor attempts at poetry. Check out the Dow Jones Index. If you can make it to the end of the broadcast, kick back for the human interest story. Can they still put a happy face on their product? This is not your father's evening news (unless you are a senior citizen). The fear is palpable, no matter how well-coiffed the news anchor is. This is a bigger security story than "terrorism".

Great. Now you know the truth. We have dug ourselves a very deep hole, and it has widened into a chasm. People are gathered around its periphery, trying to determine if it will be less painful to skirt around the edges or simply dive in headfirst. There is a huge industry devoted to making sure your choice is the latter. Throw a penny into the darkness and find out when it hits bottom. Now try it with a dollar, or a trillion of them. There are hundreds of "experts" and talking heads trying to fathom the depths. Some are nearsighted, and some are the opposite. They will tell you their predictions. They will help you make an informed choice. Maybe they will push you into the darkness.

I know that the picture is far from rosy. It just seems that everyone is trying to outdo each other with their Cassandra calls. Are there going to be people dying in the streets? Will they be expiring from hunger or loss of blood? Will China or India overtake the United States and become the next superpower? Will Bin Laden proclaim his victory over the West? Will your ancestors rise out of their mouldering graves and remind you that they told you so? Will your children stare at you in mute accusation? Do they know that their destiny is one of panhandling and indentured servitude? What compromises will you have to make to feed your family, or pay your mortgage? Will you have to serve fries at McDonald's?

There's just not that much useful information available. Do you have any relatives that are old enough to remember what it was like to live during the Great Depression of the 30's? Don't you wish that you had taken the opportunity to have that little chat? Were you too busy laughing at their strange little habits? Was it the way they ate leftovers? Was it the fact that they never threw anything away? Who would live like that in a time of abundance? Maybe (in high school) you heard about what they had lived through, but it never seemed quite real enough for you, did it? What did it have to do with your life, and your grand prosperous future, and your free markets of infinite growth?

Perhaps it's time to turn off the television, and start thinking about how your life may change. It just may be a time for reassessment. What is it in your life that you cannot lose? I'm already starting to think about ways to ensure my (and my family's) well-being. And I've come to the conclusion that the corporate media isn't helping very much. It's alarmist, which probably reflects the reality of the situation, but they aren't offering much useful information. I've talked to my friends about the things they know well. I've looked at my lifestyle and thought about the things that would be possible to give up. The funny thing is that a lot of what I have cannot be depreciated along with the value of currency. I'm finding it enlightening to gain that perspective.

Speak of the Devil.

I've been thinking lately of the Devil. There are many names for what I am referring to and I'd like to make it clear exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not necessarily speaking of the "Anti-God" so present in the conception of many Christians. My subject here is not one who presides over a mystical place of eternal damnation featuring a "lake of fire". In fact I'm not interested in any "otherworldy phenomenon", but rather in the moral calculus of our own earthly existence. If something akin to "evil" exists, then there must somewhere live the embodiment of that quality, or at least the single individual that represents its greatest accumulation. This creature would be the best candidate for the position of "the Devil".

At heart I am a relativist. I tend to discount broad and sweeping terms, and the words "good" and "evil" are examples of the type that tend to create what I consider "false dichotomies". But perhaps they serve as useful shorthand for the effects that the actions of certain people have on others. Certainly many agree that someone like Adolf Hitler fits the common definition of "evil", regardless of the reality that the memory of his deeds are still honored by his philosophical heirs. Similarly, a majority of folks who are familiar with the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. consider him a paragon of "the good", yet there are still those who resent the things that he did to permanently change society.

Still there is likely a greater proportion of humanity that puts stock in these categorizations than rejects them. Some believe that "evil" and "good" exist outside the human mind in an objective sense, and work as external forces that possess people. They are somehow beyond the everyday decisions and actions that individuals choose. Others think that these are traits that manifest themselves in the "heart" and/or brain. Obviously this introduces a factor of subjectivity into the moral equation. Furthermore, there is a minority that views these things as more of an allegory. Maybe they aren't willing to commit to the absolute existence of "good" and "evil", but they find them useful labels in describing the choices that people make.

I think the best case for the existence of "evil" is the violation of consensuality. But that's not necessarily within the purview of this particular post, so I won't expand on it. Often "the Devil" takes the physical form of temptation. Someone who is a "bad influence" can be referred to as "the Devil". He/she may try to persuade the individual to do things that he/she believes that they should not do, even though they may want to. I see this as a cop-out. This type of externalization seems like a convenient justification for all manner of misbehavior. The desire to act out obviously manifests itself internally. If you don't have the desire to engage in whatever you define as "sin", then there's no reason to carry it out.

To me, the most intriguing form of "The Devil" is more of a poetic representation. This is an archetype that has found its expression in arts and letters. One notable embodiment of this specter is Dr. Faustus. This is "The Devil" that you make a deal with to get something at the expense of your soul. In this story, "The Devil" is a type of bogeyman who serves as the ultimate heavy in a cautionary tale. He makes you face the truth, and exposes what you are willing to give up to realize your most self-interested dreams. And for this he extracts a terrible price. In giving up the core of your ethics, you merge with "evil" itself. The game is over, and any distinctions melt away. You have become the symbol of your darkest urges.

What is "Informed Faith"?

One of the things I particularly enjoy and appreciate about my circle of friends (and I'm fortunate enough to have a wide circle of them) is the level of conversation that often occurs, even when we are all kicking back on a weekend night. This past Friday was specifically enlightening as our banter turned to the issue of faith. Given the turn our nation has taken over the last decade or so, faith is a concept that has increasingly assumed a level of pejorative association among certain quarters of society. The reactionary turning toward fundamentalism has turned a lot of people away from the idea. I suppose that this issue isn't specifically contained to the US, but has rather become an international crisis.

Taking into account that context, it's not surprising that someone I would respect would lump all forms of faith together under the same banner, and ridicule all and sundry adherents. Yet I think that this type of generalization can lead to a narrowing of an important dialog. I've come to believe in a wide variegation of attitudes, definitions, and approaches to faith. I've been trending this way for a while, but it's mostly been at a subconscious or an intuitive level. I have to give a shout-out here to J.C. Hallman and (as an extension) William James for helping lead me to the language necessary for framing my thoughts. Ultimately truth is a function of an individual's perspective of the consequences of his/her actions.

As a starting point I'd like to suggest that there is a simplistic but substantial difference between "Faith" and faith. The former entails the fundamentalist variety I mentioned earlier. In the case of "Faith", the individual formation of ideals isn't as important as the level of commitment one brings to them. One determines his/her "Faithfulness" according to how rarely (s)he questions his/her belief system. The individual earns his/her identity with acceptance bred from a revocation of rationality. In fact this is belief beyond reason (in a Kierkegaardian "leap of faith" sense). All of this is well understood and sounds almost cliché to the postmodern reader. I realize that I'm not expressing anything particularly revelatory by spelling this out.

But at the same time, those who embrace a form of pure rational scientific thought seem to be missing a crucial piece of the puzzle... for there is a level of faith involved in the paradigm of cause-and-effect as well. I believe that there are many people that never consciously acknowledge this proposition. The very nature of the empirical sciences entails a quality of mystery. We form our questions about our external reality, and then we seek to study them under certain controlled conditions to isolate a chain of causality. That's all well-and-good. However I think some folks tend to misrepresent the conclusions of such experiments as "ultimate answers".

Even if we have ample scientific data concerning specific phenomena, we still rely on a level of speculation that requires a degree of faith to help us guide our decisions. As soon as we anticipate a time beyond the present, we are unavoidably engaging in the practice of faith, no matter how informed (or alternatively misinformed) our expectations are. So I'm a bit uncomfortable when someone discounts faith outright. We may be able to apply a statistical analysis to a problem (and of course that system itself is vulnerable to a wide range of manipulations), but our understanding is still limited by the constructs of prior experience (and received preconceptions). Just as Eskimos have an expanded language to communicate the different forms of snow, I think we have to honor the idiosyncrasies of "faith".

A World of Our Own Devising.

Today I woke up in a strange state fueled by staying up past my bedtime last night. For some reason my left thumb felt jammed, as if it was jutting askew somehow while I slept. No doubt my mood was enhanced by whatever remnants of a sinus infection that remained with me. And then too, the dream I actually remember having was filled with tension, and my heart was racing for a good hour after I woke. I'm not in the habit of recalling the activities of my subconscious, especially those that originate in its most unfettered condition. Yet the images and the scenario rolling through overnight lingered like the afterimage of a flash bulb smack dab at the front of my brain.

In that dream I encountered a home invasion by some large creep that seemed familiar but was still wholly unrecognizable. He meant to kill me and I knew it. Different versions of the situation played themselves out one after another. Perhaps there was a large, sharp knife involved. I can say for a fact that I had the impression that this man was singularly demented. And each time it seemed I was rid of him, I had the feeling that he would be back. Of course, the dream state is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If someone were to make one pause in the middle of the narrative, it would be no problem making an easy prediction of what would happen once back in the REM state.

Somewhere in the recesses of my youth, someone told me that if you die in your dream, then you risk doing the same in your daily life. I suspect it may have been Wes Craven who got that canard to stick. Obviously- if that were true, there would be legions of people dying nightly in their sleep for no good apparent reason. Maybe I was suspicious of this Old Wives' tale for awhile, but eventually I resolved to test the theory. I must have figured a cliche would be the safest way to find out for sure. I took a header off of some high place and fell and fell, and then made myself hit the solid surface at the bottom of whatever descent I had chosen. All it did was end the dream. I don't know if I woke up right away.

So I've experienced death on both sides in my shadow existence. Yes, I've made it a point to kill someone in a dream as well. That's probably the most appropriate and effective way to exorcise psychic demons. I recommend that you try it one day. Just prepare yourself ahead of time to compartmentalize. Whatever reverberations that emanate from that kind of violence will manifest themselves very differently in waking hours. There's no need for excessive stress or guilt. You didn't do anything wrong, because you make your own laws while you are alone with your dreams. And if you decide later on that you acted hastily or in a presumptuous manner, you can always bring your victim back.

Ultimately it's a matter of perspective. People don't realize the extent of control that they actually have. Remember that you have the prerogative to define backwards. History is always a retrospective, and there is no compelling reason to constrain yourself with narrow definitions. There's no way to get around the fact that we don't get to construct all of our own rules in our consensual reality. However, that doesn't mean that you have to let anyone else dictate your experiences during that one third (or so) of your life when you are asleep. The monsters will inevitably visit you... they may take any disturbing form you are able to imagine, but remember that they are of your own creation.

A Comment About "Going Dark".

One thing I have tried to avoid on Serendipity is self-referential navel-gazing. After all, that path leads to a morass of post-modern ennui and irony. Yet after a long absence that has been the longest in the entire history of this blog, I feel a bit of an obligation to comment on the break. For an extended time I have been jarred from my everyday routine. Please don't imagine that this was a result of some tragedy or anxious upheaval. Actually it's been a lot of fun. But about a week ago I decided that it was more important to limit my obligations and impositions, and simply concentrate on direct experience for a bit. It took a lot for me to break my everyday pattern of writing and posting.

I still believe in the "examined life". As each night and day passed, there were plenty of topics and subjects I could have written about. I felt like I was letting people down by not stopping to put my reflections into words, but the truth is that such a feeling would never have compelled me to break my silence. Ultimately I do all of this for myself. So I had to decide to make the conscious effort to let things go. I even stopped taking my daily walks Whenever I felt pulled by caprice to redirect my attentions, I did so. It was a bit surprising to discover how much I resisted doing it. My habits have become so interwoven into my life that I often had the sensation of becoming completely unmoored.

Somehow the structure of this project has been simultaneously empowering and constricting. On one hand, I believe the organization of my thoughts has made me much more effective in accomplishing my goals. Yet I know that I have chosen to limit my opportunities for "serendipity" by making myself sit in front of the computer and type these signifying symbols in a five-paragraph framework. When I'm scratching this shit out on my keyboard, I'm closing myself off to outside experience- however temporary my self-imposed removal from the present may be. There must be a limit to the benefits I get from the process. And unless I step away for a bit, I'll never see them clearly.

So in every way I can imagine, I was on vacation for awhile. I went more places and talked to more people than I would have thought possible had I made a point of adhering to my regular schedule. Meanwhile, I know for a fact that some regular readers of this blog wondered if I was alright. My answer is unequivocal- I was doing great. I grabbed at the chance to see my carefully constructed perspective unravel just a bit, and I'm happy with having made that decision. But at the same time I realized the great benefit of participating in this activity. No doubt there were worthwhile topics and questions I could have focused on that will be lost to the erosion of memory.

However, if I hadn't prioritized direct experience, I wouldn't have been exposed to a lot of these thoughts at all. The reality is that we spend a lot of time balancing our external lives with our internal perspectives. We often don't realize we're engaged in that eternal conundrum, so we do things that make no real sense at all... to anybody. I suppose that's the great meaning we can all find in the holidays. They break up our regular rhythms, and give us a different mirror to stare into. It's exceptionally easy to think that we are the sum of our parts, but I suspect that they don't really convey the totality of ourselves. I hope you had a similar chance to step outside yourself, and if you didn't... that you will soon.

Thanksgiving (Even if it Kills Us).

So this is the third Thanksgiving blog post on Serendipity, and during the last two I tried to focus on positives. I'd certainly like to continue that tradition, but my cynicism is starting to preclude that type of sentiment. Still there's something to be said for making the attempt. While I see a sort of skewed wisdom in Charles Bukowski's epitaph, I don't feel that (at my age) it's worthwhile to hold him up as any king of role model. In the spirit of faith and fortune, I suppose I can find some things to be thankful for. And there's another component to this puzzle as well- despite the many problems and challenges that we (as a nation) are facing, we've got to be thankful for the run that we've had. Many of us have been extremely fortunate throughout our lives.

I don't want to be accused of being ungrateful. I am the benefactor of a system that has effectively exploited much of the world's population to live "well". I value the results of that exploitation. It's not that I don't have pangs of guilt now and again over the horrific conditions that people live under in the backwaters of the globe, but ultimately I must admit that it comes down to "better them than me". Think about all of the situations that you could have been born into. Imagine all the human beings that have existed throughout history, and consider the numbers. Work out the odds of you having been brought into existence in a country that has arguably been the sole superpower for decades.

I'm not sure that I am "proud" to be an American. On a few occasions I have had glimpses of what that feels like. However, I can say with complete assurance that I have been damned lucky to be a US citizen. I can be truly thankful for that. Past that, I am happy about the family situation that greeted my birth. I had a stable family that really didn't want for anything. It wasn't an upper-class situation, but relative to the rest of the populace, it was solid. I've had to work some crappy jobs, but those experiences were nothing compared to what the vast majority of the human race has gone through. I was able to take an undergraduate degree for granted, and I did so for several years. There was a sense of entitlement that informed my behavior.

Now I have a stable and secure job that should take me through the deflationary period that is coming. I have a good wife and a healthy son. I have a reasonable mortgage. If I step back and take stock objectively, I have to say that I've been blessed (interpret that however it fits into your personal life philosophy). I've been able to make the time to create art and write down my thoughts, and build an audience (no matter how small) for the product. There were a few years when I had money to spend on gratuitous items like DVDs, books, and camera equipment. And I have had some great friends over the years that have been willing to accompany me on my adventures. How could I not be thankful?

We are all in for a rough ride over the next decade (or more). It's time to take stock of what we've been given throughout our lives. Sure, there are some of you that are going to tell me that you earned it all... no one made your way for you. You know what I have to say to that? Fuck you. I hope you choke on your turkey. Don't be a rotten selfish prick. I'm not going to presume to tell you how to avoid it, but it's a worthwhile effort to make- just for a moment, expand your world view. I can't ask you to be charitable, as I don't relish being a complete hypocrite. But if it gets too hard to find the meaning of the day, try approaching it from a different angle altogether. Alright then... enough of my sanctimonious preaching. Enjoy the day.

The Competitive Spirit.

Sometime within the last several years I gradually came to an informal resolution to minimize competition in my life. Obviously I understand that I live in a society driven by a tradition of competitiveness, and that it's impossible to entirely avoid- but I just wanted to tamp down my natural competitive drive. I don't know whether it's some sort of genetically inherited trait, or whether I picked it up somehow during my upbringing. But the fact is that I always want to win at everything I participate in, and I have a history of getting distraught when I lose. It's a trait that I find fairly unattractive whenever I am objective enough to catch a glimpse of it. On top of that, I realize that I no longer enjoy the stress that comes with wanting so badly to win.

So I quit participating in the activity that carried the most personal baggage for me. When I was a kid, my father and brother played a lot of chess together. They are both highly analytical people, and that trait along with the benefit of age made them virtually unbeatable for me. It bothered me that I couldn't win, so I gave up trying to learn the game. In my thirties I started playing again, and continued to do so for several years. But there came a crucial point when I realized that I couldn't hang with a certain level of player. I had reached a plateau that I couldn't transcend without a significant commitment to studying the game. And I wondered why that bothered me. I couldn't just relax and continue losing.

When I decided to stop playing chess, I extended my resolve to anything with a clearly defined winner and loser. I started thinking about the philosophical ramifications of those terms. I wanted to broaden myself and become more balanced. There were a lot of things that I was decent at that I only really liked participating in if won- Scrabble, darts, pool, team sports, etc. I just refused to engage in any of those contests. I threw my energy into creation and self-expression instead. I even tried to excise any voyeuristic forms of competition. This wasn't much of a sacrifice since I only watched one sport. But I even stopped following hockey for a year (which was easy because the season was canceled due to a player's strike).

For the most part I have been happy with my new focus. I have an improved self-regard, and feel like I've become a more nuanced and patient person. I came to the realization that any satisfaction I ever got from winning only lasted to the next time I lost at something. That's an extremely frustrating way to live. Now I'm more concerned with self-actualization. Yet I still have moments when I realize that my competitive spirit has not entirely disappeared. I throw myself at challenges as if beating them is more important than engaging in the process of confronting them. However, it's becoming more clear to me that life is more about the journey than the attainment of any specific objective.

Once in awhile I give in, and try to have a sense of humor about my attitude. Last night I played soccer, which is a sport for which I lack the necessary experience and ability to excel. Because my expectations are so low, I don't suffer much due to my lackluster performance. It was actually a lot of fun because no one cared who won. I could honestly appreciate the play of my teammates and my "opponents". Still there was a part of me that wanted to keep score, and to root for my side to prevail. Old habits evidently die hard. This point was further advanced when I beat all of my friends at ping-pong at the bar after soccer. I was crowing and strutting like a bantam rooster. It was self-parody, which always seems to contain a seed of inconvenient truth.

Why Are We Here?

Late last night I entered into a conversation that some would perceive as luxuriously self-indulgent, others would see as needlessly complex, and maybe a few would view as completely unnecessary. I don't remember the exact chain of expression that led to the question- but when I left to go home to sleep, I brought home with me what could be the ultimate existentialist query- "Why are we here?" Perhaps its very nature is one of folly. Obviously each individual carries with him/her a multitude of shifting answers to that question. One's response might be affected by an infinite number of transient variables. But in this particular discussion, my friend and I were searching for a "larger truth".

The mystery becomes somewhat less complex when we limit our consideration to ourselves. As Robert Anton Wilson would say, our perception is limited to our reality tunnel. Or maybe he would say that it at least appears to be so. It's only if we accept the existence of an external reality with any possibility of "objectivity" that a possible solution to this puzzle lies within our grasp. I'm not going to commit to an authoritative position on that issue. But for the purpose of identifying a direction for humanity, let us assume that a consensual reality is possible.

Our consideration necessitates a number of other assumptions as well. This is the tricky part, and involves a set of foundational beliefs on which there is clearly no social consensus. If you are a fundamentalist Christian you are going to have a very specific starting point. If we limit the discussion to premises consistent with the scientific tradition, then we begin from a wholly different place. Last night we confined the thread of our talk to the latter. Therefore we started with the theory of the "Big Bang" origination of the universe. Neither of us are trained in physics, and so we had to rely on a very rudimentary set of definitions. At some point in the past we agreed that there was dispersal of energy into the time and space of what we refer to as "the universe".

That energy eventually transformed into particles of matter, some of which we interact with on a daily basis here on Earth. We have also made a qualitative distinction in order to classify certain conglomerations or manifestations of this matter- certain examples we refer to as "organic", and others we call "inorganic". This may appear to be an entirely arbitrary classification through the perception of non-human entities, but for our purposes it will have to temporarily serve. Over the last several hundred years certain representatives of our "species" have developed a structured hierarchy, at the top of which (not surprisingly) humans reside. And we are rewarded this privileged position by dint of our "consciousness".

But this concept of "consciousness" is even more amorphous than all the other elements from which we've constructed our underlying premises. This is where we discover the most divergence of opinion and belief. This is the realm of "philosophers"- a group of people (traditionally white men) who have occupied a refined and received seat of learning... an entitlement only made possible by other groups of people laboring to provide the survival necessities of these lucky few. It has been the convention for "ordinary people" to defer to their convictions regarding the nature and meaning of "consciousness". Perhaps their very existence is enough to refute the countervailing forces of "determinism"- which would discount the whole concept of "consciousness" as a myth.

Regardless, the game we have now allowed ourselves to engage in (without proper education or training) is called "Why are we here?" My friend and I were apostates, rejecting the convention that dictates that we look to spiritual authorities or worldly leaders to determine this issue for us. Was it merely by coincidence that we had discovered ourselves trodding on this sacred ground? Maybe the solution to the mystery lies in the question itself. Could it be that the reason "We are here" is to search and explore in a quest to arrive at our own answers? It appears to be cyclical logic, doesn't it? That reminds me of a Zen koan, but I can't tell you about it here....

Who is "The Problem"?

It seems everyone has someone in their life on to whom they can project their own difficulties and/or insecurities. Everyone has a tragic tale of a friend or relative that is consistently making bad decisions or exhibiting "bad" behavior. There's the uncle who can't stop drinking... the spouse with a lousy temper... the friend who falls in love with sociopaths... or the sibling who is always out of cash. Rarer perhaps is the individual that sees themselves as the source of someone else's problem. But of course that can't be the reality. Because in every difficult relationship there is both a long-suffering subject and an irresponsible object. Most likely you have occupied both positions throughout your life, often without even being aware of it.

Part of the reason this dynamic exists is perception. When does someone else become your "problem"? What is your role in assuming responsibility for any given situation? Ultimately we all have some manner of choice when it comes to the people we choose to spend our time with. The main exception to this rule is the child/parent relationship. Once you declare a dependent, you are obviously accountable to him/her. But otherwise, you pick those whom you allow into your life. I've heard arguments that other immediate family members are also beyond one's discretion. That's not a particularly convincing argument, as far as I'm concerned. I've known many incidences of siblings who have no contact with each other. I'm also aware of grown children who have cut off their relationship with one or both parents.

There's always a balance sheet when two people form a relationship. The accounting may be done consciously or subconsciously. For better or worse, there is always an assessment of utility between people. Some are givers by personality, and others are takers. I agree with the conventional wisdom that we always seek our match. Do the people you surround yourself with exhibit common traits of personality? There is probably a reason for that, and it likely resides in yourself. Are you prone to drawing broad generalizations about people? Perhaps these are the results of projections of parts of your own personality/philosophy. I've seen that this has often been the case with myself. I have found it useful to strive for awareness and insight regarding what I see in other people. Often I find my own reflection in my opinions of others.

We all have our own unique set of characteristics and beliefs about the world. When we find ourselves carrying the weight of "other people's problems", we owe it to ourselves to figure out why we are doing it. There are justifiable reasons for doing so. But if we develop relationships blindly, then we are merely acting out pre-programmed scripts that have to do more with our own selves than any reality about others. I've been accused of "thinking too much". People have assumed that I am cold, arrogant and/or depressed. Friends and family have occasionally formed and expressed all manner of assessments about me. Instead of becoming reactionary or defensive, I strive (often unsuccessfully) to understand what it is about the individual that makes him/her form whatever particular judgment is being directed toward me. Often these opinions are made up largely of projection, and can be used as tools for learning how to better interact with others. I believe that you can learn a lot about people by listening closely for cues that can help expose their emotional and analytical worldviews.

So much of these processes occur on the level of intuition. Human beings are social creatures, and have been evolving for tens of thousands of years. The ways we interact with others when we are not consciously forming these interactions are not random. They can be effected by memory, survival instincts, sensory input, or subconscious personal preferences. It's too convenient to let ourselves off the hook, and ignore our role in the shaping of both intense and casual relationships with other people. Ultimately we are responsible for the way we think and behave, and we are accountable for the consequences of the choices we make- even if we aren't paying close attention. It's tempting to attribute the blame elsewhere, but doing so is to commit a disservice to ourselves and others. We grow when we realize the quality of contributions we are making in any social situation.

Ethnicity and Identity.

Today I made my first summer trip to the coffeeshop. It wasn't just a quick stop to pick up a drink and run, but rather an extended visit by which I meant to catch up with some friends and good conversation. That's one of the pastimes that has fallen by the way side since I made the decision to bring more intentionality to my spare time. There were plenty of things worth writing about brought up in the talk today. But for some reason my mind keeps returning to the nebulous construct referred to as ethnicity. I forget the context that elicited the topic, but it might be illustrative to mention the fact that the friend I had this discussion with would be identified as being of a different ethnicity, merely on the basis of appearance. Yet our thinking on the concept shares a lot of common ground.

We are of the age to have experienced a shift in the way ethnicity is viewed. The civil rights era led to a close examination of the way people form their sense of self. Sociologists didn't want to limit their considerations to race, but rather wanted to explore the way one's ethnic identity affected the way he/she thought and behaved. While the desire to understand this factor had its positive side in terms of confronting perceptions based in ignorance and fear, it also led to some unintended consequences. Instead of a "melting pot", the United States was compared to a "tossed salad". This meant that people were to be looked at relative to their ethnicity, and group traits were supposed to be accepted without prejudice or judgment. Kids were taught to identify with the culture of their ancestral homelands. Children were expected to adopt their ethnicity as a source of pride, esteem and identity. This meant that everyone was expected to develop an awareness of diversity and multiethnicity. It was all well-intentioned and the academics who taught about these subjects believed that such education would prove wholly positive.

But there are several problems with such an assumption. For one thing, it tears down the notions of equality and shared values. As people got more vehement in asserting their own ethnic identities, the differences between folks became starker. While some people embraced the exploration of other ethnic groups as an adventure, there were many that began to fixate on ethnicity as a source of division. In this climate, it was easy for some to resent the "special privileges" that they saw extended to traditionally disenfranchised groups. There was a gradual disintegration in the belief of shared culture that transcended ethnicity.

At the same time there were many people who wanted nothing more than to assimilate. Especially among recent immigrants, there was a widespread desire to become more "American" and to blend in with the rest of the nation's citizens. Some truly resented being constantly reminded that they were "special". My maternal grandfather, whose parents were the most recent immigrants in my family line, turned his back on anything that made him seem like a "foreigner". Although he knew how to speak Ukranian as a kid, by the time he was a grown adult he had forgotten the language. This was a common story throughout the Twentieth Century. It would be foolish for us to believe that there aren't many who feel the same way today.

There are also a lot of US citizens whose families have been in the country for so many generations that they have no other true ethnicity aside from that of North American. My father's line can be traced back to a German man who moved to Eastern PA around 1730. I feel no real kinship to the German people today. In addition I have ancestors from England, France, and Wales. I am a mutt in terms of "ethnicity". It is much more common in our contemporary transient times to live in mixed neighborhoods than among people whose ancestors originated in the same foreign country. I have no problem with constructing elaborate geneologies and preserving traditions, but there are many cultural factors that inform identity as much as (or more than) "ethnicity". Religion (or lack of it), educational level, financial status, consumer choice, likes and dislikes, occupation, and political affiliation all play important roles in making us who we are. So why do we look for the easiest answer when someone asks us- "What are you?"

The Death Penalty.

Generally I consider myself to be politically progressive. I tend to think of the root causes of our social ills. I'm a big proponent of public education, labor rights, expanded healthcare, job training programs, reproductive rights, environmental protection, corporate regulation, and a progressive policy of taxation. But on at least one key issue I've had difficulty adhering to the accepted progressive line- the death penalty. It's not that I wouldn't like to be against it, but rather that I can't think of any compelling reason for opposition. I've spent a lot of time trying to be convinced otherwise, but I've yet to experience the definitive argument to sway my thinking.

In forming my opinion about the issue, I have to confront several components of the debate. Many people oppose the death penalty for philosophical and/or spiritual reasons. I like to say (with some humor) that humans are animals, and that I eat animals. Therefore it seems it would be inconsistent for me to believe that the lives of human beings are somehow particularly "sacred". Perhaps I'd be a more compassionate person if I thought otherwise... I don't know. But my position certainly eliminates an entire class of opposition to this most severe of punishments. Humans have as much of a right to kill other humans as any other creature on Earth. It's a harsh viewpoint, but in line with evolutionary thought. The only reason to prioritize human life is species identification.

Next I have to consider whether or not it is appropriate to have the government act as the surrogate in enhancing the public good. Undeniably, we live in a social environment. We have devised many rules, and consequences for their violation. It seems somehow more just to have a representative body act out the will of the people. In allowing the governmental enforcement authorities to administer punishment, we avoid the nasty effects of vigilantism. I don't find it at all contradictory that we have laws against murder for society's individual members, while we have specified a number of capital offenses for which the government carries out the execution of criminals. That seem to me as it should be. On this issue, I feel I am adopting a utilitarian perspective.

As to a deterrence effect, I think we need to look at the issue from a couple of angles. It would be difficult to prove that the death penalty deters potential criminals, yet it is equally hard to prove the opposite. Everyone in society is a "potential criminal". We can't study this effect unless we rely on the unreliable method of self-reporting, a method which is insufficient for our ends. I view any such research as suspect and incomplete. On the other hand, it is intuitively conclusive that the death penalty deters future crimes in the case of those who suffer it. Obviously it couldn't be any other way. And criminal recidivism is a major problem in our society.

I feel that we have a responsibility to ask ourselves about sensible alternatives. Is it more humane to place convicts in the brutal conditions of our prisons, without hope of escape except through "natural" death? If there is no hope for rehabilitation, then what is the point of keeping them alive? That seems as inherently cruel as killing them. If we are going to do away with the death penalty, then I believe we should do away with life without parole. I don't believe that we should apply purely punitive fates for the convicted. There must be logic beyond simple retribution.

Some will counter that it costs more to put a person to death than to imprison them for life. I recognize that as a reality because of the appeals system. And I think that is the way it should be. We should have to pay a huge price to execute someone. If it was a cost effective way of dealing with crime, then the danger of applying the punishment indiscriminately would increase dramatically. Although I support the death penalty, I recognize it as an extreme end and a last resort. I am fully aware of the many injustices in the way the death penalty is currently applied. The accused must be extended every benefit of the doubt. To rush to judgment is to commit a grievous injury to both the individual, but also society. Personally, if I were going to impose the penalty, I would want to be free of any doubt. Its application is not a cause for celebration or pride (like in Texas and Florida).