Decision Making

One of the advantages of being single and living alone is that one does not have to negotiate with another person regarding day-to-day decisions.  If one makes a mistake, one simply takes responsibility for it and then makes a new decision, lives with the results of the previous decision or makes  a new one even if that involves adsorbing a financial loss as a result of the previous decision. That is the good news – no one to blame.  The bad news is that there is no one with whom to share the decision and, thus, no one to share the blame if it turns out to be a decision which does not achieve the desired results.

Even if we live alone, most of us are connected to social, community or work institutions which require us to make decisions with other people. As we know there are many ways for any group to make decisions.  One can, for example, have a boss, a CEO or any structure which assigns responsibility to a position to make final decisions. The person in that position might ask for input from individuals, an assigned committee, or the next level of management, but it is still up to the top person on the hierarchy to make the decision and to subsequently take responsibility for the results of the decision. Just recently we, in the United States were told that the head of a Federal Agency was resigning because of what had happened on her watch.   She was well aware that no matter how little input she had into the actions of  individuals in the agency who made unsound decisions it was ultimately her responsibility. 

One can also make decisions by simple majority  or require that a certain percentage agree to a particular decision for it to approved and enacted. This, of course, can take more time  than having an individual make the decision

The most time consuming decision making process is the consensus model.   In this model which is practiced by most Quaker groups everyone must agree or no decision is made.  Assuming everyone is of good faith and there are no behind the scenes coercing  this is by far the  most efficient decision making process. It is most efficient because if the original decision does not  have the desired results then there is no time and energy wasted on blame thus allowing the group to immediately begin the process of making a new decision.  Short term, of course, this may not seem like a very efficient way of making a decision.   If an organization is set up to micro manage  every aspects of the operation then consensus decision making is not very efficient long term or short term.

Some families or organization will attempt to design a decision making model based up a set of criteria to which either a majority or all of them have agreed.  These criteria will often reflect the values of that family.  For example a family might decide to only purchase free trade goods which might be very laudable but, may or may not be practical depending on their budget and where they are located. 

Other families or organizations may have a very simple set of criteria based upon the stated and actual mission of the organization. If profit is their primary mission then the organization has to decide on whether long or short term profit is the primary goal.   If addition to the quality of life for the employees and the customers are the goals than their may be quite a long list of criteria to consider.

One of the decisions currently facing many communities, especially in light of tentative research results, is whether to allow fracking which is a method of extracting gas from the earth. This process might or might not have negative impact on the environment.  There is some research which indicates the process might be making certain geographical areas more prone to earthquakes, damage the water supplies and, at times, damage a forest area or the habitat of certain forest areas.   On the other hand fracking has given many individual, communities and  families some significant financial rewards. It has also decreased the dependence of the United States on foreign  oil and gas.

At times it might appear as if none of the possible choices produce desirable results. 

Many of our day-to-day decisions may be  based on what feels good or best right now.  Having a really luxurious house, a very comfortable car, the latest technology,$10000 jeans, may seem to increase one’s self esteem and one’s popularity.  In fact, often these things do work to increase one’s popularity.  Alcohol, other drugs, a sexual hook up, some unhealthy food and many other substances and behaviors do, in fact, increase one’s enjoyment temporarily.

If I am working with/for an individual ,couple or a family who want to lead a healthier, more content life I first take a history of their emotional, physical, intellectual, nutritional and spiritual health habits.  Often some of their presenting symptoms can be directly tied to the choices they make.  If I then go on to ask that same individual, couple or family to articulate their decision making model, I will often get a blank stare.  It would seem that despite the fact that most people want to be responsible and moral people they have not been conscious of choosing a decision making model which they actively employ on a day-to-day basis. They are then left with  making decisions based on some poorly articulated criteria which they inherited from family, peers or others.

My own decision making model is an attempt to take many factors into account. These include:

·      How will my decision affect other people in my family, circle of friends, or wider community? Is the decision based on a realistic assessment of my long term financial assets?  Is it in my budget?

·      Are there other resources for the product I want?   This is most obvious with books. I love books and at one time purchased a lot more books than I now do.  I have become much more intentional bout checking to see if I can get the book from the library.

·      Would I be ashamed of my decision?  Does it violate any of my stated values?  Would I be proud to share this decision with those I respect.

·      Am I trying to impress some other person(s) with the results of this decision? Is this okay?  For example I might decide spending a little more on business cards will make a better impression on some. That is realistic and does not violate my value system. On the other hand,  if I decide a $300.00 shirt is going to impress someone that is not okay within my value system.

·      It is healthy for my body. This is evident in my  choices about food products or things which directly affect my health. For example a friend of mine is sleeping on a very old mattress even though she has serious back issues. It makes sense for her to attempt to budget money for a really good mattress.

·      Is what I am considering a need or a want?

·      How honest am I being with myself?  Am I willing to share this particular decision making process with a trusted friend who  will let me know if the think I am being dishonest with myself.

This sounds like a really involved process and it is.  On the other hand, as is true  in many areas of life, a little practice makes this easier.

There are also many decisions which are not that important and which I do not need to obsess about or analyze in any depth.  The important point is that I know that life does not just happen to me. Although it is true that certain life events just show up, how I respond to them can be a very intentional decision. 

I also want to remember that decision making is a learned skill which takes practice. I am not going to be the perfect decision maker. It is okay to  make mistakes.  At the same time, I would like to avoid making the same mistake over and over and over again and expecting different results.   Albert Einstein called that insanity.

As is true for most of we humans, it is not unusual for me to be say something critical about the decision of the President of the United States, one of the cabinet members, a Senator or Representative, the leader of another country, the action of the military of this or another county, representatives of radical groups who initiate violent behavior or who react to the behavior of others in a violent manner.

Just this morning I was shaking my head as I read the newspaper accounts of the beginning of the trial of a young man in Colorado who set off a bomb in a movie theater complex some years ago, of more bombings in Iraq,  of more killing in Yemen, of riots in Baltimore, of the investigations of the actions of some police persons who are accused of using “unnecessary force”.

When I am sitting in my comfortable home or having coffee with a friend it is very easy for me to express self-righteous criticism of a person(s) who thinks that violence is an appropriate response to violence or the threat of violence.   It is easy for me to posit the opinion that so and so is really dumb for not understanding that reacting with violence has never worked long term for an individual or a nation.

Sometimes I am reading about or thinking about domestic violence which, as reported, is frequently a male being violent towards a woman although I have often known of cases of the violence being initiated by a female against a male or another female or initiated by a male against another male. 

It is easy to assume or come to the conclusion that it is as natural for the human being to respond to a threat or perceived threat as it is for many other animals.  If we are a student of the behavior of a variety of animals we well aware that we humans are not the only ones to react to violence or  initiate violence to protect one’s territory, family, or community. We humans probably have the distinction of being the only ones who argue over a belief system.   It is difficult to imagine a lion, a wolf or some other animals arguing about what God or the Gods expect of them or what the God(s) will reward them for.    I can imagine aa lion fighting to protect its food source, but it is difficult for me to imagine a lion in lion speak claiming that God(s) are demanding that they kill the rabbit because the rabbit has been sexually promiscuous or because the squirrel look shared a meal with a chipmunk. One gets the idea.

One wonders what would happen if we quit positing a concept of God(s) whom is concerned about what is “natural” or “unnatural”.  It seems to that that we humans from the beginning of recorded history have been thinking of new ways to behave or interact with the world and each other.   Whether we use the discovery of how to make a fire, create houses which can be cooled or heated, medicines which change the “natural” progression of an illness, a prosthesis which allow Boston Marathon runner who lost his or her legs to again run on two legs we humans have been destroying the “natural” order for a very long time with very positive results. On the other hand, we could easily confuse “natural order” with “balance”.  It certainly is true that there are many examples, which show how we humans have failed to fully explore  how changing one thing affects the overall balance of nature. If, for example, we introduce certain foods to systems, which are not used to those foods or not designed for those foods, there are going to be negative results because we have failed to take into account how a human organism would react to that substance.  An analogy might be what happens if I put diesel fuel into my current car.  I know that my car will not be happy. I also know that I can have changes made to my car so that it will run on diesel fuel and thus maintain a “natural” balance for that car.

Let us then suppose for the sake of this discussion that we can agree to not use the concept of “natural” or “unnatural” to justify our behavior. Let us also agree that we are going to quit tying to think for God(s) or use the “teachings” of others about what God(s) wants or do not want as a basis for our thoughts or behavior. What are we left with?   We are left with the ideas of those who have proposed that we creatively find ways to share the resources of the world, create more resources by changing how we grow crops, reduce the number of new births and, perhaps most importantly, find new ways of affirming the worth of each of us.  If I do not have to worry about earning the favor of God(s) or whether I am to have a seat in “heaven”, then perhaps I can begin to entertain the possibility that all of us have worth; that all of us deserve to be treated with love and respect.

You might then say, “

That would be all fine as long as we got everyone to agree to those two conditions, but that is not going to happen. What good wills it does if a few of us are the only ones to adopt these conditions?  Let me tell you No good at all.  Others will continue to mistreat, torture or kill me in the name of God, Allah, Elohim, Buddha or in the name any of the other 111 names for God I found listed. “  Yes, that is true, I might respond.  On the other hand what if, for today, I decide to treat those which whom I have direct or indirect contact with dignity and respect?  What if I refuse to attest that my way is better or right? What if I see my brother who might happen to be a minister of a very conservative church or the leader of the local mosque or an atheist or a person who is advocating the use of violence to respond to the terrible situations around the world as just another human being who is no better or worse than I; who just wants to be treated with dignity and respects?   What if I focus on having empathy for the leader of a country, including the President of the United States?  Truth be told I have no idea of how I might act if I was placed for even on day in that position.   What if I focus on loving that person who violently disagrees with me?

What if I decide to focus on noticing my self righteous, often arrogant, perceived “need” to prove my way of thinking is the right way, the best way or the only way? It does not matter if that is how the other person is thinking or behaving.   What if I can even entertain the idea of seeing myself in the other person and having true compassion for that person?  That would requiring me taking the leap of trusting that I am worthwhile without have to be brilliant, right, more moral, or the only one with a direct line to the deity of my choice?

In essence what I am proposing is that I focus on what I can control and ignore what I cannot control. What I can control is to practice showing up with love, accepting that I do not have “the” answers and  not accepting the invitation to engage in debate about whose God is right or whose deity is right.

If I do that I will be standing in the shoes of Richard Wright’s, Rosa Parks, Father Gregory Boyle,  Bigger Thomas, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Pope Francis and other courageous people.

Yesterday, my good friend and colleague Cheryl reminded me of spiritual exercise to which I was introduced years ago.   Although various people use a slightly different exercise, the essence is the same.  Cheryl had first heard it from a nun who was helping to teach caregivers about dealing with end of life issues.  I first learned it   from a trainer in California as an exercise we could all use on a regular basis to help bring us back to what is most important.

If you, the reader, are similar to me and many others that I know,  it is easy to get busy with life and act as if the least important tasks or issues on which we spend our limited supply of energy are the most important. I call this getting off center. This human can easily get off center.

No matter which model of the exercise one is using, the basic exercise is to list the ten issues or tasks, which are most important to you. My list might look like the following:

         Friendship

         Parenting

         Learning

          Writing

         Overall health care

         Music

         Art

         Travel

         Reading

         Food – eating, planning meals and preparation

The next step of the exercise might be to reduce the list to five.  My list is now:

         Relationships – I have combined parenting and friendships.

         Overall Health care

         Writing

         Learning

         Music

Next, reduce the list to three.  Now, for me, it looks like:

         Relationships

         Overall Health Care

         Learning

Finally one has to reduce it to one item. For me this is:

        

         Relationships

Relationships for me include relationship with self, God/higher power/universe and other people. My thinking is that if I do not take care of myself emotionally, spiritually, and physically I will not be present with other people and will, thus, not be a good listener, which, to me, is the primary component of any relationships.   Listening might mean listening to their words, the en energy in general, their body language and any other way that they are letting me know what is going on with them. Notice I did not say listening and giving them advice or listening and relating what they are saying to my experience. I also did not say I defended myself or apologized profusely for hurting the other person’s feelings.  Of course, there might be times when I need to apologize.  The point I am attempting to make is that it is important be bear witness- being an enlightened witness (see recent blog by that title).

In the long run I would like to learn how to be a good friend, father, son, other people with whom I have a long or short-term relationships.

As I approach my 75th birthday I am again reminded that life is very short. Just ten minutes ago I was 25 and a few minutes prior to that I was a six year old.   In another second or two I will end this life journey. It does not matter whether, as we measure time, it is a day or 25 years, the time will pass very quickly.  98% of the tasks on which I spent time and energy are not important. Whether I leave my condo perfectly clean, write an erudite blog, have money in the bank or ready those 100 books sitting on my Ipad or on one of the many surfaces on which one finds books waiting to be read or leave my car clean will not matter. No one will remember any of those. People will remember whether I was ever there; whether I neglected to put down the newspaper when they were talking or whether I allowed something or someone else to distract me while I was physically with them. 

Another part of this exercise that I have often used with myself is to attempt to honestly estimate the percentage of my life that I spend on each of the items on my list.  Even though work or making money was not even on my list, historically a significant percentage of my time was spent on work.  Sometimes at work the task was more important and sometimes being with a person was more important.  If relationship was more important then I was okay with that even though it was in the context of work.  On the other hand if I had time for clients and never time for my family and close friends then I was not spending my time in a way, which was consistent with my stated values.   Many of us will find that our “real list” is the one, which reflects how we spend our time and energy.  No mater what I say my stated values are, the truth is how I generally spend my time and energy reflects my actual values.  For them I have to look at patterns and not just one hour or one day.

Once I compare how I am spending my time and energy with my stated values I have the following choices:

1.   Do nothing because how I spend my time and energy matches my stated values. (My partner, children, and close friends would agree with my assessment?)

2.   Quit lying to myself and accept that my values are different from what I have been saying that they are.

3.   Find another way to make the lists more compatible. Cut back on work; downsize one home and other material possession; make new decisions about educational choices for the children; get rid of some of the toys; quit loaning money, which makes one look like a rich big shot.

This can also be done as a family exercise. Remember that the goal is not to scold, shame or criticize in any way. The goal is to have the courage to be honest and to find a way to make changes, which allows one’s energy and time output to more nearly match one’s values.

        

Math, Science and Crocheting

Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised that Monday’s blog is influenced by the NPR program, “Oh Being” with Krista Tippett.  Yesterday her guest was the physicist, Margaret Wertheim. 

Listening to Dr. Wertheim talk stimulated my love of math, physics, philosophy and the resulting questions about the age-old argument of determinism vs. Free Will. 

I do not recall when or by whom I first heard math referred to as a language for talking about relationships, but I do recall that it made perfect sense to me. I have always been interested in the how pieces fit together or how one part of the universe engineers or plans its visit with another part of the universe.  Certainly we know that there are some very predictable patterns in the universe.  Dr. Wertheim, for example, talked about the components and patterns of coral reefs.  Coral reefs begin with stony corals or scleratctinians.  Massive reef structures are formed with each individual stony coral organism-or polyp- secretes a skeleton of calcium carbonate.” .  . .These colonies can grow very large and weigh several tons. (Google stony corals and one will get a lot more information on them from various sources).  In fact Dr. Wertheim and her twin sister Christine  “founded the Institute for Figuring to advance the aesthetic appreciation of scientific concepts, from the natural physics of snowflakes and fractals to human constructs such as Islamic mosaics, string figures and weaving…. The IFF’s latest project is perhaps the most beguiling strange—a coral reef constructed entirely by crochet hook, a project that takes advantage of the happy congruence between the mathematical phenomena modeled perfectly by the creatures of the reef, and the repetitive tasks such as crocheting—which, as it turns out, is perfectly adapted to model hyperbolic space.”  (Ted.com/speakers/Margaret_Wertheim.

If one has ever crocheted, knitted, or quilted one knows that there are mathematical patterns both to the design and the execution of the design.  At the very same time there are many factors which affects the final outcome.  Even given the same person using the same tools and the same material there can be noticeable difference in the final outcome even though the overall pattern is the same. 

Many other individuals such as Anne Lamott in her book, “Stitches’ uses the metaphor of the quilt to talk about how the pieces of our life fit together; how the quilting pattern and thread bring all the pieces together much as the pieces of our life fit together to form an overall pattern.

When one studies physics, particularly quantum physics, one if forced to confront both the deterministic and indeterminist patters in nature.  From scienceblogs.com one reads, “4) Measurement determines reality. Until the moment that the exact state of a quantum particle is measured, that state is indeterminate, and in fact can be thought of as spread out over all the possible outcomes. After a measurement is made, the state of the particle is absolutely determined, and all subsequent measurements on that particle will return produce exactly the same outcome.”

My interest in this question of free will vs. the seemingly deterministic nature of my life journey has led and continues to lead me to study such philosophers as Plato, Socrates, and Rene Descartes, Gottlob Frege and Immanuel Kant.  Most philosophers are interested in the questions related to our role and place in the world.  Of course, this necessitates positing some theories or suggesting a method for the thinking process itself. Thus, Gottloh Frege, the German logician, mathematician and philosopher is sometimes credited with inventing modern quantificational logic…(Wikipedia.org/wiki/philosophy_of_

mathematics)

Rene Descartes proposed that reality consists of two separate realms:  a physical realm and a mental realm. (psych.utah.edu) At the time this distinction was helpful because it allowed the exploration and study of science to proceed without having to deal with some of the more confusing questions such as free will; the extent to which we are free to make moral or immoral decisions. Of course, the terms moral and immoral are themselves very relative.   

As physics and other branches of science have evolved we are again finding that the question may not be free will vs. deterministic or free will vs. predestination as understood by John Calvin and others.  The answer might be that:

·      A great many factors affect the ability of the human brain to formulate a thought- genetics, stress, history, diet, other sources of chemical changes, and certain medical/physical conditions.

·      Despite all indications to the contrary we do seem to be able to have some choices and to change behavioral patterns.

·      All parts or pieces of my past life coalesces to bring me to this moment. If I changed anything in the past the present would be different. In this sense the past determines the present.

·      As with the creation of coral reefs and other phenomenon in nature, there is an initial factor which sets the energy of a thought in motion but how it comes together with other forces/thoughts will vary based upon a number of factors


Obviously, if I am accurate the question of free will vs. determinism is still very muddy.   It is easier for terms or we humans to think in either.  Either we have complete free will and thus, can be help accountable for our behavior or we do not have free will and our amoral and cannot be help accountable. 

As a person who works with/for people with so called mental illness, I am often acting as if people have the choice to choose treatment even if their brain is not working well!  We, as a culture, make that assumption.  Very seldom can a person legally claim mental incapacity as a reason or one’s behavior. Even when one is declared incompetent to stand trail, when one is determined to be able to understand the consequences of one’s actions, one might be brought to trial for the behavior committed while being incompetent.   This is to stay that our judicial system is largely predicated on the belief that we have ability to make choices and if we make a choice deemed inappropriate by the culture can be help accountable.

Am I then saying that two plus two does not always equal four?  In essence that is exactly what I am saying.  At the same time I am suggesting that for all practical purpose it is important to know that the probability is that two plus two will equal four.

That is, for the theologian, the philosophers, and other “scientists” such as the person who studies the language and patterns of relationships we must allow for the possibility of new patterns creations emerging from the same process.  People such as Dr. Margaret Wertheim will continue to challenge us to use all possible tools to step outside the box of what seems logical while, at the same time giving ourselves the chance to observe the crocheted version of the world or a portion of if from a new perspective. 

I urge the reader to ask your local library  find you a copy of Dr. Wertheimer’s latest book, Physics on the Fringe: Smoke Rings, Circions, and Alternatives Theories of Everything.

 

=

Dr. Alice Miller, A Swiss psychologist of Polish-Jewish origin who died in 2010, coined the term, “an Enlightened Witness” which she defined as:

“ . . . A warm, enlightened witness - therapist, social aid worker, lawyer, and judge - can help the criminal unlock his repressed feelings and restore the unrestricted flow of consciousness. This can initiate the process of escape from the vicious circle of amnesia and violence.”

(“The Essential Role of an Enlightened Witness in Society”, www.alice-miller.com)

The work of Dr. Miller has been used to help us understand the multi-generational cycle of abuse and the affects of traumatic events in one’s life in general.   Many years ago, Dr. Miller theorized that in order for healing to occur one has to both remember the abuse/trauma and has to share it with another “warm, enlightened witness”.   This witness provides them a safe place to remember the abuse/trauma and to “give vent to their feelings of rage, pain and indignation at what happened to them.” (www.Alice-Miller.com)

She has applied this theory to her understanding of why those who are abused often, but not necessarily always, end up being an abuser.    Those people who do not end up becoming abusers themselves always had some loving adult who was unable to protect them.   Thus, Dr. Miller does not maintain that everyone who was abused will become an abuser, but she does maintain that every abuser has a history of being a victim of a person(s) or circumstances.

Dr. Miller has proposed that we consider the thesis that if we want to stop the cycle of violence we have to lovingly help the victim remember and share their “feelings of rage, pain and indignation”.   Sadly, what we too often do is to further punish the victim because he/she has become the abuser. 

The 12-step program of recovery from addiction the steps and the traditions give one the opportunity to honestly look at their history as victims and abusers.  They then share that with another trusted person who may or may not be their sponsor.   Although the 4th step deals with a “searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves” my experience in working for/with individuals has been that once they begin this step of honesty they also begin to remember the ways in which they were abused or traumatized.   When they can allow themselves to share this with someone who will validate their truth without shaming them or casting them further into the victim role, they begin to have real adult choices.

When we do not have some understanding of why we are behaving in a certain way we will do our best to justify our behavior by blaming it on the other person, repeating learned prejudices, or finding some “learned” individual to agree with us.  

Although many who read the works of Dr. Miller understand her to be talking those individuals who suffered easily recognizable traumatic abuse, she is also talking about the abuse, which may not have been so blatant or so obvious to the average outsider.

Perhaps it is helpful to make sure that the reader and I are using the same definition of abuse.  In some of her notes, Dr. Miller addressed this issue. I am, however, going to use the definition of abuse, which I have been using in my work for a very long time.   I define abuse as any behavior, which the individual experiences that says directly or indirectly state or imply that one is less then. This is, of course, obvious with such acts as murder or rape.  In order to murder someone I have to consider that, at that moment, his or her life is less important than mine. If I plan a murder it is very obvious. If I am react impulsively it is less clear.  In order to rape someone, if one is “sane” one has to decide that the need for power is more important than the sacredness of the person being raped.  There are many other ways of behaving in a way which communicates that the person is less than/not as worth while, not deserving, or is lacking some essential because they are a bad/sinful person.  We have to consider acts of commission and omission.

Certainly most of us have had some experience of abuse.  If we were lucky we had a parent or other enlightened witness whom we could truthfully tell us that what the abuser said or did was not about us, but about his or her own issues.  It is not surprising then that, even in the case of rape when or other sexual abuse, when the individual immediately tells someone who is very supportive and keep reassuring them that they did nothing wrong and that the other person has some issue/problem then the victim of the abuse will essentially heal very quickly. They may, of course, have a scar which never goes away, but they will not be traumatized or later abuse others.    It is only when we internalize the “lies” of the abuser that we unable to heal and move on with our lives in a healthy way.

One of the reasons why Father Gregory Boyle is so accepted and trusted by the former gang members is that he listens without judging and without adding to the sense of victimhood.

It occurs to me that the essential message of the Dr. Millers and the Father Gregory’s of the world is one of hope.  By listening with love we validate both the abuse and the fact that we are not our abuse. We are not less than, not just an object, not deserving of abuse, not an anybody or without worth. We are somebody and who can move beyond reacting and we can then claim the life we deserve.

Just as important in my mind is that we not validate the belief that we are a victim who has been damaged beyond repair. I have seen numerous incidences of my colleagues, judges, attorneys and others who have, in an effort to win a case or be supportive, said over and over again in front of the person who was abused, “This person has been so heinously abused and has suffered so much that they can never have a normal, healthy life.  This, in my mind, because just another piece of the abuse. However well intentioned, the person has said confirmed that the person is a damaged goods and has no hope of healing.

The enlightened witness lovingly holds out his/her arms and says:  “Come home. You are the same wonderful person you were prior to the abuse.  We all have some scars. The person who abused you did not have the opportunity to heal. He/she does not know what to do with their pain except strike out in one form or another.  They are without hope. That is sad and about them and their journey.  It affected you but does not define you.  Express al the feelings you need to. I will not judge you or condone the abuse. I will show you that you are worthy of respect and love.”

Depression or Delight

Yesterday I wrote about the courage to see with our third eye.   Later I was reading the following passage from a column by Ron Roleiser:

FROM DEPRESSION TO DELIGHT

AUGUST 14, 2005

It’s not easy to be grown-up and not live in a certain depression. Depression is the disease of the normal person.

But what afflicts most of us is not clinical depression, an illness requiring professional attention, but a certain chronic joylessness. There’s too little delight in our lives.

… How do we recover that?

Too often, as adults, we try to do it by working hard at creating pleasure, enjoyment, and delight in our own lives. We try to crank up joy and delight, meeting life with the attitude: “I’m going to have a good time, whatever the cost!” But what we produce is seldom joy. That’s why, so often, we go home from a party feeling more empty than before going. Many of our attempts at creating joy and delight are really only attempts at keeping depression at bay. Our socializing tends to be forced and compulsive rather than spontaneous and fulfilling. For most adults, excess is a functional substitute for delight.

But, here’s the secret: No matter how hard we try to find delight or joy, we can’t find them. They have to find us, catch us by surprise, blind-side us. Every spirituality or psychology worth its name tells us that joy and delight are always a by-product of something else. What?

They’re by-product of acting like God acts, strange though that sounds. Simply put, when we act like God, we get to feel like God; and when we act petty, we get to feel petty! When we do big-hearted things, we get to feel big-hearted; and when we do small-hearted things, we get to feel small.  (ronrolheiser.com)

That certainly makes sense and sounds simple.  Why would be humans avoid doing something as simple as that rather than working so hard to create temporary joy or pleasure in our lives?  How is that we miss what is so simple?

I recall that in my mid thirties,  following my divorce and not having custody of my son, I hired a counselor/therapist. I flunked out of counseling or psychotherapy on more than one occasion.  The first time was in a group counseling session which met once a week for a number of weeks (16 I think). At the end of the course of group therapy the therapist said to me, “I am so disappointed in you. I thought you were ready to change and you have done nothing.”  Not to be thwarted by this failure I later  put myself in another group therapy situation. This was in the context of a training program for therapist/counselors. It was a residential training program which lasted 9 weeks. Part of the training consisted, quite rightly, in expecting the therapists to be in therapy and explore their own personal issues.  Sadly, this was also the time when  confrontation , tear down and then build back type of therapy was in vogue.  Not surprising this did not work well for anyone long term and it certainly did not work well with me. Again, I was told that I was a disappointment; that I had basically flunked therapy. 

The irony was that I was so determined to be this good person and do everything right that I did not allow myself to  connect with the emotional part of me and, thus, was not present with my self, God or other people.  The only emotion I allowed myself was anger – mostly at myself when some human part of me would surface.    I thought  trying to be like God was going to make me worthwhile in the eyes of God and in the eyes of other people.  

I finally hired a movement therapist in Seattle, Washington who I would go see for a week at a time.  We would work from early morning until late in the evening.  During this time, he directed me to express my emotions through movement and sounds.  I was not permitted to use language because I had too long hid behind words. I knew this and that is the reason I hired this sort of therapist. Later I would train to be a movement or dance therapist.    Initially. when working with this man I would tell him that I was faking the emotion.  He kept telling me that was fine. If I kept acting as if I would eventually connect with and express the emotion.   It was only as I begin to accept my humanness, including my emotions, that I was able to act more God like. 

I had this very distorted concept of God   I thought that acting like God was pretending that I was God (a being without emotions – rather android like)  and denying my emotions or any unkind thought, being right and never admitting to mistakes.    I was trying to follow the advice of people such as Ron Rolheiser and failing miserably because I thought that acting God like was denying  all my human characteristics.    I was not trying to act God like. I was trying to be like the God I had grown up to believe. Thus the more I tried, the more I failed.  The more I failed the more unhappy I became and the more disconnected I became from God, myself, other people and Mother Nature.

If one asks people who have a history of depression – clinical or situational – what it feels like, they will invariably tell you that it feels as if they are disconnected from themselves, others, God, and Mother Nature.  It is a feeling of profound “nothingness”.   There is also an inability to process incomnng stimuli which also causes one to withdraw by isolating, using some substance to numb oneself  or finding something else such as money,power or sex to fill that void.  Nothing works long term which itself is depressing.

For we humans to act like God we must be willing and able to connect with the ability to experience ourselves, each other,  God, and Mother Nature as pure delight.  Jesus says that “Unless you become as little children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Book of Matthew, Chapter 18, verse 3 of the New Testament).  I understand this to mean that we must recapture the delight that healthy children are able to experience in just experiencing themselves, each other and the world.   Little children are delighted when they discover their body parts, i. e. toes, the feel of other people, fabrics and surfaces; the smell of flowers, their parents, the sea; the taste of ice cream, the table or other things.   The have no hesitation in expressing that delight.   It is not as if the little child does not react to hurt or danger.  They will certainly get frightened,  hungry, or uncomfortable in other ways, but they do not expect the world to  provoke fear or discomfort continuously. They expect to be delighted and they are.

Many, including Ron Rolheiser,  Fother Boyle, Mother Theresa and others expect to hang out with a delighted God. They expect to hang out with the part of them which can also be delighted with themselves, others, God and mother nature.    

Being delighted does not mean the absence of pain.  It does mean that when we have pain we also know the comfort of God delighting in wrapping His/Her arms around us.   We know the comfort of  allowing other people to be God like with us and wrap their arms around us just as we wrap our arms around  others.  In the midst of pain we can experience the delight of comfort and closeness.  The opposite of that is getting so fearful of pain that we withdraw and shut ourselves off from comfort and delight.  It is depression.

Last night I was reminded of the advice of Jelalddin Rumi, the 13th century, mystic poet who was from what is now known as Afghanistan.  One of his 60,000 poems reads as follows:

         There is a community of the spirit.

         Join it, and feel the delight

         of walking in the noisy street

         and being the noise.

         Drink all your passion,

         and be a disgrace.

         Close both eyes

         to see with the other eye.

From Essential Rumi by Coleman Barks  found on web site, peacefulriver.homestead.com

The other eye or the third eye has been a metaphorical way of referring to the fact that we often hide from what we don’t feel able to see or to face.  “ According to WIKI, the third eye (also known as the inner eye) is a mystical and esoteric concept referring to a speculative invisible eye which provides perception beyond ordinary sight. In certain dharmic spiritual traditions such as Hinduism, the third eye refers to the ajna, or brow, chakra. The third eye is referred to the gate that leads within to inner realms and spaces of higher consciousness.” (Gregg Prescott. Waking Times)

I know: “The process of vision begins when light rays that reflect off objects and travel through the eye's optical system are refracted and focused into a point of sharp focus. For good vision, this focus point must be on the retina.” (Allaboutvision.com)

As soon as this information is transmitted to our brains we begin to label the patterns of light.   The labeling is based on what we have learned and what we have told ourselves about that particular pattern whether that be a leaf, a person, a landscape, an animal, or an object. The image might be as impressionistic as a Monet or as sharp as a Georgia O’Keefe.  

Habit also plays a huge role in what I have trained myself to attend to.  That is part of the reason why if there are 50 people who “observe” the same incident, there is likely to be 50 different descriptions of what transpired. They are all accurate accounts of each person’s experience.

Let me give you another example from Shams of Tabriz, from the book “The Forty Rules of Love.”

         When a true lover of God goes into the tavern, the tavern becomes

         His chamber of prayer, but when a wine bibber goes into the same

         Chamber, it becomes his tavern. In everything we do, it is our

         hearts, which makes the difference, not our outer appearance.

         Sufis do not judge other people on how they look or who they are. 

         When a Sufi stares at someone, he keeps both eyes closed and

         instead opens a third eye-the eye that sees the inner realm.

(A word about Sufi for those not familiar with the term. Some connect it to the Muslim religion. Other claim:  “Sufi" is a unique word. "Sufi" is a unique Power. It does not relate to any particular religion. It belongs to all of humanity.

"Sufi" is a clear, pure Essence that has filtered and settled slowly, deep within.”  - bmf.org)

The point of which I am trying to remind myself is that if I continue to act as if I “see the truth” with my two eyes I will continue to miss the essential truth(s) about myself and others.   When Father Gregory Boyle works with gang members in Los Angeles with his third eye he sees an essential goodness. When that same gang member sees himself he or she sees a person without value or worth.  Some will eventually see with their third eye and come to accept the ‘truth” of their essential goodness.  This does not mean that the person denies all the ways he/she have hurt themselves and others.  It is essential to face ourselves as we are in all our humanness.  We humans can and do hurt each other – sometimes in very socially acceptable ways and sometimes in ways which land us in jail.     Once I have the courage to look at my own humanness in its entire rainbow of colors and shapes I can “see” my painful heart and how my behavior has disconnected me from me and from others.  Then I can “see” with my third eye the part of me that longs to connect with my own essential goodness/my heart and to the essential goodness of others. 

For some there may be a biological condition, which prevents them from feeling this connection.   People with autism spectrum disorder can understand on a cognitive level that they are part of this same human community, but may not be able to experience the feeling of belonging or connecting.  There are many other medical conditions which may prevent someone from experiencing the connection.  This is not something we need or should punish.

For many who have a long history of feeling disconnected, of believing that they are not worthy of connection or that everyone will mistreat them, allowing oneself to both see and feel with the third eye may be a long process.  However, once we have even one experience of seeing with our heart, we can never again be comfortable seeing only with open eyes.

I was just chatting with a young man via text.  It happens that this young man is a former client of mine.  I could elect to see him as a client.  I see him, however, as the loving, good young man who has much love to give others and me.   He is not this historic “runner” who used drugs to avoid being with himself.    For the first time he is finding that he can enjoy life just being himself.  The next step will be for him to take that self to work, the store and any other place he goes.  When he does every place will become as Shams of Tabriz suggests a chamber of prayer.   Others might look at him with their eyes open and see a young man working in a restaurant. He will “see” a young man (himself) leading with his heart, which is a prayer. He will know that he is there to show up with love and incidentally do all the tasks necessary to make the restaurant a success

All this requires us to overrule much of what we have learned about what we think we see or expect to see with others and ourselves.  It may feel as if this takes a great deal of courage.

Last evening I was talking to a young man who has learned to think of himself as mentally disabled and, thus, unable to retain a job.  I have always seen him as a bright, capable, strong young man.  True he has practiced some behavior, which has led him to abuse himself and others emotionally.  It will take time and much practice to change this behavior.  One of his habits has been to run from the pain of being with himself by drinking or using other drugs.   I am suggesting that he will find, if he can allow self to go beneath the pain, that loving, competent, good man who has been waiting to be seen and experienced by the third eye. I always found it interesting, but not surprising, that his young man often found it emotionally safer to be himself with animals.  When he called last night he was able to let me know that he is beginning to “see” that inner core of goodness, which is him.

I, too, have to practice closing my two eyes and opening the third eyes. If anxiety/fear pops up I need only notice it, not comment on it and wait for it to pass.

Existential Life Issues for all of us

A mother emailed me the other day to tell me that her son had told her that he is gay.  She was upset because she fears that life will be more difficult for him as a gay man than it would be as a heterosexual. As is true for all healthy parents she wants life to be without major pain for her children.  That is very understandable.  The truth is that, as parents, we cannot protect our children from pain.   We could attempt to convince them that it is better to go though this life journey with as many masks as possible. If the person is successful in masking or hiding their true self they will not experience the pain, which can come from internalizing the criticism of another.  Sadly they will experience the even worse pain of being disconnected from themselves and others. They will feel an enormous sense of loneliness which is another kind of pain.

Emotionally and spiritually the existential life issue for all of us is whether we have the courage to be who we are emotionally, politically, culturally, racially, sexually, vocationally or otherwise.  Anne Lamott talks about learning to be upwardly mobile which was, for her, the same as being upwardly miserable.  Someone else might do really well in the fast track unless, of course, they are doing this track to please  or impress someone or in the mistakenly belief that if they have enough money they and their family will be happy.

A colleague of mine lost over $13,000,000.00 dollars in the Madoff scam.  Although this was disappointing and it meant that he lost his house and much more, he was okay with it.  He simply said, “It is only money, I am lucky that, at 70, I can still work.”  His wife, however, had a very difficult time accepting their poorer status, took her money and left.

Just today I was talking with a friend and colleague about some people we know who have convinced themselves that they are trapped in their current jobs; that they have no options.  This forces them to choose between being homeless; reducing their living standards monetarily, begging to live with family members despite the fact that they are well into adulthood, or putting  themselves and their opinions and values on hold and try harder to be good little puppets.  

Earlier today I was talking to a woman who was  recently convinced that she was trapped and had no options regarding living situation, job or in other areas of her life. Today, she can see that she has a number of options. She had to emerge from her self imposed, depressive cave and begin to talk to others – to see a larger world which was there the entire time.

I was convinced that I was “called” to be a minister in the Presbyterian Church. I finished college and then spent three years obtaining a Masters of Divinity degree, going through rigorous ordination exams only to find a couple of years later that was not my calling. Prior to all this I had attended the U. S. Naval Academy majoring in Engineering. The primary motivation for taking the exams and jumping through all the hoops to get there was  because I wanted to please others.  Eventually I ended up getting a masters in clinical psychology and working as a counselor/therapist.  I continue to do some life coaching and addiction counseling.   I also continue to write this daily blog.   I had to finally quit trying to please or win the approval of others and do what felt right for me.    Obviously, for me that was not something which came “naturally” to me.   Yet, all those experiences prior to becoming a licensed counselor helped me become the person that I am today – a still growing person whose truth continues to unfold.

How do we know what we are called to do?  What if we only know what we are not called to do?

·      The best answer I know is:
listen – to be quiet and listen.  Of course, if I just listen inside my cave with no connection with the world outside of my cave I may not hear an answer. Hiding in my cave is much different that a silent, guided retreat. The daughter of a friend of mine spent 3 years on a silent retreat under direction of a spiritual guide.  She was actively putting herself in a  place to listen to her own heart; to find her truth even if it was not a comfortable truth. 

·      See – Really allow yourself to see the colors of the universe and how all the pieces of the universe fit together.

·      Feel – Allow your passion to rise to the surface.  This may take a little time. We may have long ago locked our passion into an internal strongbox because we thought our passion was not pleasing to our parents, our church, or others.

·      Reach out – Communicate with others who seem delighted with life.  Reach books by such people as Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court Justice who  grew up in the project with a mother who had to work the afternoon shift of a low paying job and an alcoholic father and  who lived with childhood diabetes which required her to learn to give herself shots at eight. Follow the examples of such later bloomers as:  Frank McCourt, age 49; George Elliott, age 40; Toni Morison, age 40 (later won Nobel prize and Publizer Prize); Mark Twain, age 49.  There are many examples of people who did not start owning their passion and talent until in their sixties or seventies.

I am reminded of a Pueblo Indian Prayer:

         Hold on to what is good, even it it’s a handful of earth. Hold on to what you believe, even it it’s a tree that stands by itself. Hold on to what you must do, even it it’s a long way from here. Hold on to your life, even if it’s easier to let go. Hold on to my hand, even if I’ve gone away from you.

This morning in my email in box I found a note from “The Tapping Solution” by Nick Ortner. In this email he shared “Recipe for Success” which he suggested we share with those we love. Thus I am taking the liberty of sharing with those I love, my readers. I do encourage you to also sign to get on the mailing list for “The Tapping Solution” and to explore his new book, “The Tapping Solution for Pain Relief”.

His recipe:

(makes one serving which is all you need to change the world)

Step 1:  Pour one cup of PASSION into your mixing bowl.  If you have two cups or three cups, heck, throw them in as well.

Step 2:  Put your passion on the stove until it is nice and hot. It should be boiling and look like it’s about to explode at any moment.  We’re going to settle it down a bit buy adding a pint(or ten) of ACTION. Stir the actin and the passion together until they blend smoothly.

Let it simmer like this for 10-15 minutes (or 0-20 years, depends on your particular situation)

Step 3: This is where it gets a bit hairy, so pay close attention.  You’ll notice the passion and action start to cool down a bit, and you’ll see some BUMPS, SETBACKS, and FEARS developing in the mixture.

This is where you need to empty your kitchen cabinets and throw in as much PERSISTENCE as you can.  Chuck in any you can find. Keep stirring. You’ll soon notice it’s coming together perfectly, smells delicious and is ready to serve the world.

Additional seasonings  to taste:  Love, Patience, Joy

Kitchen tools that make the whole process easier:

Exercise, meditation, EFT Tapping.

Now when I started this blog yesterday I did not know that I would  “find” this recipe from Mr. Ortner this morning and I was not consciously thinking of the Pueblo Indian Prayer  My experience is that I must start writing with a the essential ingredients which Mr. Ortner has in his recipe.   Often the first words I write it that I seem to have nothing to say.  Soon ,despite having nothing to say, the word count tells me I have more than 1200 words.

All of us are going to have our existential crisis moments, moments which force us to take what Soren Kierkegaard terms that “Leap of Faith”.  As parents, despite our fears and our desire to protect our children we are going to need to encourage them to take that leap. More than anything we do not want them to wither and die because we are afraid that they will be hurt or made fun of.   This may be frightening for us and force us to confront the fact that the only power we have is to love our children.  Protecting them from the world is not an option.

Mrs. Sheppard was my fourth grade teaches in this little regional country school in Kellyville Oklahoma.  We traveled by bus for some distance to reach it. The school was poorly equipped in many respects and, of course, like all schools during the Stone Age when I attended, it had only old fashioned, non-electric typewriters, a basic library, and an old fashion school bell, which rang throughout the building.   It was at this school that I discovered I was not the center of the universe when I returned from a six or eight-week absence expecting a joyous celebration only to find no one seemed to have noticed I was gone. It was also at this school that Mrs. Williams who, I am sure, I had in my shy way informed to wait until I was old enough to marry her betrayed me.  She married another person!  In my memory, which may have, little to do with what others experienced or remembered, Mrs. Sheppard, our fourth grade teacher,  who was, in my mind, an old, dowdy, ruler bearing, spinster told the class, “You children will read. I don’t care about you read.  I know you boys read those dirty little books. That is fine.  You will learn something from everything you read and you will develop a habit which will serve you the rest of your life.”  Oh my God!  How did Mrs. Sheppard know about that little, cartoon, books crudely picturing people having sex?  Surely, in 9 or 10 year old mind, Mrs. Sheppard did not ever have sex.  Yuk!   Come to think of it how did those little books find their way to this remote little village or town and the regional, provincial school?  I had not thought about that!

At any rate, this is a rather long introduction to a tribute to the Mrs. Sheppard’s of the world and to all the men and women who wrote the books, magazines articles and other material which found and continues to find its way to my home. Of course, now in addition to having access to a fine library, I get reading material delivered by the post office, by email and whole books transferred magically to my ipad Kindel.   I have no idea how many of  Mrs. Shephard’s students continu to read, but I do know that my siblings and I are all readers as were both my parents. Reading was in my youth my primary access to a larger world.  It was also my escape to a world, which was much more interesting and exciting than the often-unhappy world, which comprised our home.

In my youth, my main source of reading material, other than the school issues textbooks, was the school library. I read anything and everything I could get my hands on. The only other sources of books was listening to radio program stories on my crystal set and some I could read at the home of my Grandmother Pickett who was also a very avid reader.  At any rate, I read what I could get my hands on whether it was a play by Shakespeare, a romance novel, a book on physics, the Bible,  some other religious/spiritual book or those dirty little books which the boys passed around during recess.   Despite the fact that I have all the reading material I could possible want I still switch from a mystery novel, to a lustful, romance novel, to books on spirituality to books on physics and whatever else commands my interest.  I frequently am in the midst of reading several books at once.   It is not surprising that one of the authors whose books I was reading just yesterday was The Heist by Daniel Silva. How shall I describe this book generally classified as a “spy fiction” novel?   As does any good writer of this genre, the author interjects enough facts with some believable fiction, some intrigue, and some very interesting and lovable characters to command one’s attention for all 467 pages.   In this novel the chief character is Gabriel Allon who is an art restorer, artist, legendary spy, devoted husband, grieving father and ex-husband/lover, art lover who can weep over a painting, a sensitive, caring man who will give up an important spy operation to save one person to whom he has made a promise, and a man soon to be head of the Israeli Secret Service. 

I have a small confession to make.  Since I was a young child, I have had the habit of becoming strongly attached to characters in books; so strongly attached that I have been known to leave the last few pages of a book unread for a long time to postpone saying goodbye to one of the characters. Furthermore I have been known to cry copious tears at the time of our parting.  

Thus, it is not surprising that I love Mr. Silva’s character Gabriel Allon.  I want to share a cup of coffee, a glass of wine, a warm embrace and long letters with this fictitious man.   I want him as my best friend although a part of me KNOWS that he is Daniel Silva who is not fictitious and is, in fact, living in my new home state of Florida with his wife and children.

What do I love Gabriel who is a proxy for Mr. Silva?  I love him because he defies any attempt to put him into a neat little box with labels. He  has been made bigger than life to exemplify what I frequently write about or allude to in my blogs.  He is more and less than any of these labels. He is me and I am him. We are the same person in the sense that we are all a mixture of so many thoughts, emotions and desires. We all have the capacity to weep over a piece of art, to want nothing more than the safely of a private embrace with our partner, the enter into the intrigue of a world which includes art thefts, the misuse of power, besting the “bad” in all of us as exemplified in a particular person, to be the person whose friendship and word is to be trusted no matter what the cost, and who outs the rich and the powerful.  Gabriel is bigger than our little lives or the life of anyone. Yet, he is that very simple human who wants to leave a legacy of integrity.

Thus, it is that spy novels because my teachers just as much as books by people such as Father Gregory Boyle, Mother Theresa,  Eckhart Tolle, Dietrich Bonhoeffer,   Walter Kaufman or a host of other “serious” writers.

My experience is that the novel often has a way to sneaking a truth into my brain which I might have resisted had it come without the plain brown wrapper.

I am indebt to all those writers, painters, musicians, dancers and others who challenge me to think and to become more than I am so that I can be at peace with who I am.  That includes Daniel Silva.

It is another Sunday.  I begin the day with emailing and  before long  it is time for the NPR program “On Being”  with Krista Tippett. This morning she was talking with Jonathan Rauch, a gay man who has been a supporter of marriage, including same sex marriage and David Blankenhorn a supporter of marriage and, historically, a staunch opponent of same sex marriage.   David tells the story of his first public reaction to the view of Jonathan being very negative, perhaps somewhat self righteous and unkind.  He also relates that it did not take him long to realize he needed to call Jonathan and apologize which, in fact, he did.. Thus began a relationship between two humans, one of whom happened to be born gay and found the courage to speak out in favor of the rights of all people and one of whom had little understanding of what it meant to have no choice about sexual orientation and, thus, had little understanding of what it meant to be denied the choice of all that the institution of marriage could offer. Both were, of course, very aware that being heterosexual didn’t automatically mean that the marriage relationship would be successful. One thought that it took a present male and female – a father and a mother – to raise healthy children. The other did not disagree that children need the influence of healthy males and females in that, but he also believed of the same sex could provide a healthy home for children.

Clearly each of these men believed that their view was the right view. This led, of course to identifying the person with their view which, in turn led to the other person being wrong. Wrong can easily lead to less than, not deserving of respect, not thoughtful, not as good as.  From there one can easily dehumanize the other.  This is the base which allows for wars whether the war is the killing of a family member or a country systematically planning and killing those they have labeled as their enemy.

Both David and Jonathan goal to treat others with great respect and to not dehumanize them 

As they became acquainted they began to experience each other as people who also had certain beliefs and opinions about a variety of subjects.  Once they got to that point, it was not difficult to eventually realize that they could learn from each other. They also realized that they both were interested in supporting healthy marriage relationships.

I was reminded of the film, “The Gatekeepers”. This film is a documentary by the Israeli director Dror Morch which consists of interviews with six men who are all surviving heads  of Shin Bet, the Israeli security agency (also known as Shabak)  Since the 1967 war the biggest part of Shin Bet’s mandate has involved counterterrorism and intelligence gathering in the West Bank and Gaza. 

The interviewed with all six men are individual.   As I recall they all, now from the vantage point of intervening time are saying basically the same thing now.  They are saying (my words):

·      In any conflict the goal quickly becomes to punish not justice.

·      If we ever to have peace it will have to be because we take the risk of sitting down with each other as humans  without the labels of nationality, religion,  job or any others.

It seems we humans keep coming against the same basic truth, that we are all  the same.  We all want to be loved, respected and to have a sense  that what we think and feel matters.    When listening to a talk by Eckhart Tolle later at the gym this morning, he reminded me that zen is doing one thing at a time. In other words it is being present without thinking about the past or the future; without making up a story about what I am experiencing which usually contains some judgments or opinions.    Dictionary.com defines Zen as: “An approach to religion, arising from Buddhism, that seeks religious enlightenment by meditation in which there is no consciousness of self.” 

Many of us have had that experience of falling in love or  being with another person with whom it just feels right to be with them with no need for talk.  We have also “lost ourselves’ in a sunset, a new flower in our garden, the sound  of a voice or an instrument, an experience of  just enjoying food; that time when we are just present and feel no need to comment.  We may then comment on not having any comment and, thus, are no longer present.  

I am frequently aware of how often I feel a need to label another person, group or country.  The label always contains a history and a set of instructions (habits) of how and what to think.



Of course, the other part of this process is the need to have my story be the “right” or “correct” one.  In order for me to be right or correct it is necessary for the other person or group to be wrong.  If Jonathan was right David had to be wrong. If David was right than Jonathan had to be wrong.  Now one of them is the wrong one and one is the right one. They are no longer just humans needing and wanting to be the best they can be.

In actuality, they are both men wanting we humans to have healthy, loving homes, safe homes for ourselves and our children.

Each of those persons is easy to love and respect. 

We could/I could apply the same principle to that person I am tempted to label as the  most radical thinker or the most benign thinker.   If I can sit down with John, Susan, or Sam trusting what we both want a world in which we take care of each other and can live with a sense of purpose we will notice very little, if any, difference.  We may debate how to create the conditions facilitating that goal, but if we do away with the concepts of right and wrong we will be able to explore without rancor.

It seems that I keep relearning this same basic lesson.  Today I am grateful to Krista Tippett, Jonathan Rauch, David Blankenenhorn and Eckhart Tolle for reminding me of a very basic truth and doing so in a way which made it easy to listen. In other words I did not feel that they are being critical or shaming in any way. They were staring their experience and, in the process, lovingly inviting me to join them in their search to open the door to having a loving, respectful debate.