​All God’s Chillun Got Wings
 
It is Saturday morning, the 16th of January, 2016.  The sun is shining and it feels and looks more like a spring morning than a morning in mid-January.   Not surprisingly, I was thinking this morning of Martin Luther King Jr. and the hopeful, loving energy as we gathered many years ago on the National Mall to listen to a variety of speakers including Martin.
 
I look up and there is Paul, my 12-year-old  adopted nephew coming across from his house  I have not seen he or his six-year old sister much the past  couple of weeks.    Luckily I made brownies yesterday. 
 
Me:  Good morning Paul. How are you?
 
Paul: I am fine  Uncle Jim.  It is really nice. Do you think we could go bike riding later?
 
Me: I would love that Paul.  Here, I made some brownies yesterday. Do you want hot chocolate with those?
 
Paul:  Could I just have a glass of milk, Uncle Jim?  It is pretty warm for hot chocolate.
 
Me:  You sure can.
 
I get out a glass while Paul gets the milk.
 
Paul:  Thanks.  I need some help with homework Uncle Jim.  Yesterday, my friend Ron’s minister and  the choir came to school to talk about what Martin Luther King Jr. meant to them.   The minister talked about how often he has gotten stopped by the police and how hard it was for him and his family just because they were black.  The choir also sang a song. It was...   Oh…  Something about wings Uncle Jim.
 
Me: Oh.  Wait a minute. I bet it is a song that the famous singer, Paul Robeson, sang. I have a recording of it.  Let’s look.  Hopefully  I put it back in order except I cannot remember if I organized the CDs by performer or subject.  Oh here it is under the R’s.   Let’s play it on the CD player in the kitchen.  
 
Soon the rich voice of Paul Robeson is filing the whole house. 
 
 
ALL GOD'S CHILLUN GOT WINGS
 I got a robe, you got a robe 
All o' God's chillun got a robe 
When I get to heab'n I'm goin' to put on my robe
 I'm goin' to shout all ovah God's Heab'n
Heab'n, Heab'n
Ev'rybody talkin' 'bout heab'n ain't goin' dere
Heab'n, Heab'n
I'm goin' to shout all ovah God's Heab'n
I got-a wings, you got-a wings
All o' God's chillun got-a wings
When I get to heab'n I'm goin' to put on my wings
I'm goin' to fly all ovah God's Heab'n
Heab'n, Heab'n
Ev'rybody talkin' 'bout heab'n ain't goin' dere
Heab'n, Heab'n 
I'm goin' to fly all ovah God's Heab'n
I got a harp, you got a harp
 All o' God's chillun got a harp
 When I get to heab'n I'm goin' to take up my harp 
I'm goin' to play all ovah God's Heab'n
Heab'n , Heab'n
Ev'rybody talkin' 'bout heab'n ain't goin' dere
Heab'n, Heab'n
I'm goin' to play all ovah God's Heab'n
I got shoes, you got shoes
 All o' God's chillun got shoes
 When I get to heab'n I'm goin' to put on my shoes 
I'm goin' to walk all ovah God's Heab'n
 Heab'n , Heab'n
 Ev'rybody talkin' 'bout heab'n ain't goin' dere
Heab'n, Heab'n
I'm goin' to walk all ovah God's Heab'n
 
 
Pauil:  How come it gives me goose bumps, Uncle Jim?
 
Me: Well, at least for me, Mr. Robeson has a way of singing which reaches deep into my heart and makes me feel close to him and all of “God’s Chillun.”
 
Paul:  Maybe that is what happens to me, but I do not really understand Uncle Jim.
 
Me: Well, that makes two of us Paul.  At any rate, what is troubling you?
 
Paul: Who are God’s children Uncle Jim?  You always say that we are all special and that God loves us all equally. Yet, you and my mom and dad never get stopped by the police just because they are white. Do you?
 
Me: No, Paul, I don’t and I know your parents don’t either.   Just because God loves us all equally does not mean we humans believe that or act that way.
 
Paul: What is the point of God if we are smarter than God Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Well, I do not think we are smarter than God, but I do think that we convinced ourselves that God thinks like us.  So, if we learn to be prejudiced, we think God must agree with us.  Do you know what I mean about prejudice Paul?
 
Paul:  It means we decide we are better than someone based on color or something doesn’t it, Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  Yes, sometimes we think color or amount of money or clothes or how good someone is in school tells us whether someone is worthy of our friendship or whether God loves them.
 
Paul: Well…..   If I study and get good grades that means I  deserve more, doesn’t it Uncle Jim?
 
Me: Paul, what if there were times when me or your mom or your dad were not available to help with homework or what if you had to take care of younger brothers and sisters every night and did not have time to study? What if you were hungry all the time and could not concentrate in school?   What if dad or mom were in jail a lot just because they were black?
 
Paul: Then I might not have good grades and I could not go to college?
 
Me   Yes.  Then what sort of job would get?
 
Paul:  Not a very good job?
 
Me:  Probably, although there are always a few people who do well in spite of all that.
 
Paul?  Martin Luther King Jr. did well in school.  We also had a film about Sonia Sotomayor.  She was very poor, had to take care of her brother, and still got good grades and now is a judge or something.
 
Me:  Yes, she is an United States Supreme Court judge and her brother is a doctor.  She somehow knew that she was smart and loved and she also has a really good brain.   I do not know why she did so well and other kids in a similar situation did not do so well.
 
Paul:  Maybe God loved her more.
 
Me:  I do not believe that Paul.   I think God loved all the neighbors in the apartment building just as much.  Certainly something made a difference but, I am not sure what it was. I do think that there was a different history  with the family in Puerto Rico than with some black families or even some other South American families.  I do know that if someone told me day after day that I was going to fail that I would find it difficult to keep trying.

Paul:  I would not let anyone tell me I could not so something.
 
Me:  I believe you Paul and that makes me proud of you, but I also know that many people have told you how special you are since you were born.  You also have a very good brain and are physically in really good shape.
 
Paul:  I guess I am pretty lucky Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  Yes, I think I, your sister, mom and dad and their parents are all pretty lucky.   Do you think we have some responsibility to say something when someone says something negative about someone because of color or race, or religion?
 
Paul:  Someone in class said we should not let any Muslims in school. I said that was wrong – that we have Muslim friends who are really good people.
 
Me: That is great Paul. I am very proud of you.   So what do you think?  Are we all God’s children or are only some of us God’s children?
 
Paul:  I guess we are all God’s children.  What should we do Uncle Jim?
 
Me:  How about you go with me to the Quaker church on Monday where people from different races and groups are going to talk about what we can do to make it better for all of us.  We could ask your parents if it is okay.
 
Paul: Wil there be other kids my age there?
 
Me: I am not sure, but I hope so. I think it would be good if you shared your concerns with the other people there.
 
Paul: Okay. When can we go bike riding Uncle Jim?
 
Me: How about you ask your parents if it is okay?
Paul:  Okay. Thanks Uncle Jim.
 
Written January 16, 2016

​Family
 
Today is Sunday, January 17, 2016.  Tomorrow, Monday, many of us will gather with others to honor and remember the ideals  of Martin Luther King, Jr.  I will join my friend Theresa at a Quaker meeting house for a pot luck dinner and discussion. Many of us are old enough to remember  the exciting and powerful sense of community/family when we gathered on the National Mall for the “I Have a Dream” speech or with a group of others who were praying  in Layfette Park across from the White House, gathering to lobby our elected officials, marching with workers, students and others, or confronting the way that organizations such as churches, colleges, and others invested their money in companies which oppressed others. There was a strong sense of “Yes we can.”  There was also the comfort of knowing that there would always be food, a place to sleep and, if needed, help with gas or other practical needs.    We were family.  This was long before we danced until the wee hours of the morning while Sister Sledge reminded us “We are family.”  We knew we were family and we were powerful.
 
Today, January 17, 2017 the philosophy of non-violence  and the sense of family has receded into the background for many.  As I sat in Panera’s listing to the angry talk about immigration, President Obama, and the financial complaints or concerns of some angry white men, I did not feel like family.   Yet, I recognize that these are individuals who are worried that all that they have learned to trust will be taken from them.  I have listened to these men  (and sometimes women) on many occasions talk about how hard they have worked all their lives and now they want to be assured that no one will take away the just rewards of working that hard.  
 
Earlier ,while at the gym, I had listened to three Ted Talks. There were:
 
     A talk by Benedetta Berti:  The Surprising way groups like ISIS stay in power.
     Rich Benjamin:  My road trip through the whitest towns in America.
     John Green: The nerd’s guide to learning everything online.
 
All three of these talks had the same essential message.  That message is that all we humans care about family or community.  It is about how we take care of each other.  Ms. Berti talks about how groups such as ISIS take care of each other  with social services, schools, and other basic needs.  Rich Benjamin, who lived for some time in three of the whitest communities in the United States, found  that he as a black individual  was welcomed and treated well in communities with people gathered on golf courses, in churches, to play poker, and to share meals.   John Green talked about first attending a private school and finding others excited about learning and later discovered the exciting community of people who share You Tube videos followed by discussions on line.
 
Although I have spoken previously of my belief that we humans need to feel a part of a community where people respect and take care of each other, it is  reassuring to me to find others (a community of people) who also think that if we want to create a less violent, less racist, less disenfranchised world, we need to invite each other to be a part of a community.
 
Ironically members of ISIS and those responding to the violence of ISIS make the same mistake.  ISIS uses violence to respond to perceived threats and affronts to the God of their understanding.   Others then respond to the response of violence with more violence.  White people often respond to perceived threats by isolating and inflicting or threatening  violence against those who are not white (as a group).  The non-whites then respond with verbal and sometimes physical threats which then ….      Kids who drop out of school and who may join gangs or groups who use drugs or anti-establishment/anti-education groups to discover the thrill of learning even if that learning is how to survive on the street  or in prison.    If and when they find another group such as the “nerds” who are excited about connecting with others who enjoy learning in the non-traditional classroom of the internet, such as You Tube, they too become excited about being members of this newly discovered community.
 
What is it we academics, politicians, educators, social  workers, and members of the law enforcement community do not understand about  the strong attraction and some might say need for community?  We humans may have learned to be fearful of community and may form a new community composed of individuals distrustful of the establishment, but we will always find a new community (even if it a community with the animal kingdom in some isolated place).
 
Failure to appreciate that need for community or failure to appreciate that  violence and other mis-treatment are not inviting behaviors will insure that we continue to label and treat each other as enemies. Once we have labeled someone as an enemy  we are not likely to embrace them or help them with housing,  food, education, health care, and other basic needs.  If we attempt to provide some of those needs while at the very same time killing off their family members, we are not going to stop the cycle of violence.
 
Marin Luther King Jr. accomplished a lot. Those of us who angrily confronted those who disagreed did a disservice to all involved.  We may have been physically non-violent and offered flowers to stick in the ends of guns, but we often did so with an attitude of self-righteousness and superiority. We did not invite them to come share our table as family.
 
The good news (as I have pointed out in this brief essay) is that there are many such as Ms. Berti, Mr. Green, and Mr. Bemjamin who are inviting us to recognize why mistreating those who taking care of each other as family will not result in expanding the family/community.
 
“We are family” (Song lyrics to We Are Family by Sister Sledge - Oracle Band
www.oracleband.net/Lyrics/we-are-family.htm
Written by Bernard Rodgers & Nile Rodgers; Originally performed by Sister Sledge
 
We are family
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up ev'rybody and sing
Ev'ryone can see we're together
As we walk on by
(FLY!) and we fly just like birds of a feather
I won't tell no lie
(ALL!) all of the people around us they say
Can they be that close
Just let me state for the record
We're giving love in a family dose
We are family
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up ev'rybody and sing
We are family
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up ev'rybody and sing
Living life is fun and we've just begun
To get our share of the world's delights
(HIGH!) high hopes we have for the future
And our goal's in sight
(WE!) no we don't get depressed
Here's what we call our golden rule
Have faith in you and the things you do
You won't go wrong
 
 
Let’s dance as the family that we are!

Written January 17, 2016

​A subservient God
 
This is Monday, January 18, 2016, the day set aside in the United States to remember and honor the life work of Martin Luther King Jr.  In parks, school rooms, churches, and homes the “I Have a Dream” speech will be read and discussed.  My friend, Bishop Don Pitts, one of the first African-American members of the West Virginia Bar Association and a tireless teacher and leader in the fight for the dignity of all people, is deceased and no longer is able, in that rich, deep voice which was so reminiscent of that of Dr. King, to command our attention as he made the words of Dr. King come as passionately alive as that day in Washington, DC when many of us heard Dr. King say:
 
And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.
Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.
Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.
 
But not only that:

 
Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.
From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
 
And when this happens, and when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
                Free at last! Free at last!
                Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

 
I just read the entire speech again both to refresh my memory and to, once again, allow the words to sink into my heart.  I particularly wanted to  see whether The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was claiming to be speaking for God or whether he was allowing his personal faith to dictate his message.  At no time in this speech does he claim to be a prophet reading the newest tablets which had been written by the God of his understanding.   He is claiming that “black men and white men (I am sure he would today say  “and women”)  Jews and Gentiles, Protestant and Catholic” as well as Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and non-believers – all of God’s children - will be “able to join hands and sing and in the words of the old Negro spiritual:”
            Free at last! Free at last!
            Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
 
Contrast this with the words of Franklin Graham, son of the famous and very devout evangelist, Billy Graham.  In an interview with Michael Martin of NPR  he talks about launching his tour of the United States in this presidential election year to urge people to get Christians to elect Christian leaders.  In response to a question about electing leaders who might support changes such as same sex marriage just as they moved from biblical defense of segregation to biblical defense of integration, he says: “ We need to get godly men and women to run for office, and we need to get the godly men and women out to vote…”
 
MARTIN: “...This is another issue in which, you know - that those attitudes have changed.”
GRAHAM: “It's totally - this is totally different. This is - this is God's standards. And just because public opinion may have changed or somebody takes a poll - this is just one of the issues. And it doesn't matter what people say or what people think. It doesn't matter about the opinion polls. It's what God says, and God says this is a sin. And it's a sin against him, and he's going to judge sin.”
 
One can read or listen to the entire interview.  Mr. Graham is convinced that he knows what God is saying and what God considers a sin. Forget those Christians, Jews,  and others whom Dr. King included among God’s children even though on many religious and theological issues there might have been differences.  
 
The Reverend Franklin Graham would also discount what Alaa Murabit has to say on her Ted Talk “What my religion says about women.”  She claims that she and other women have views about what the God of their understanding teaches which is just as valid as that of many, if not most, of the male Muslim religious leaders.  She says:
 
“Now, this matter is vitally important to me. As a young Muslim woman, I am very proud of my faith. It gives me the strength and conviction to do my work every day. It's the reason I can be here in front of you. But I can't overlook the damage that has been done in the name of religion, not just my own, but all of the world's major faiths. The misrepresentation and misuse and manipulation of religious scripture has influenced our social and cultural norms, our laws, our daily lives, to a point where we sometimes don't recognize it.
…
And why, if we are equal in the eyes of God, are we not equal in the eyes of men?
…
 
It is not easy, challenging distorted religious messaging. You will have your fair share of insults and ridicule and threats. But we have to do it. We have no other option than to reclaim the message of human rights, the principles of our faith, not for us, not for the women in your families, not for the women in this room, not even for the women out there, but for societies that would be transformed with the participation of women. And the only way we can do that, our only option, is to be, and remain, at the table.”
 
She is positing the strong opinion which sounds very similar to that of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  She is suggesting, just as he was suggesting,  that all are God’s children and all have a place at the table – that all can find  religious texts which seem to justify their views.  
 
She, like Dr. King is proud of her faith and, like Dr. King draws great strength from it.  Still, it is her faith and understanding of that faith which guides her understanding of her role and place in the  religious structure as well as the social and cultural structure of society.  
 
Historically we humans have posited a concept of God and then decided that we and only we can speak for this God.   Does this sound like a contradiction?  Of course, it does.  If we are going to posit a concept of God we must then posit a concept of not-God  or we must define God as all of us. If we are all God, then none of us are God and there is no God.   God, by definition must be differentiated from we humans.  
 
The God that Mr. Graham posits is not distinct from Mr. Graham any more than the God which other Christians or certain Muslims or Jews or representatives of other religions  who purport to speak for The God is distinct from them. Their God is thus human and, thus, by definition of “non-God.”
 
The theological positing of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. is much different. He is positing a God which is large enough to accept that all are God’s children.  He is suggesting that all will 
 
“…all of God’s children, will be “able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
            Free at last! Free at last!
            Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”
 
 
Written January 18, 2016
 

​A way of being
 
It is Friday the 15th of January, 2016.  I began the day as usual: shaved, got dressed, made the bed, got coffee, greeted friends via text or email, and then worked out at the gym. While at the gym I listened to this week’s edition of the NPR program “On Being” with  Krista Tippett as host. This morning the guest was Stephen Batchelor, author, teacher,  and seeker.   His phase de jour to describe this journey of his is secular Buddhism   If one looks in the Oxford dictionary, one finds the word secular as originating from the Latin word, saecularis from saeculum – generation, age, period.  The word secular evolved to mean: World, “of not subject to or bound by religious rule,” or denoting slow changes in the motion of the sun or planets, “Of a (fluctuation or trend) occurring or persisting over an indefinitely long period.”
 
Mr. Batchelor is exploring the use of the term secular to denote his attempt to focus on a way of being in the world .  He says:
 
“What I’m looking for is a way to recover what I think is very much at the heart of the Buddhist tradition that I don’t think is “religious” in the sense of a formal religious set of beliefs and practices. But, once again, goes back to seeking a language to address these primary questions. And I feel, in many ways, the approach of what we might understand is the teaching of the historical Buddha is in some ways closer to Hellenistic philosophies, say, the skeptics, or the Epicureans, or the Stoics, who, again, we don’t think of as religious, but nonetheless these were communities of men and women who took these sorts of questions with utmost seriousness, and developed a way of thinking, a way of practicing, a way of living together communally that, to me, resonate very closely with the early Buddhist communities around Gautama.”
 
My friend, A, wrote  in an email last night:  “We kicked off our new safety training program today for our Safety Team and Top Management. It is an interesting training which has some leadership training and human performance topics in it. Nonetheless it got a bit controversial with some of our Top Managers as some are still in the mindset that errors are merely the fault of a person and that safety training is pie in the sky.”
 
My friend, A, is one of those individuals who is able to think in terms of systems and how the various parts of the system interact with each other.  Many in the company for which he works, however, find it easier to think in terms of fault of a person as if that person functioned independently of the rest of the system    It seems as if many of we humans, individually and collectively as countries, think in terms of individuals (persons or country)  causing problems, issues, or situations rather than the historical interaction of the parts  resulting in a certain outcome.  Religion often attempts to explain the world or our role in the world in terms of the actions of humans in relationship to some divine being and/or first and ultimate cause and effect.  On the one hand, one has a divine being who is the first cause and who has created the rest of the universe including some concept of a permanent “home” which we humans call by names such as heaven.  While it is true that many religions, including Buddhism and Christianity,  talk about the rewards or negative results of how we treat ourselves and others, they also posit concepts of the divine.   It seems difficult for us to think of a state of “beingness” which  does not need to posit a first cause or a divine being.
 
Mr. Batchelor, as he says, is more focused on the questions and on a way of being than he is about answers.  This, as he says, is in the tradition of the “Hellenistic philosophies, say, the skeptics, or the Epicureans, or the Stoics . . .”   
 
Today, more than ever before in history, many of we humans are attempting to meditate and to learn just to be present without all the chatter which is common for us.   Yet, we continue to experience a need to posit a divine being and thus to think in terms of how we came to be as well as what happens after we die rather than experiencing  just being present as a community.   I suspect that the main purpose of religion is to be present in community.  Yet, it seems as if we humans have a need to explain or justify our reason for being in community. It is not enough to just be present with others in a space enjoying each other.
 
 Once we posit a religion which includes a divine being who is by definition more than human, we have to begin to think in terms of who is deserving  or how we let go of the limitations of our humanness  so as to be able to be present with the divine.  Once we have a concept of a divine being and a set of rules, we need to keep track of the beliefs which distinguish this religion from other religions.  This in turn leads to some organization which requires another set of rules which in turn ..    In the end we have a new interactional system which then has to interact with other systems.    
 
The alternative is what Mr. Batchelor and others are  exploring – a prime state of being which  just is and which is by “design" interactional.  It does not purport to answer the questions of why but how – how can I be present with you in love and, thus, how I can enhance your journey, which then will enhance or maximize my journey which will maximize the journey of the rest of the universe(s). 
 
The problem as Mr. Batchelor talks about is how we  live and talk about how we live without using language which resorts to repositing a divine being or an eternal destination.
 
It is fun to explore this possibility. I am deeply indebted to such people as Mr. Batehelor, Ms. Tippet, and others for reopening this door.
 
Written January 15, 2016

​Professional Relationships – an oxymoron?
It is Thursday, the 14th of January, 2016.  For many years I facilitated workshops or hosted continuing education classes at professional conferences  for licensed professional counselors and certified addiction counselors. Many of the workshops and classes also had social workers in attendance.   In addition, I have been and remain in West Virginia an approved supervisor for those on the path to becoming a licensed professional counselor and those wanting to be certified as an addiction counselor.
Over the years I  and many others have noticed some trends. These include:
      An increasing emphasis on accountability or ensuring that one is working with clients on measurable, attainable goals.
      The code of ethics for the National Association for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors, The Association for Addiction Professionals,  The National Association of Social Workers, and the state and national associations for professional counselors  keep increasing in length and complexity (list of behaviors one should not do).
      We expect clients to prove/show that they want help and are willing to do the work necessary to get well or to manage their diagnosed illness more effectively.
Clinicians with and for whom I have worked (supervised clinically) have often complained that they are spending an increasing amount of time on paperwork which is demanded by their agency, the insurance company, and/or their professional organization.  
It was not surprising to hear Ms. Hilary Cottam claim in a Ted Talk that she found that in England, social workers were spending an average of 86% of their time serving the system.  I am sure that someone has done a similar study in the United States although a cursory internet search did not reveal that data.   I strongly suspect that it is an equal amount of time. I know that when I was in private practice and billing insurance companies or when I was briefly working as a counselor for a treatment center here in Florida, a great deal of my time was spent justifying the work that I was doing.  
A review of the counseling ethics codes, the addiction professional ethics code, and the social work ethics code is an arduous task. The Ethics Code of the American Counseling Association waxes on for 18 pages and the social workers’ code patiently outlines a code of conduct for 24 pages.  With the advent of increased electronic communication between professionals and clients, there are many additions to the ethical “guidelines.”   When I attend a workshop or a lecture on ethical conduct for counselors or addition professionals, I have heard in recent years:
      Do not do telephone counseling.   One never knows who is in the room or can hear the conversation.
      Be wary of email communication. It can be hacked or subpoenaed in court.
      Do not skype or face time.
      Do not see colleagues  or have other dual relationships.
      Do not accept gifts from clients.
      Do not attend weddings, funerals, or other events which are significant to client.
      Do not touch clients.
      Do not speak to client in public unless he/she speaks to you.
      Do not text clients.
      Do not have sex with clients or see someone as a client with whom one has had sex.
It is not my intention to herein copy or elaborate on all 19 or 24 pages of ethical guidelines. My point is that we have morphed into a defensive relationship with our clients.  We often function from a position of fear – fear of the possibility that a client will sue us or fear that we will not get paid by the third party such as an insurance company, Medicare, or Medicaid.    Our primary relationship is with the rules or the agency making the rules and not the client(s).
Ms. Hillary Cottam and some  of her colleagues have been exploring an innovative but old fashion approach.  She stays in her Ted Talk:

“But today, we need to bring people and their communities back into the heart of the way we design new systems and new services, in an approach that I call "Relational Welfare." We need to leave behind these old, transactional, unsuitable, outdated models, and we need to adopt instead the shared collective relational responses that can support a family like Ella's, that can address an issue like loneliness, that can support people into work and up the skills curve in a modern labor market, that can also address challenges of education, of health care systems, and so many more of those problems that are pressing on our societies. It is all about relationships. Relationships are the critical resource we have.”
 
Her approach echoes what I have found to be helpful and rewarding. As is true for most who enter a service profession I did so because I care about people and want to be helpful. I did not enter the field to become rich or to spend most of my time worrying about being sued or justifying the work that I do.  What is it I do not do  or have?  Consider:
 
      I often do not have measurable goals.   If I text or email someone good morning (currently I text or email good morning to about 30  so-called “clients” as well as several other friends. My goal is simple:  Let them know that I am thinking about them.
      I often see my colleagues as clients.  They know and trust me and may not have the time or money to travel to a community to see a stranger.
      I use email, texting, skyping, face time, letters and even face-to-face time with clients.  I do tell clients that if they cannot protect the internet or telephone systems at the Pentagon or White House I certainly cannot guarantee confidentiality but will do what I can to insure a secure system.  I also tell them that in my 45 years of working as counselor, I have yet to hear a unique story.
      I let clients know that hugs are free and available.  If they are uncomfortable with touch I will do my best to remember and honor that.  Admittedly there are times when I have done or said something which was misinterpreted.   I am liberal with my sincere apologies.  
      I do not do anything which I am unwilling to put in the official chart along with the reason I made the decision to do or say what I did. If I am uncomfortable or a client is uncomfortable with something I did or said, I share it with a clinical supervisor or other trusted colleague and listen carefully to their feedback.
      I share personal information when asked to if the request is because of a genuine interest and does not seem like an attempt to sabotage the relationship.
      I will not recommend or ask the client to do anything I have not done or am not willing to do. 
      I ask the client if they think that what WE are doing is helpful.
      First and foremost, therapy is a relationship between two people of equal worth and value.  One is not less than or more important than.
      I remind myself that when I am meeting or talking with another human that this might be the last hour for one of us to live. I must leave a legacy of love. Nothing else is important or lasts.
 
This is essentially my code of ethics which guides me in interaction with people – some of whom are clients and some of whom are not.  It is not 19 or 24 pages long.  Admittedly, the goals are not often measurable.  Love is not always measurable.  Honesty is not always measurable.   One of my goals is to be honest with myself and with the client.  I do my best, but, on occasion, I find that I was not as honest as I thought I was. Someone may question me or point out to me that I might want look at such and such.  Sometimes I am surprised and perhaps even a little embarrassed by what I find out about myself.  I, too, am on a journey. 
 
Is what I do cost effective?  Clients say that it is. Certainly, spending 80% or more of my time on serving the system rather than the client is not cost effective.   Are there colleagues who are not healthy enough to be effective or trusted by clients? Certainly.  Given the opportunity, clients will self-select the ones who are.  Are there clients who are self-sabotaging or who I simply do not seem to help?  Certainly.  I have had client such as K who announced during his first visit that he had sabotaged the relationships with every previous therapist.   Eight years later we were still working on trust.  Was the insurance company happy about this limited achievement? No, but it was the first time he had sustained a relationship.   Worthwhile?  We as a culture and as social scientists will have to decide  the long term value of we humans learning to trust and love each other.
 
Written January 14, 2016x

​Reclaiming play
 
I am writing on Wednesday, January 13, 2016.  I have started a load of wash, sent a number of brief emails and text message, responded to others, and worked out at the gym. At the gym I watched and listened to the news while on the treadmill and then chose a Ted talk to which I would listen. This morning I chose one by B.J. Miller entitled “What really matters at the end of life?”  Dr. Miller is a palliative care physician and is executive director at Zen Hospice Project in San Francisco.   Dr. Miller’s life journey has included a college accident which resulted in the loss of part of his left arm and the lower part of both his legs, the study of art history so he could learn to see, being a graduate of medical school, becoming a licensed medical doctor, getting married, and  continuing  on an  ongoing journey of learning to live with all of his senses.  Who is this man?  Who is this person? He is a husband, son, friend, and a physician.  He  is  person who happens to be differently abled, who happens to be a doctor, who happens to direct a Zen Hospice Project.  He is a person who knows that his senses need to be fed and who assumes that the senses of others also need to be fed.  He talks about,  “Sensuous, aesthetic gratification, where in a moment, in an instant, we are rewarded for just being. So much of it comes down to loving our time by way of the senses, by way of the body -- the very thing doing the living and the dying.”

It may surprise some to “hear” him say:
 
“Probably the most poignant room in the Zen Hospice guest house is our kitchen, which is a little strange when you realize that so many of our residents can eat very little, if anything at all. But we realize we are providing sustenance on several levels: smell, a symbolic plane. Seriously, with all the heavy-duty stuff happening under our roof, one of the most tried and true interventions we know of, is to bake cookies. As long as we have our senses -- even just one -- we have at least the possibility of accessing what makes us feel human, connected. Imagine the ripples of this notion for the millions of people living and dying with dementia. Primal sensorial delights that say the things we don't have words for, impulses that make us stay present -- no need for a past or a future.”
 
Obviously we do not need to wait to play until we are knowingly are living the end stage of our life.   When we were children most of us did not have to be taught how to play.  Barring birth defects, early trauma, and other events which  leave a child too fearful to play, most children naturally come into this life journey ready to explore.  Babies explore their own bodies and the space/world at the intersection of their bodies and the rest of the adjacent world.  They employ all the senses available to them – taste, touch, smell, sight, and sound. With touch they explore color, texture, temperature, and mass. They love playing hide and seek, first just with covering and uncovering their eyes.   They explore such scientific laws and principles as gravity.    
 
Play is how children explore the world.   Play is how we adults made discoveries.   Sadly, we adults often forget the importance of play and have a lot of internalized rules limited our play.   I recall being in a residential training program in the Oakland/San Francisco area. There was a section of the training which was focused on reclaiming our ability to play   The main limitation we faced was our fear of looking foolish or not appearing adult like.  Our trainers were a group whose company specialized in helping adults reclaim their ability to play  Their office was a houseboat in Sausalito which was really an old barge with a structure on top.  The structure on top still left room for play equipment including slides, swings, bars, and see saws.   They also had this enormous box of costumes, crayons, paper, and paint including finger paints.  They provided an opportunity to explore the use of all our senses in exploring a world, most of which we ignored in our very serious, adult roles of guiding the healing journey of individuals on the road to recovery from a life hijacked by addiction to alcohol, other drugs, sex, power, gambling, and things.
 
When we allow  our bodies to claim its ability to interact with the world of sensations we feel present and alive.  As Dr. Miller would say, we feel connected again.  He talks about the man with HIV infection and cancer who wanted to raft the Colorado river or the woman living with ALS who decided to  smoke cigarettes again – “French cigarettes if you please”  -  so that she could feel her lungs “filled while she still had them.”
 
Ram Dass says that dying is like taking off a too tight shoe.  Dr. Miller also reminds us that we are not usually afraid of dying. We are afraid of suffering or losing our ability to have the illusion of control. During palliative or hospice care, one is invited to live again – to live with dignity, laughter, sometimes grief, and with love. One is invited to return to a childhood world of play- a connection rather than the disconnect we so often feel if we are in the hospital at this stage of life.
 
One of the most significant turning points in the treatment of HIV infection with many of us who were not expected to live long was to start talking about those “living” with AIDS instead of those “dying” with AIDS.
 
As the umpire says at the ball park – play ball.  Let’s play.
 
Written January 13, 2016

Top down or bottom up
 
This morning, January 12, 2016, I was listening to Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee’s Ted talk entitled “Soon we cure disease with a cell, not a pill.”
 
First, a confession.  It was not only the subject which interests me, but it was the name Siddhartha which is the name of the kind and talented son of a friend of mine, Sandhya  Mheshwari-Gregor.  Thinking of this lovely family made me smile and, I must admit, probably helped to set up positive expectations.   Of course those who read this blog regularly know that I get excited about most Ted Talks.
 
At any rate I was not surprised by Dr.  Mukherjee’s positing the theory  that it is time that we consider “reframing our thinking about medicine.”  He is suggesting that although we need to continue to be grateful for and make use of  such discoveries as penicillin and other pills which allow us to  often cure pneumonia  and other illness, it is time that we quit thinking that  a similar approach has to work for all diseases. He and others have been very active in exploring a paradigm shift such as going back to the bottom so to speak and exploring changing “the metaphor to growing something.” 
 
Thus it is that he and a number of others are excited by such new approaches as stem cell research.    I do not, of course want to herein repeat what the reader can read in more depth for himself or herself about this exciting field.  I am more interested in the fact of Dr. Mukherjee’s statement:
 
“And perhaps more interesting, and more importantly, the question is, can you apply this model more globally outside medicine? What's at stake, as I said before, is not killing something, but growing something.”
 
It seems as if we humans think in terms of killing in approaching many situations or problems.   We are daily confronted with the many ways we humans have of using violence as a response to violence.  We use guns and other physically violent weapons.  We use emotional and psychological violence in our prison system.  Too often even in marriage and other family relationships we use control as a means  of dealing with our fears.  All of these methods work short term. None work long term if the goal is creating more loving, safe and just relationships and healthy individuals.
 
Dr. Mukherjee is clear than no matter what we do, we humans have a time limited life span – that the ability of the body to heal will, of course, diminish with age.   At some point we will also die. We might be one of those rare individuals who lives to be mentally and fairly physically abled until we are 112, but  as many of us are realizing, it does not take long to reach that point in age no matter how far away it seems when we are very young.  Thus, our approach to growing rather than killing as an approach to illness needs to be tempered with the knowledge that there are limits even to this approach. Dr. Mukherjee reminds us that talk therapy, perhaps in combination  with the use of pills, is a very effective approach to such illnesses as depression This is because depression affects the thinking process which affects what messages are sent to rest of the body’s operating system.  It is postulated that placebos work because when the brain thinks it is getting something healing it will start sending healing messages to the rest of the body and the body will physically heal.
 
If we apply this growing paradigm to issues of crime, terrorism, and other societal ills, we will create new ways of thinking. New ways of thinking lead to new ways of behaving  This seems so simple that we may be prone to suggest that it is overly simplistic Yes, as I recall, when someone offered a course in philosophy to a group of homeless individuals, they began to change their lives.  Philosophy explores our basic dance of life – how we approach life.   Those who were inviting others to take this course were inviting them to think differently about their basic life dance.  To be homeless one has to think that:
      One does not have options or one does not have acceptable options.
      It is better to live free than to be controlled by rules which someone imposes.
      It is not safe to trust others.
      I cannot live without alcohol.
      My mentally ill way of thinking is the right/accurate way of thinking.
 
I am sure that I could list many other “truths” of those who are homeless just as I could list many other truths of the terrorists,  right wing thinkers, or those who see stealing or other hurtful ways of behavior as the only possible way of thinking and behaving.
 
Let us, for a moment, consider someone who lives as a criminal.  He or she may be thinking:
 
      My rights are the only ones which are important.
      No one is capable of being trusted. Every person is just out for themselves no matter how much they pretend otherwise.
      I have the right to take from those who have more than there share of the wealth.
      The lives of others do not affect me.  I does not matter if I kill others.
      I need to show the world who is boss.
      No one really cares.
 
Is our current judicial system designed to change or reinforce these thoughts or does our current system say to the “criminal”:
 
      You are a piece of crap/garbage.
      Your rights are not important.
      I do not trust you and, thus, it is fair to lie to you.  You are a low life criminal.
      My life and the life of those I am sworn to protect  are important. Your life is not important.
      I have a  right to take from you. You deserve only what I allot you.
      What happens to you does not affect me. The world would be better off without you.
      I need to show you who is boss.
      I don’t care about you.
 
How is the basic thinking different?  The system is not designed to change the thinking of the so-called criminal.   Punishing is intended to be the pill which is to cure the thinking. The “pill” is the same as the “illness.”
 
If we want to have less crime, fewer terrorists, and a more just and loving world perhaps we need a paradigm shift. Perhaps we need to focus on growing and not proscribing a pill of punishment.
 
I am not suggesting that we have the answers any more than we have all the answers for dealing with the various types of cancer.  I am suggesting that we begin by entertaining the possibility that the pill of punishment which is “designed” to kill the person  literally or figuratively is not always or even usually an long term cure. 
 
The goal of the cancer is to kill. The goal of the treatment is to kill.   Perhaps the treatment needs to be to focus on a more positive approach. 
Certainly penicillin and other drugs have been a miracle but that approach is very limited and, as we can see, the body builds new defenses. There comes a time when antibiotics quit working. 
 
We need to be constantly exploring new paradigms – new approaches – rather than using new variations of the same approach.  It is easy for we humans to think that we can always kill off the problem.
 
Written January 12, 2016

Love stories
 
I am writing on Monday, January 11, 2016 one week prior to the day that will be celebrated as Martin Luther King Jr. day in the United States- a day to remember, celebrate, and emulate the ideal and the courage of Martin Luther King, Jr.    It is, I think, fitting, as I consider the lessons I have learned or of which I have been reminded by Dr. King that I, once again, turn to two of the many inspiring stories on Ted Talks.  I have previously mentioned Ted Talks. “The first six TED Talks were posted online in June 2006. By September, they had reached more than one million views. TED Talks proved so popular that in 2007, TED's website was relaunched around them, giving a global audience free access to some of the world's greatest thinkers, leaders and teachers” (Ted.com).    
 
This morning I listened to and later read two Ted Talks: one about sneakers and one about LGBT life around the world. Both talks in my opinion, are examples of what my friend and mentor, Dr. Becky Johnen, talks about in her blog on focusing on the journey which she published today.(https://authorbeckyjohnen.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/focus-on-the-journey/)
 
In her blog this morning. Dr. Johnen talks about Dorothy and her friends in The Wizard of Oz  which happens to be one  of my favorite stories.  Dr. Johnen talks about the importance of the quality of persistence. By persisting  eventually Dorothy and her friends discover that they have always had all that they needed to make the journey:  Dorothy had the power to get back to Kansas, the Tin Man already had the heart he wanted,  the Scarecrow has the brain he wanted, and the lion has the courage he wanted.  
 
Although I would wish that I could do more to help end pain and suffering in this world, I know that today I do have the power to dream and to take the next step in this journey of love with love. 
 
Dr. King, Dorothy and her friends in The Wizard of Oz, Josh Luber and his love of Air Jordans, and Jenni Chang and Lisa Dazols all demonstrate the power of the dream – the power of love.
 
One might be wondering  how the love of Air Jordans belongs in a conversation about people such as Dr. King and LGBT rights and claiming the essence of who we are as is exhibited by Dorothy and her friends.  This is a fair question.  To be truthful, I have often thought about the fact that some enterprising person or persons have taken what was a plain, practical product – an athletic shoe – and turned it into this amazing array of creative, colorful, fun shoes.   No longer does one find a single pair of white or black shoes in the closet of even the occasional gym rat or teenager.  One might find several pair of shoes in various colors and designs each pair costing more than the entire wardrobe I had as a child.  Some very creative people took a very mundane, practical product and created a product which would not only allow Nike to sell millions of shoes but whose product sold in limited numbers would become a collectors market bringing as much as $8000.00 for one pair.  Who knew?  Mr. Luber knows about this industry – the very lucrative market for sneakers.   He says:
 
“Now we have sneaker addictions. In a market where in the past 12 months, there have been over nine million pairs of shoes resold in the United States alone, at a value of 1.2 billion dollars. And that's a conservative estimate -- I should know, I am a sneakerhead. This is my collection. In the pantheon of great collections, mine doesn't even register. I have about 250 pairs, but trust me, I am small-time. People have thousands.
 
I'm a very typical 37-year-old sneakerhead. I grew up playing basketball when Michael Jordan played. I always wanted Air Jordans, my mother would never buy me Air Jordans. As soon as I got some money I bought Air Jordans -- literally, we all have the exact same story. But here's where mine diverged. After starting three companies, I took a job as a strategy consultant, when I very quickly realized that I didn't know the first thing about data. But I learned, because I had to, and I liked it. So I thought, I wonder if I could get ahold of some sneaker data, just to play with for my own amusement. The goal was to develop a price guide, a real data-driven view of the market. And four years later, we're analyzing over 25 million transactions, providing real-time analytics on thousands of sneakers. Now sneakerheads check prices while camping out for releases. Others have used the data to validate insurance claims. And the top investment banks in the world now use resell data to analyze the retail footwear industry. And here's the best part: sneakerheads have sneaker portfolios.
 
So an unregulated 1.2 billion dollar industry that thrives as much on the street as it does online, and has spawned fundamental financial services for sneakers? At some point I asked myself what's really going on in the market, and two comparisons started to emerge. Are sneakers more like stocks or drugs?
 
The resell market, we know, is $1.2 billion. Nike, including Jordan brand, accounts for 96 percent of all shoes sold on the secondary market. Just complete domination. Sneakerheads love Jordans. And profit on the secondary market is about a third. That means that Sneakerheads made 380 million dollars selling Nikes last year. Let's jump to retail for a second. Skechers, earlier this year, became the number two footwear brand in the country, surpassing Adidas -- this was a big deal. And in the 12 months ending in June, Skechers's net income was 209 million dollars. That means that Nike's customers make almost twice as much profit as their closest competitor.”
 
One can argue the social value of a retail or secondary marketplace of very pricy sneakers.   My point is that someone had a dream to create sneakers costing more than most of the world pays to clothe an entire family and made them such a coveted collector’s item that they would sell for thousands of dollars.
 
The second Ted Talk to which I listened this morning was Jenni Chang and Lisa Dazols.  Jenni Chang was a woman who came from Taiwan.  When she told her parents she was gay they blamed it on her being in the United States and wanted to bring her back to Taiwan. She wondered if they were right but later asked the question:
 
“Of course, there are gay people in Asia, just as there are gay people in every part of the world. But is the idea of living an "out" life, in the "I'm gay, this is my spouse, and we're proud of our lives together" kind of way just a Western idea?”
 
Eventually she met and  fell in love with Lia Dazois who was an HIV worker in San Francisco.   At some point they decided that, without any background in creating and producing a documentary, they would travel over 50,000 miles to look for those “supergays” in other countries who had courageously claimed the right of LGBT people to live with dignity in countries around the world. They found these supergays in Nepal, East Africa, India and Argentina.  What they found in East Africa was typical in many respects:
 
“LD: From India, we traveled to East Africa, a region known for intolerance towards LGBT people. In Kenya, 89 percent of people who come out to their families are disowned. Homosexual acts are a crime and can lead to incarceration. In Kenya, we met the soft-spoken David Kuria. David had a huge mission of wanting to work for the poor and improve his own government. So he decided to run for senate. He became Kenya's first openly gay political candidate. David wanted to run his campaign without denying the reality of who he was. But we were worried for his safety because he started to receive death threats.”
 
When they came back to San Francisco and reviewed the footage of their film they concluded:
 
JC: As we reviewed our footage, what we realized is that we were watching a love story. It wasn't a love story that was expected of me, but it is one filled with more freedom, adventure and love than I could have ever possibly imagined. One year after returning home from our trip, marriage equality came to California. And in the end, we believe, love will win out.
Jenni Chaang and Liza Dazol, Ted Talk, This is what LGBT life is like around the world.
 
The Ted Talks themselves are an example of this same belief in the power of education, the power of persistence, and ultimately the power of love. In its own way every Ted Talk is about a dream and about love.
Indeed as Jenni, Liza, Josh, Dr. King, Dr. Johnen and the creators of Ted Talks as well as a host of others demonstrate, in this brief life journey,  persistence, courage, and determination  will allow us to find a way to make this world a more colorful, just and loving one.   It all begins with love – love of self, each other, justice, a dream and, yes even sneakers whose colorful fun designed also tell a story of love.
 
Written January 11, 2016

Dance,dance, dance

As I was working out at the gym this morning and listening to two different Ted Talks – Genevieve von Petzinger “Why are there 32 symbols found in ancient caves all over Europe? and Nonny de la Pena The future of news? Virtual Reality – the words dance, hope, empathy, child, creativity, possibilities, distance and closeness kept popping into my head.

One might legitimately ask why these two Ted talks brought these words to the surface of my mind.   First, the talk by Dr  Petzinger was yet another reminder of our common origin and are early need to find ways of connecting.  I was also reminded that if we  embrace the inquisitive part of the minds of our children they will  follow the path of such people as Dr. Petzinger.  By path, I do not mean the same career path but the path of allowing our curiosity to morph into a passion which, in turn, provides the energy to do the hard work in any field of creativity or research. Listen to Dr. Petzinger:

“But you know, this is the kind of question that I'm trying to answer with my research. I study some of the oldest art in the world. It was created by these early artists in Europe, between 10,000 and 40,000 years ago. And the thing is that I'm not just studying it because it's beautiful, though some of it certainly is. But what I'm interested in is the development of the modern mind, of the evolution of creativity, of imagination, of abstract thought, about what it means to be human. While all species communicate in one way or another, only we humans have really taken it to another level. Our desire and ability to share and collaborate has been a huge part of our success story. Our modern world is based on a global network of information exchange made possible, in large part, by our ability to communicate -- in particular, using graphic or written forms of communication. The thing is, though, that we've been building on the mental achievements of those that came before us for so long that it's easy to forget that certain abilities haven't already existed. It's one of the things I find most fascinating about studying our deep history. Those people didn't have the shoulders of any giants to stand on. They were the original shoulders. And while a surprising number of important inventions come out of that distant time, what I want to talk to you about today is the invention of graphic communication…

Barring a handful of outliers, there are only 32 geometric signs. Only 32 signs across a 30,000-year time span and the entire continent of Europe. That is a very small number. Now, if these were random doodles or decorations, we would expect to see a lot more variation, but instead what we find are the same signs repeating across both space and time. Some signs start out strong, before losing popularity and vanishing, while other signs are later inventions. But 65 percent of those signs stayed in use during that entire time period -- things like lines, rectangles triangles, ovals and circles like we see here from the end of the Ice Age, at a 10,000-year-old site high in the Pyrenees Mountains. And while certain signs span thousands of kilometers, other signs had much more restricted distribution patterns, with some being limited to a single territory, like we see here with these divided rectangles that are only found in northern Spain, and which some researchers have speculated could be some sort of family or clan signs.
On a side note, there is surprising degree of similarity in the earliest rock art found all the way from France and Spain to Indonesia and Australia. With many of the same signs appearing in such far-flung places, especially in that 30,000 to 40,000-year range, it's starting to seem increasingly likely that this invention actually traces back to a common point of origin in Africa. But that I'm afraid, is a subject for a future talk.”

Hopefully the reader experiences her passion for the history of our need as humans to communicate and to honor our common ancestry.   If one watches and listens to her Ted Talk  one will have an even stronger experience of that passion.

The talk by Nonny de la Pena on the future of the news and virtual reality is a wonderful reminder that we can use modern technology to not only create distance (sitting in Arizona or some place directing a pilotless aircraft or drone to drop bombs on other humans.  Using email or text while sitting next to each other) but also closeness.)  Using the technology  which allows us to experience virtual reality she can take us to the front lines of war, the homeless person who goes into a diabetic coma because the line is so long or the two people from very different backgrounds and cultures actually being with and attending to each other as equal humans. Her innovative work demonstrates that with the technology of virtual reality one feels the pain and the joy of another.  Most of we humans can experience pain and most of us can experience love (there are physical/medical conditions which do not allow some people to experience the mirror image/empathy).

Both of these women remind one that the dance of life which we chose, will determine the expansiveness of our mind and our mind will determine the dance of life.

I was reminded of my friend Mark Taylor with whom I have studied mind- body consciousness.  It was he who first taught me that every movement of the body stimulates a particular part of the brain,  just as the brain can stimulate every part of the body (again, allowing for medical limitations from birth or caused by disease or accidents). When Mark and his wife had a child who was born with a  developmental delay they searched for a way to help this child  be all he could be. Mark was a professional dancer and, thus, when he and his wife discovered the art and science of  mind-body movement they found specific exercises which would help their son develop speech and other abilities much earlier than other  developmentally delayed or differently abled children. 

I had already been introduced to the art and science of movement therapy and the art and science of street miming.  I began to study with a movement/dance therapist when I realized that part of my brain which analyzes and dissects everything keep me from fully experiencing  and integrating the emotional part of me.   I would work with a dance therapist in Seattle for a week at a time from early morning to late at night.  During that time I was only allowed to “speak” through movement. He might tell me to communicate fear, love, joy or some other emotion through movement of my body. I would tell him I was just going through the motion and he would say that was fine. Eventually if  kept “pretending” for several hours (yikes!) the movement would engage the emotion.   

When I was studying street  miming my teacher told me that if I could exactly copy the movement of someone I would always know what they were feeing and often what they were thinking.  Our bodies do not lie. Our movement always tells the truth of what we are experiencing emotionally.    

In order to creates a more just and loving world I must experience the connectedness with other humans and with other life forms.  People such as Ms. De la Pena, Dr Petzinger, Mark Taylor and many others remind me that we are mirror images of each other, that we are all whole human being with an interactional mind body.

When I allow myself to just be present groups of words or concepts such as “dance, hope, empathy, child, creativity, possibilities, distance and closeness”   all decide to visit. If I am then patient  they will let me in on the secret of why they have learned to play well together.

Written January 10, 2015

Something out of nothing
 
“ Why is there something rather than nothing?”    This is the question which Harry Cliff poses in  his Ted Talk entitled “Have we reached the end of physics?”
 
For the reader who is not familiar with Ted Talks if you have a smart phone or an iPad I highly recommend downloading the Ted Talk app.   This app will connect the reader/listener to brief talks by scientists, theater notables, spiritual leaders, and many other individuals. The one thing that all of the presenters have in common is that  they will invite one to think outside of their box of whatever topic is  being discussed or presented.  Since I have eclectic tastes and tend to get bored rather easily,  I listen to a variety of these talks. Frequently I listen while I am working out at the gym.  This morning I listened to a couple of Ted talk including the one by Mr. Cliff.  
 
In his talk Mr. Cliff states:
 
On July 4, 2012, physicists at CERN announced to the world that they'd spotted a new fundamental particle being created at the violent collisions at the LHC: the Higgs boson.
 
He goes on to report that:
 
“But there is something deeply mysterious about the Higgs field. Relativity and quantum mechanics tell us that it has two natural settings, a bit like a light switch. It should either be off, so that it has a zero value everywhere in space, or it should be on so it has an absolutely enormous value. In both of these scenarios, atoms could not exist, and therefore all the other interesting stuff that we see around us in the universe would not exist. In reality, the Higgs field is just slightly on, not zero but 10,000 trillion times weaker than its fully on value, a bit like a light switch that's got stuck just before the off position. And this value is crucial. If it were a tiny bit different, then there would be no physical structure in the universe.
If any of them explained this weirdly fine-tuned value of the Higgs field, then we should see new particles being created at the LHC along with the Higgs boson. So far, though, we've not seen any sign of them.”
 
He also reminds is that:
 
“But in 1998, astronomers made the stunning discovery that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up. The universe is getting bigger and bigger faster and faster driven by a mysterious repulsive force called dark energy.
 
We don't know what dark energy is, but the best idea is that it's the energy of empty space itself, the energy of the vacuum. Now, if you use good old quantum mechanics to work out how strong dark energy should be, you get an absolutely astonishing result. You find that dark energy should be 10 to the power of 120 times stronger than the value we observe from astronomy. That's one with 120 zeroes after it.
…
 
If one does a bit more research one finds that the current estimate is that dark energy makes of 74% of the universe(s),  dark matter 22% and visible matter only 4%.  One will also find that the dark energy is the energy of empty space, the vacuum itself.”
 
The reader may or may want to  review the nature of matter – nucleus, protons, neutrons and electrons.
 
One may or may not also remind oneself of the fact that gravity is strong when things are closer and weaker when further apart.  
 
Perhaps we may also need to remind ourselves of the nature of electromagnetic waves.
 
The word physics, accordingly to Wikipedia: 
 
“Physics (from Ancient Greek: φυσική (ἐπιστήμη) phusikḗ (epistḗmē) "knowledge of nature", from φύσις phúsis "nature") is the natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force.”
 
By this time if one’s interest and/or background is not in physics or a related field, one might be saying to oneself (or out loud), “Oy Vy”   Poor Jim has gone over the edge this morning.  What is or are the point(s)? The points are of course:
 
1.    Have we reached the end of physics – the end of the study of matter or the end of the illusion of the study of matter?
2.    How does our current understanding of string theory help us understand at least one of the possibilities for understanding the creation and the destruction/changing of the  form of matter and the movement of dark energy through/in the vacuum/the dark space?
3.    What is our minor role in the drama  over time of  all forms of energy?
4.    What is the debt we owe such scientists as Dr. Cliff for reminding us of the price we pay for thinking  that we know something about physics and our role in the universe? What is the price we pay for not honoring the delicate balance of what Dr. Cliff calls the Goldilocks universe? 
5.    What is the relative value of such scientists as Dr. Cliff, poets, musicians, spiritual leaders, military leaders, and religious extremists?
6.    How do we get more of our children excited about becoming the future scientists who have the courage to ask the impossible question about matter, form, energy, expanding universes, and the  interactional nature of the universes?
7.    How is something created out of nothing? 
8.    What is our operational definition of something?
9.    What is our operational definition of nothing?
 
Written on January 9, 2016