A public appeal for West Virginia inmate $ 23803

This blog entry is different than my usual entry. It concerns the treatment of a very specific individual in the West Virginia penal system.   Throughout the nation attention has been on the often cruel and ineffective treatment of inmates in our prisons and jails. The United States remains a nation, which continues to incarcerate more people, keep them incarcerated longer, and has a higher recidivism rate than other so called developed nations. Our jails and prisons have also become the new and even crueler State Hospitals for the mentally ill and the addicted.   The cost of this method of punishing folks for having an illness is financially and spiritually very high.  It is time that we used social media to make our collective voice heard.  Together we can remind our public servants that we are the employers and we will no longer tolerate this cruel, costly and ineffective treatment.  Inmate #23803 is a real person.   If you want his name he has agreed to allow me to use it to demand justice.

#23803  

There is a young man in the West Virginia Mount Olive Correctional Center, inmate #23803, who has been in solitary confinement for over four years. His original diagnosis was addiction.  This young man has been in the system since he was a young man. He was paroled from St. Mary’s Correctional Center about 6 years ago and accepted to live in a transition facility.  Not surprisingly, this young man eventually relapsed – addiction is a chronic disease – got into a physical fight at a bar and was sent to Mount Olive Correctional Center.   My understanding is that he had a reputation as the man to beat in a fight to establish one’s place in the prison.  He was in a fight shortly after arriving at Mount Olive and placed in solitary confinement. That was over four years ago.  He tells me that during those four years he has not received any counseling or treatment for addiction or any other condition.  
I tried to visit him this past summer but when I talked to the staff at Mount Olive I was told that I did not need to visit him because they had counselors on staff.  The one time I was allowed to visit him about 3 years ago he was brought in in handcuffs and leg irons with a guard stations outside the glass window.   Even though I had made prior arrangements to visit him when I arrived they had no record of having agreed to that.  I was eventually able to visit him but have not been allowed to do so since. I do write him regularly and also occasionally put money in an account for him to get basic supplies.

Recently I wrote to the Governor who turned the matter over to the commissioner who is in charge of the Division of Corrections in West Virginia. This is Mr. Jim Rubenstein.  Mr. Rubenstein eventually wrote back saying that he had investigated and determined that Mr. Connor’s long term placement in solitary confinement (Quilliamns 2 unit) is appropriate. He gave no details as to how he arrived at this decision.    I have written back to him but have not, to date, received an answer.   I have also this week written to the staff of the Marshall Project.  Mr. Connor had told me that despite him being in solitary confinement, not able to work, listen to music or otherwise have positive stimulation and help they find ways to charge him with infractions of the rules. I have no idea of how he manages to break rules or what rules those are.

Throughout the nation many are now examining the practice of keeping inmates in solitary confinement and eventually releasing them to function in the larger community.  Obviously, they are consistently ill prepared to take their place in the larger community.  

Inmate # 23803 cannot be the only one in the West Virginia Correctional System being treated in this manner.   Unless, folks in West Virginia demand that the Governor and Mr. Rubenstein take corrective action there will not be any change in this archaic, cruel and ineffective practice.  I am asking that everyone who reads this post write to both Governor Tomblin and Commissioner Rubenstein.  I am also recommending that you send copies of your letters to West Virginia Public Radio, 60 minutes and the Marshall Project.    You may also want to send copies to your legislative representatives. 

The practice of incarcerating individuals with chronic illness such as addiction and mental illness has to stop.   Treating individuals as less then and as bad people who are undeserving of our compassion and help is immoral, very financially costly and ineffective.   No one asks for or prays for a mental illness or other chronic illness such as addiction. That could be any of us in solitary confinement at Mount Olive or some other institution in West Virginia.

If others do not join me in calling attention to this travesty, I am fearful that Inmate # 23803 will be treated even worse.   There is no reason for the West Virginia officials to think that someone now living in Florida   - a person not able to vote in West Virginia – presents a threat to their perverted sense of justice.   

Please make sure all your Facebook friends are aware of this situation. Together we can begin to change the system.  #23803 has no voice. We must be his voice and the voice of all those being mistreated or not treated for their chronic diseases.

Together, as a community we can use our combined resources to make a difference for and with each other.

Written October 20, 2015

 
I have heard various versions of “Let God and Let God.”  from the time I was very young.  “Trust in God” I often heard.  “One will get what one needs- not necessarily what one wants.” “It is God’s will.”   The implied truth was always that the only way that one can find peace is to let go of one’s own wishes or will and trust that this mysterious God knows what she/she/it is doing.  Somehow this God, whom we are expected to obey, is in charge and, yet, we have the option of sinning/exercising free will.   Intermixed with these truth, in the Christian tradition was the riddle of somehow one must die in order to live.  I grew in the Christian church with lots of paintings and sculptures of this Jesus fellow nailed to the cross; the same Jesus who would emerge alive from the tomb. 
 
One was advised to study the Bible daily while trusting that God would give  one what one needed but apparently only if one quit sinning and when one did sin, ask for forgiveness.   In the tradition in which I grew up there was no limit to the number of behaviors which were likely to make God angry.  It seems as if one must daily die as this sinful person and momentarily – if that long – accept God’s grace.   I was well aware that I failed miserably and was destined to be cast into the everlasting fire of Hell for all of eternity. It was a frightening thought.   Although frightened, I seem both unwilling and/or constitutionally unable to refrain from sinful thoughts which contained the earnest desire for sinful behavior. The desire for the later always outweighed my fear or so it seemed.
 
Much later in life, I would be introduced to many philosophers and theologians who posited many ways to view this human existence and the purpose thereof.   It was at this period of my life that I began to truly understand the concept of death and resurrection. I began the slow and seemingly non-ending practice of accepting that I knew/know nothing. This body of so called knowledge had to be “killed off’/put aside/let go of.  There was no end to the “truths” which I had unwittingly accepted. Some of them were very personal truths about myself and others were more generalized truths about this life journey. This “truths” included:
 
·      Jesus is going to be really pissed if you do not acknowledge He saved you by dying.
·      At the very least one will be developed huge warts with will tell the world that one is a masturbator and ultimately those very same warts will prevent you from entering Heaven. It will take eternity to burn them off!  Oh my!
·      There is absolute knowledge
·      One will get rewarded in the next life for one’s good needs.
·      Good people lived on the right side of the tracks.
·      God loved all people but only if they stayed on their side of the tracks.
·      Killing in the name of God and Country was a good thing.
·      Killing if not sanctioned by the larger community was sinful.
·      If we are good and study we will have a good job, financial security and live on the right side of the tracks.
·      God made man and woman so that he could put his thing into her thing to make babies but it was not for enjoyment.
·      All good people lived in little house  with white pickett fences and kept a neat lawn.
·      One should be proud of and loyal to one’s country no matter how they behaved.
·      White Christians were good people although there was the occasional person of color such as my Aunt Pleasie (Cherokee Indian) who was an exception.
·      The United States was America – this one still confuses me.
·      Our way of government should be adopted by the rest of the world.
·      We should share our food and other riches with deserving people but make sure we are not communists or socialists.
·      Children should be eternally grateful for their parents even if parents were angry most of the time and very mean.
·      We should show our concern to the starving children of China by eating food on our plate that we hated.
·      If someone heard you crying when a parent was beating you it was your fault for embarrassing them.
 
One gets the idea.  The point  is, of course that we present information to our children as if we have absolute truths to impart.  Death and resurrection is a theological concept  but has not relevance for how one lives one’s life.   Then one gets introduced to philosophers and poets such as Rumi. 
 
 
 
TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2013
[Sunlight] How shall we seek real knowledge?
 
~
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
How shall we seek real knowledge?
By renouncing knowledge.
 
How shall we seek salvation?
By renouncing our own salvation.
 
How shall we seek Existence?
By renouncing our existence.
 
-- Muriel Maufroy
"Breathing Truth - Quotations from Jalaluddin Rumi"
Sanyar Press - London, 1997
 
One may also be exposed to  the Socratic method.  If lucky one also meets folks such as Aberjhani
 
“A bridge of silver wings stretches from the dead ashes of an unforgiving nightmare
to the jeweled vision of a life started anew.”
― Aberjhani, Journey through the Power of the Rainbow: Quotations from a Life Made Out of Poetry
 
Along comes Walt Whitman. What to make of the following which is attributed to him:
 
“This is what you shall do; Love the earth and sun and the animals, despise riches, give alms to every one that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, take off your hat to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men, go freely with powerful uneducated persons and with the young and with the mothers of families, read these leaves in the open air every season of every year of your life, re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body.”
― Walt Whitman
 
One might even be exposed to the clearly irrelevant “wisdom” of Mark Twain in such sacrilegious works as Letters from the Earth. To wit:
 
“Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal... In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning. Among my experiments was this. In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two days I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.
 
Next, in another cage I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Scotch Presbyterian from Aberdeen. Next a Turk from Constantinople; a Greek Christian from Crete; an Armenian; a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas; a Buddhist from China; a Brahman from Benares. Finally, a Salvation Army Colonel from Wapping. Then I stayed away for two whole days. When I came back to note results, the cage of Higher Animals was all right, but in the other there was but a chaos of gory odds and ends of turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones and flesh--not a specimen left alive. These Reasoning Animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a Higher Court.”
― Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth: Uncensored Writings
 
I am again reminded of the quote from Rumi with which I started these musings:
 
How shall we seek real knowledge?
By renouncing knowledge.
 
How shall we seek salvation?
By renouncing our own salvation.
 
How shall we seek Existence?
By renouncing our existence.
 
The “truth” seems to be that I will to learn by accepting the contradiction of what Rumi and others continue to teach me.    Indeed it is by letting go and letting God that I have any measure of control.  It is only not attaching myself to living  that I can live.  It is only by being intentional about my breath that I can let go of any thoughts. It is only by  letting go of thoughts that I have the possibility of thought rather than memory.  For it is memory of what I have previously been taught that I want to let go of if I am to learn.
 
The student says I “I am going to try x.”  The teacher reminds the student, ”We cannot accomplish by trying but only by doing. If you try to pick up this dish you are not picking it up.  It is, thus, by the absence of  seeking salvation that we are saved. It is only by being open to death that we live. It is only by letting of love that we love.”  These are the paradoxes  which we can examine, meditate about, discuss, write endless about, just smile about or jut accept.
 
We laugh at the idea of the truth. We embrace those who we see as unworthy of embracing. We love the unlovable.  
 
We embrace the cup of coffee. We breathe.   We smile. We  accept that we are not which allow us to be.
 
Written  October 19, 2015
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
It is a Sunday morning and  I am looking forward to a visit from my six-year-old adopted niece.  Frequently she pops over for a visit on Sunday morning knowing that Uncle Jim will fix waffles with fresh berries and whipped cream.  Ahh.  I see her walking over from next door now. She has on a pretty fall sweater.  The temperatures are just cool enough to enjoy having a sweater snuggle close to one’s body.
 
Sam:  Good morning Uncle Jim.  Are we having waffles?
 
Me:  Good morning Sam.  Yes, I have the ingredients here.  You can help make the batter. The blue berries have been unfrozen.  Remember when we went to pick them this summer and then we washed them good before freezing them?
 
Sam: I remember.  I was all blue from eating as many as I put in the bucket!  Mom and dad laughed at me.  For weeks my brother called me the blue thing. I am not a thing!
 
Me:  No you are not but brothers and sisters like to tease each other. You like to tease Paul just as much as he likes to tease you.
 
Sam:  (Smirking). Well, kinda!  Can be make waffles now?
 
Me: Let’s put on your apron and get the stool for you to stand on.   I am so glad we got this really sturdy stool for you to stand on while we cook.
 
Sam: Me too. (She jumps up on the stool.) Let’s see.  1 cup flour.  (She scoops out one generous cup of flour and pours it into the big mixing cup.)  Okay what is nex?. Oh I see. Backing powder.
 
Me: Baking powder Sam.
 
Sam:  Oh yeah.
 
We continue to put in the rest of the ingredients and then Sam takes the big wooden spoon and begins to stir while I brush the waffle plates with oil.
 
Sam:  Uncle Jim, why do we get angry?  The other day during recess, two kids were screaming at each other and saying really mean things. Then the teacher got angry when the kids would not quit fighting. One of them kicked the teacher which made her really mad and they both had to go to the principal’s office.   It was scary when they were fighting.   I saw some pictures on the television of some fighting somewhere on the streets.  I think it was  the people who wear the little hats on the back their heads and the Palistinians.
 
Me:  Yes.  We humans do seem to get angry a lot don’t we?  Sometimes you and I get angry.  The people on the television were the Jewish and the Palestine people  There are a lot of people fighting each other all over the world.  Sometimes people get angry and shoot each other don’t they?
 
Sam: Oh, I don’t like to think about the shootings at schools. That makes me sad.
 
Me.  Yes. It makes me sad also.   Why do you think we get angry?  I suspect that there are many reasons.
 
First, shall we pour the batter on the waffle iron?
 
Sam:  Yes, but you better do that. The big cup is too heavy for me.
 
Me: Okay.  (I pour the batter and Sam closes the waffle iron.)
 
Me:  Remember the other day you and Paul were doing your homework over here because mom and dad were both busy.  You  could not remember how to do something, got mad, and threw the “stupid” pencil?   Why do you think you did that?
 
Sam: Because it was a stupid!
 
Me: Actually, I think I have noticed that sometimes when one of us cannot do a task we get frustrated and then angry. Why do you think that is Sam?
 
Sam:  I don’t know.  It sounds stupid when you say it like that.
 
Me:  Yes, it does. I wonder if we think we should be able to do tasks that we think others like us can do and feel dumb when we cannot.
 
Sam:  I sure feel dumb when I cannot do part of my homework.
 
Me:  But, we know you are not dumb even though there are many things neither one of us knows. You  know that you often show me how to do something on my new phone.
 
Sam:  But Uncle Jim that is different. You are old!
 
Me: Oh really!  What difference does that make?
 
Sam:  Well, you know.  Old people did not grow up with phones.
 
Me:  Well, we did have phones but they were not this complicated. They did not have apps.  We just used them for calling and only then in emergencies.
 
Oops.  The steam has stopped. Must be time to take out the waffles. 
 
Sam: Yummy. 
 
I put  half of the waffles on her plate and then add blueberries and whipped cream.
 
Me:  How is that?
 
Sam:  Really good. I like the way the blueberries sort of pop in my mouth and I love whipped cream.
 
Me: Me, too.   So, Sam, it sounds like sometimes we get embarrassed when we do not know how to do something  and, yet, we know that we are all learning all the time.  What would happen if we did not get embarrassed Sam?
 
Sam: (Tries to talk with mouth full.) Imm  gass wee wood nut git angreee.
 
Me:  I think I missed some of that. Why don’t you finish  that  yummy mouthful and then tell me what you said.
 
Sam chews and swallows.
 
Sam:  I said, I guess we would not get angry!
 
Me:  I agree. When else do we seem to get angry Sam?  Can you think of other examples.
 
Sam: If mom is trying to take care of Paul, cook, the phone is ringing, and I tell her I need a snack now, she gets angry.
 
Me: You mean that when we have too much to do we get angry. I wonder why that is Sam?
 
Sam:  I don’t know Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  I think what happens is that we get too many things coming into our brain at once that it feels as if there is a traffic jam.  See.  What if these blueberries were all tasks requiring our attention? Using the example you just gave me, one blueberry is what your mother needs to do for Paul, another is  one pot on the stove, another for what is in the oven, another for the ringing phone, and another is you wanting a snack.  That is a lot of blueberries in one place.   That is what happens in the brain. We get too many things coming in at once and it is like we cannot quickly decide what to deal with first.  We call it getting overloaded. When we are overloaded, we sometimes use anger to try to keep any more stuff from coming into our brain.   Think of it this way Sam.  If five people started to rush toward you all wanting something, you would  probably do what Sam?
 
Sam:  I would try to push them away.
 
Me: Exactly Sam.  Do you think anger pushes people away?
 
Sam:  I don’t want to get close if mom is angry.
 
Me:  Me neither.  I wonder if we do that with things to do; when it feels like we cannot do everything at once?
 
Sam: That makes sense Uncle Jim.
 
Me:  So, if we could  just learn to say, (in my best British accent), “Oh my. I rather think I am experiencing an overload.  I am going to take a break and reduce the incoming stimuli” then I would not need to use anger to push away people or stuff.
 
Sam: You are funny Uncle Jim.
 
Me: So anger has two purposes:  (1) to avoid saying we feel embarrassed  and (2) to push away people or things when we feel overloaded.  Do you think that their might be more purposes Sam?
 
Sam:  My brain is tired. Can we stop now.
 
Me: Sure. We can continue this discussion another time.   How were the waffles?
 
Sam:  I  loved them, and I made them mostly by myself!
 
Me: Yes you did Sam and you did a wonderful job.  Thank you.
 
Sam: You are welcome.  I think I better go get dressed for church before my mother and dad get angry!
 
Me: Good idea Sam. See you later.
(Sam gives Uncle Jim a hug, takes off her apron which she throws on the chair and runs off.)
 
 
written October 18, 2015
 
 

 
The above is a quote by the poet Mary Oliver.   She is talking with Krista Tippett on the NPR program, On Being.   She said this on the morning she found out that she won the Pulitzer prize.  After hearing the news she continued on with her plan to find more shingles to buy at the dump because she needed to repair her house.  When I heard her say that I was reminded of an old poem of mine (I think I wrote it down and stored it somewhere, but  who knows what is merely written in my head and what I might find on paper (carelessly put in some box or file) entitled “Kitchen Floor Politics.”   It was written at a time when I was living in a community house with a group of people dedicated to keeping life as simple as possible and, thus, leaving room for social action and other “important” work.   For me, the advantages of living with others had to do not only with or primarily with finances, but with the nurturing relationships which I needed to remind me why I was doing what I was doing. I also know I need to be emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually fed daily.   At any rate, at that time, the house was composed of males of various ages and backgrounds.   Even though dinners were not formal affairs with polished silver and the good china, there were certain tasks which needed doing. The bills had to be paid, small repairs had to be made, groceries bought and prepared, laundry done, and some amount of cleaning done.   In terms of cleaning, there was no need of a white glove test, but I did think that when one could not walk on the kitchen floor without the grime and spilled food  reaching out to cement one to the floor and, thus, preventing one from walking, it was time to mop the floor.  Some days it seemed as if I was alone in thinking this.   At times it seemed as though my “roommates” were fairly traditional males in the respect that they were much too busy doing “important” work to worry about mundane matters.  They seemed to be waiting for the woman of the house, of which there were none, to do the mundane work of maintaining the home. To be fair, one of the men had grown up with maids, was in graduate school, and could not seem to grasp the concept that, sans maid, one had to do some menial work.   It seems easy for we men – and some women – to get so busy doing “important work” that we forget to take care of ourselves, each other, and our home (a necessary part of taking care of ourselves and each other). We expect others to do this for us. Even when there is hired help, it seems as if we wait for the women in our lives to hire and supervise “the hired help.”    Interesting enough, even in the field of human resource professionals,  we tend to  rely on woman.  A brief google search revealed the following from a 2008 study:
The Feminization of HR.
By Claude Balthazard
Thursday, March 1, 2012
In the fall of 2008, the Human Resources Professional Association in Toronto, in conjunction with its partnerCanadian HR Reporter, conducted a survey on the gender imbalance in HR.
The latest statistics at the time had suggested that 72 percent of persons employed in HR were women. The accounting profession, which had the reverse gender imbalance, had recently undertaken initiatives to recruit more women into their profession.
 
Women, even when in a relationship with another woman, know that no one is going to take care of the home and the relationships in their lives if they do not. Mary Oliver is a woman, who was not and is not wealthy, and needed to make repairs to her house.  Her partner of many means was also a woman.  They could not hire others to do the work of maintaining a home even if some of the work was traditionally  considered masculine.  Thus, even the winning of the Pulitzer prize did not take mitigate the need to get more shingles.
 
I have said that I basically do not trust  those who do not notice that the shingles need replacing, the kitchen floor mopped, the toilet paper purchased and put in the bathroom, the  refrigerator stocked, children need taken care of, and  the mood and general health of all  the family need to be noted and attended to.    This is the important work of living is it not?
 
It always amazes me that, invariably, women professionals who are parents make time for the children while often we men have been much too busy with “important work” (even when both are in the same profession).  Even  in those families where a decision has been made for the male to be the house husband and the female is  the primary wage earner, it is often the female who organizes and does much of the household work which would be expected to be done by the female if she as was the primary house person. 
 
From an early age we teach females to be caretakers. We encourage them to care for dolls, set up  and manage play houses, play house, and in other ways focus on learning to nurture.   Although this has changed and certainly in LGBT relationships it has to change, for the most part we raise boys and girls differently.    In anything, we have encouraged women to aspire to be more like we men except, at the very same time, we expect them to hold fast to a passion for nurturing.  Somehow, we seem to have often taught women to be more schizophrenic.  At the workplace, we expect them to be focused on “the important work” of making money, fighting the enemy, proving one’s mettle by working very long days, being as ruthless as ‘necessary” in competing for the prize (whatever that is)  and, on the other hand, to be this nurturing, present mom who is always available. These two roles obviously clash internally and externally.  Women may win the Pulitzer prize, but will still go buy the shingles.
 
Mary Oliver’s poems stay close to nature which, I suspect, has always kept her close to animals and the “souls” or the energy which is life.   It is not surprising that Mary Oliver reads the poems of Rumi daily.  I am reminded of this quote from Rumi, “Living things know the truth; you reap what you sow.  With life as short as a half-taken breath don’t plant anything but love.”   Then there is this poem of Rumi:
 
Only Breath
 
Not Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu
Buddhist, sufi, or zen. Not any religion
 
or cultural system. I am not from the East
or the West, not out of the ocean or up
 
from the ground, not natural or ethereal, not
composed of elements at all. I do not exist,
 
am not an entity in this world or in the next,
did not descend from Adam and Eve or any
 
origin story. My place is placeless, a trace
of the traceless. Neither body or soul.
 
I belong to the beloved, have seen the two
worlds as one and that one call to and know,
 
first, last, outer, inner, only that
breath breathing human being.
 
From Essential Rumi
by Coleman Barks
 
Ms. Oliver  also wrote about the influence of Lucretius especially when thinking of the permanency  of energy – the fact that we never cease to be. 
 
And now, since I have taught that things cannot
Be born from nothing, nor the same, when born,
To nothing be recalled, doubt not my words,
Because our eyes no primal germs perceive;
From “on The nature of Things” by Lucretius as translated by William,E. Leonard
 
It seems to be that poets, as do other artists, remind us of what is true; of what is essential.  It is not that the cleanliness of the kitchen floor is in and of itself important. It is not as if replacing the shingles on a house, which is very temporary in the scheme of things, is important.  They are important only in the context of creating a home which says welcome home, you are important, you are part of something; you are.  We find these truths in Mary Oliver’s poem, Wild Geese:
 
Wild Geese
 
You do not have to be good.
You do not have to walk on your knees
for a hundred miles through the desert repenting.
You only have to let the soft animal of your body
love what it loves.
Tell me about despair, yours, and I will tell you mine.
Meanwhile the world goes on.
Meanwhile the sun and the clear pebbles of the rain
are moving across the landscapes,
over the prairies and the deep trees,
the mountains and the rivers.
Meanwhile the wild geese, high in the clean blue air,
are heading home again.
Whoever you are, no matter how lonely,
the world offers itself to your imagination,
calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting 
over and over announcing your place
in the family of things.
 
from Dream Work by Mary Oliver
published by Atlantic Monthly Press
© Mary Oliver
 
Written October 17, 2015

Bigga Deal
 
I have noticed that many of we humans have a tendency to take much of life very seriously.   Of course, as a licensed counselor trained in clinical psychology, the fact that we humans are so serious helps to insure me a steady flow of clients in addition to those who live with acute mental illness.    Many of the folk’s with/for whom I work have previously been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder or possibly depression. For these individuals, often many life events are viewed as a bigga deal.    I am borrowing the term from my now deceased friend and former client, Jan.   Jan was this wonderfully talented artist and teacher.  He had legions of former students who adored him and were enormously grateful for his helpful critique and encouragement to pursue their artistic talent.  He was also the proud father of two children and had wife he adored and respected. She was also an artist.    They enjoyed many outdoor activities together including canoeing and camping.   To any observer, Jan had many reasons to feel confident and good about himself. Yet, whenever he had a new project or even when it was nearing time to start a new semester at school he would become very anxious.   He would also become anxious when he had a “block” and could not finish a painting.   The anxiety would say that he had no more talent or he was not going to be a good teacher despite his 30 years of good reviews by colleagues and students.   It was obvious to everyone who knew, respected, and loved Jan that the anxiety was lying.   Yet, something in Jan had a very difficult time accepting that the anxiety was lying.   He would consistently reinforce the lies of the anxiety.   The tall, slender Scandinavian man would become very tiny as happens when we buy into the lie that we are incompetent, inept, and unable to contribute anything.   When I saw him in the office, we would talk back to the anxiety and correct the lies.  One of the shorthand ways he developed of talking back to the anxiety was to say in this very dramatic voice, “Bigga deal,” which translated as “You are full of crap. I am an experienced, talented, capable, strong man.”   If the anxiety were attempting to keep him from painting, I would tell him that he was going to paint with freestyle large artist brushes.  First we would set up this large pretend canvas – 10 feet by 5 feet – and then I would physically stand behind him and with his permission put the brush is his hand and guide him in making powerful strokes without any attempt to cognitively conceptualize the emerging drawing.  Pretty soon I could sink back and whatever the block was would disappear.  The strong, passionate, expressive artist was again in charge.  The anxiety had taken a back seat whether it wanted to or not.  The block was not a “bigga deal.” 
 
Another client for/with whom I was working worked in a very serious financial institution.   The prevailing atmosphere was that the work that they were doing was very important and everyone was mandated to dress and behave in a very serious way.  There was no room for levity.   One could “see” the constant tension.   It was not surprising that Larry (along with many of the other employees) was very anxious and his body was letting him know that the constant tension was affecting his health.   His core value system was that people and relationships were much more important than focusing on the bottom line of money, money, money.   He was also an astute businessman who know that if he and others could be more relaxed at work they would be more creative and, ironically, make as much or more money than when they uptight and tense.  Yet, he continued to get sucked into the very serious, negative system at work. He was not ready to quit his job but knew he had to find a way to avoid getting medically ill.   I suggested that we find some object which he could always have with him at work and which, when touched, would remind him that it was safe to relax and not accept the invitation to that very serious place.  We finally decided that he would go to the adult sex store and buy a leather cock ring which he could wear under this very formal dress shirt and suit coat. The point was that it was impossible for him to feel the object beneath his suit coat and stay overly serious at the same time.   As soon as he touched this talisman he simultaneously accessed his core value system which included the belief that he did not have to have this job.  If he did lose the job his faith told him that he would find another and that he and his family would be fine; that it was important for him to be healthy, emotionally and physically, when he got home to his family.  
 
One day this week I was sitting at Panera’s writing and I noticed two apparent businessmen in traditional, Western professional male costumes of dress trousers, white shirts. and ties.  The man facing me even had a more formal white shirt with French cuffs.     Then I noticed that his trousers had slipped up enough for me to notice his colorful, playful socks.  Most of the time his socks did not show, but he knew he was wearing them.  I told him how much I liked the combination of the very serious costume and the silly socks.     He had found a way to remind himself to not take life and his job, whatever it was, so seriously.  I later goggled fun, men’s socks and found such sites as “Happy Socks” which sells fun “happy” socks and matching boxer shorts.  Silly socks are much cheaper and certainly more fun than taking a medication such as Zanax or some other, often addictive, medication, which is likely to have side effects.  The silly or happy socks say “Bigga Deal.”
 
As health care professionals we would do well to take lessons from such companies as “Happy Socks.”  Most of us  “know,” at some level, that life is very short; that not much matters except how well we love each other.   We can certainly work very hard and take good care of our families without selling our souls – our health – to the very serious companies and the resultant value system which tells us that making money, buying an expensive car, belonging to the right clubs, and wearing the right costume is what partners and parents do if they love their family.  The paradoxical message is:   love your family by insuring that you are not with them physically or emotionally 90% of the time.
 
There is a lot of research on the price one pays for being a Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, or what has euphemistically been called the Robber Barons of an earlier era in the history of the United States (not limited to this period of history but this was the term for that particular period of history in the United States).
 
For example, in an article by Lisa Miller in New York Magazine in 2012 entitled “The Money-Empathy Gap” she reports “New research suggests that more money makes people act less human. Or at least less humane.”  She further states:
 
“For a long time, primatologists have known that chimpanzees will act out ­social dominance with a special ferociousness, slapping hands, stamping feet, or “charging back and forth and dragging huge branches,” as Jane Goodall once wrote. And sociologists and anthropologists have explored the effects of hierarchy in tribes and groups. But psychology has only recently begun seriously investigating how having money, that major marker of status in the modern world, ­affects psychosocial behavior in the species Homo sapiens. By making real people temporarily very affluent, without regard to their actual economic circumstances and within the controlled environment of a psych lab, the Berkeley researchers aim to demonstrate the potency of that one variable. “Putting someone in a role where they’re more privileged and have more power in a game makes them behave like people who actually do have more power, more money, and more status,” says Paul Piff, the psychologist who designed the experiment. The Monopoly results, based on a year of watching inequitable games between pairs like Glasses and T-Shirt, have not yet been ­released. But Piff believes that they will support and amplify his previous provocative research.
 
 
 
Earlier this year, Piff, who is 30, published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that made him semi-famous. Titled “Higher Social Class Predicts Increased Unethical Behavior,” it showed through quizzes, online games, questionnaires, in-lab manipulations, and field studies that living high on the socioeconomic ladder can, colloquially speaking, dehumanize people. It can make them less ethical, more selfish, more insular, and less compassionate than other people. It can make them more likely, as Piff demonstrated in one of his experiments, to take candy from a bowl of sweets designated for children. “While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything,” Piff says, “the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people. It makes them more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes.”
 
I am not suggesting that we need to set a goal of changing the billionaires of the world. I am suggesting that we can support and help each other as well as our children not but into the “Bigga Deal” trap of becoming attached to the concept that success depends on how much power we have or how much we can “prove” that our toys are bigger and more expensive than those of others.
 
Written October 16, 2015

Humor
 
I caught just a smidgen of a conversation Terry Gross was having with an actor and writer of a television program while driving to a meeting the other day.   Unfortunately I did not catch the name of the actor before I reached my destination.   Apparently this person acts in humorous shows, which he also helps to write.  One of the statements which he made in describing a particular character in a show, who was humorless, was that he portrayed “confidence plus stupidity.” The character who he was describing was a young adult who the writer judged to have the emotional maturity of a nine-year-old meaning, in part, that he presented himself in the very confident way that a very outgoing nine year old can; one who asserts certain truths without knowing what he/she is talking about.  In a nine year old, one is indulgent and amused.   When the person has the appearance of an adult and comes across very confident of a subject about whom they have no obvious knowledge, one is not amused in the same way that one is amused with a nin year old. This got me to thinking about humor in general and what I find humorous. 
 
Historically, I am not a fan of what I call slap stick humor which I think of as the creation of a character who comes across as exceedingly dumb and childish. The Three Stooges would be a good example.   Their behavior is scripted to make them appear dumb and very juvenile.  I tend to get embarrassed for them rather than finding their behavior amusing.  That having been said, I need to try to articulate what, in fact, I do find amusing or humorous.  What first comes to mind is the phrase “laughing with.”  When I feel as if I am laughing with and not at a person I can frequently have a really good belly laugh.   I suppose when that happens it is because it seems as if all the people involved have a solid base of self-esteem as humans who are free to be silly and to laugh at their mistakes.  There are friends with whom I can easily laugh.
 
I am sure, however, that my range of laughter is wider than what I have so far described.   What else makes me laugh?  I recently saw a movie “Spy” which stars Mellissa McCarthy.  In this movie, the character Ms. McCarthy plays, Susan Cooper,  has been stuck on a desk for the bulk of her career as a CIA analyst.  Susan is a dumpy, seemingly overweight, seemingly less that physically fit woman who finally gets to go on assignment.  Suddenly, she morphs into the baddest, kick-ass person who wipes the floor with the bad guys/girls.  For this pacifist, feminist man there is nothing funny about stereotype;, the simplistic duality of good vs. bad and violence.  Yet, there I was sitting in the movie theater laughing out loud with the rest of the audience.   We are all cheering for Susan. We want her to be more violent.  I am right there with the rest of the audience. What is going on?  Is there a mist in the air which has replaced my brain with that of a conservative, gun loving NRA member?  The creators of this story and this movie have obviously played on and challenged the stereotypes which apparently are firmly lodged in my brain as well as most of those in the audience.   Susan is that kick ass hunk/wonder man or woman who we “know” resides in all of us and will one day surprise those who see us as a dumpy, easy to take advantage of weakling.  I will be 6’4” tall, broad shouldered, as agile as the most famous dancer, and as mean as the toughest Marine drill sergeant.    I will have the last laugh.  What is up with this fantasy?
 
Madea, in Tyler Perry’s The Diary of a Mad Black Woman, is another tough character who does not hesitate to use violence or the threat of violence when someone is or seems to be acting in a stupid or hurtful manner.   I have seen Madea perform in a number of movies and have watched The Diary of a Mad Black Woman several times. Every time I laugh despite the fact that the behavior of the character is less than praiseworthy if looked at it  independently.  (I am aware of some of the criticism of black men being cast in “emasculating” roles but am choosing not to comment on that criticism in this blog.)
 
What is it that makes me and others laugh?  Clearly some situations do not have to be consistent with my stated values for me to find it funny,
 
There is wide agreement on the importance of laughter.   Caroline Dunaway list 20 quotes that remind us why it’s so important to laugh. These are:
 
      “To make mistakes is human; to stumble is commonplace; to be able to laugh at yourself is maturity.  William Arthur Ward

      To truly laugh, you must be able to take your pain, and play with it.  Charlie Chapin

      It is more fitting for a man to laugh at life than to lament over it.  Lucius Annaeus

      There’s power in looking silly and not daring that you do. Amy Poehler

      Anyone who takes himself too seriously always runs the risk of looking ridiculous; anyone who can consistently laugh at himself does not. Vaclav Havel

      I do take my work seriously and the way to do that is not to take yourself too seriously.  Alan Rickman

      Anyone can be passionate, but it takes real lovers to be silly. Rose Franken

      Life literally abounds in comedy if you just look around you.  Mel Brooks.

      Laugh at yourself, but don’t ever aim your doubt at yourself. Be bold. When you embark for strange places, don’t leave any of yourself safely on shore.  Have the nerve to go into unexplored territory.  Alan Alda

      If people never did silly things, noting intelligent would ever get done.  Ludwig Wittgenstein.

      I enjoy making people laugh. The trick is to tell them jokes against yourself. If you praise yourself, your stories aren’t funny.  Michael Caine

      Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.  Horace

      God invented mankind because he loved silly stories.  Ralph Steadman

      I like being absurd.  Jimmy Fallon

      And I have one of those loud, stupid laughs.  I mean if I ever sat behind myself in a movie or something, I’d probably lean over and tell myself to please shut up.  J. D. Salinger

      If we couldn’t laugh, we would all go insane.  Robert Frost

      It’s not all bad. Heightened self-consciousness, apartness, an inability to join in, physical shame and self-loathing-they are not all bad. Those devils have been my angels. Without them I would never have disappeared into language, literature, the mind, laughter and all the mad intensities that made and unmade me. Stephen Fry

      You don’t stop laughing because you grow old.  You grow old because you stop laughing.  Michael Pritchard

      If you can’t laugh, you won’t make it.  Jennifer Love Hewitt

      Nothing feels so good to me as laughing incredibly hard.  Steve Carnel

 
This is obviously not a complete list of the value of laughing, but it is a good start.  Still, I have not addressed the question of the purpose of the evolution of laughter for we humans.  One of the most concise discussions I found in an article “Why do humans laugh?” by Peter McGraw and Joel Warner (www.slate.com).  (Hint: It’s rarely because something’s funny.) In this article they state:
 
 
“More than a century later, Gervais and Wilson saw Duchenne’s discovery as evidence that laughter evolved at two different points in human development. First, they posited, at a point sometime between 2 million and 4 million years ago, came Duchenne laughter, the kind triggered by something funny. An outgrowth of the breathy panting emitted by primates during play fighting, it likely appeared before the emergence of language. This sort of laughter was a signal that things at the moment were OK, that danger was low and basic needs were met, and now was as good a time as any to explore, to play, to socialize. “What the humor is indexing and the laughter is signaling is, ‘this is an opportunity for learning,’” Gervais told us. “It signals this is a non-serious novelty, and recruits others to play and explore cognitively, emotionally and socially with the implications of this novelty.”
 
“But then, sometime in the hundreds of thousands of years after that, theorized Gervais and Wilson, the other sort of laughter emerged—the non-Duchenne sort, the kind that isn’t dependent on something being funny. As people developed cognitively and behaviorally, they learned to mimic the spontaneous behavior of laughter to take advantage of its effect.”
 
It seems that the laugh response evolved for some basic survival reasons. Simply, it gives us a break in the serious business of gathering and preparing for use of the basics – food clothing, shelter – which, in turn seems to allow our individual and collective brains to take a break.  In other words, it is part of that larger repertoire of playful behavior which is so necessary in the creative process and in allowing we humans to put aside our differences and enjoy each other.
 
Apparently it was sometime later when we humans learned to add laughter to our manipulative tool box – that tool box we used to manipulate ourselves into believing that, for a moment or two, we are better than, more powerful than, have more than, or whatever. Of course, all my enlightened readers know that same tool box leaves us very lonely and feeling more empty than ever.
 
Regardless of what tickles our individual funny bones, it seems as if the more emotionally and spiritually healthy we are the more able we are to laugh which facilitates the forming of community. I am still not convinced that making fun of is the same as laughing with someone.  Have said this does not insure that I am free of the human trap of feeling better about myself by making fun of someone else. I would like to think that I am much more aware of how vulnerable I am to, at some level, buying into such biases and prejudices and possibly do it less often or catch myself sooner. This “spiritual progression” apparently has no effect on my ability to safely set aside all my values and indulge myself by laughing at Susan beating up the identified bad people in the movie Spy or Madea kicking ass in her own way in the movies featuring Tyler Perry.
 
Written October 15, 2015

Friendship – a love letter
 
I have started this blog several times.  The original title was vengeance  which quickly morphed into the burden of being right which then morphed into gratitude which then morphed into friendship – a love letter.
 
Last evening I was texting with a  young man  who has recently suffered through the pain of the end of a relationship following his discovery that the young woman with whom he thought he had a committed relationship was having sex with another man in the very same house that they were sharing.   He is better now, partly because he has managed to get her fired from the job he helped her get.  He was attempting to explain to  this old man why vengeance is appropriate or the right/ moral action to take.  He  is convinced that:
 
“Jim I (sic) am a vengeful (sic) man, but my vengeance (sic) is reserved only for those who deserve it. I guess our opinions come from our different philosophies, nut (sic) i have learned that people like my ex have to be punished. The fact is if one person can hurt you. They can all hurt you.
The strong decide and the week (sic) are obliged by the strong. Justice is a product of the capable and the week (sic) are granted peace only because the strong allow it. When the weak run a foul against the strong they are intern (sic) at the mercy of the ones in power. That is the law. That is how it works.”
 
When I explained to him that I have yet to discover a fair or just way to compare my “sins” with those of any other  human being he had responded with the statement about the strong deciding who is more deserving of punishment. 
 
Certainly I am aware that  throughout recorded history there have been very thoughtful people who have posited the theory  of the survival of the fittest or the strongest.  Not surprisingly I question the concept of strength.   I am convinced – correctly or incorrectly  - that the most powerful strength is the courage to accept and, yes, even love one’s own humanness . I think that is the base for being able to love others, mother earth, and  the God or Gods of one’s understanding.
 
Last evening I needed to remind myself that my only “job” with this young man is to love him. It is not to convince him of “my truth:” to prove that I am right and he is wrong.   It is as simple as loving  him even  if  my loving him does not, by itself,  constitute a friendship. Although my love is certainly  a necessary condition for a friendship, it is not sufficient.  I am fearful that I could easily do or say something which this young man could decide is deserving of vengeance – of punishment.
 
I am feeling very grateful that I do not need to be right or to convince this young man that hating, judging, and punishment  are self-defeating actions although that is what I believe.  I know that this young man needs to feel he is right in order to be feel loved.   That is not uncommon for a young person .  Of course I would like to think the contrary might have described me as a young man. I hope so but  I cannot say that with any degree of certainly. I am very capable of  convincing myself of truths I later recognize as lies.
 
This led me to thinking about the miracle of those friends who I sincerely believe love me unconditionally.  With these friends I know that I will not be punished no matter what I do or do not do. That is not to say that I am not challenged by them.  They constantly challenged me to grow.
 
Early this morning while I was at the gym  (Yes, I am one of those obnoxious people who go at 5:30 or 6:00 in the a.m.) I had a text and an email from my friend Howard . Someone had shared with him the following poem and he wanted to share it with me.
 
 
 
Self Portrait
It doesn't interest me if there is one God
or many gods.
I want to know if you belong or feel
abandoned.
If you know despair or can see it in others.
I want to know 
if you are prepared to live in the world
with its harsh need
to change you. If you can look back
with firm eyes
saying this is where I stand. I want to know
if you know 
how to melt into that fierce heat of living
falling toward
the center of your longing. I want to know
if you are willing
to live, day by day, with the consequence of love
and the bitter
unwanted passion of your sure defeat.
I have heard, in that fierce embrace, even
the gods speak of God.
n  David Whyte
from Fire in the Earth 
©1992 Many Rivers Press (One can also see a video of Mr. Whyte reading the poem on you tube.)

 
David Whyte is new to me. Somehow I have missed this amazing, soft, strong, wise voice.   What a lovely gift to receive from Howard. Of course I then shared the poem with several other friends.  
 
One of those to whom I sent the poem was a friend with whom I exchange emails every morning.  I know that she is in the process of moving and, thus, very busy. Even so, unless she is out of town as she was Monday and Tuesday, I hear from her very early in the morning. I had not heard from her even when I returned from the gym.   I texted her to make sure she was okay. She was fine but had been very busy cleaning up after a sick cat and then running to the hospital to check on and be supportive of aged aunt who had fallen this morning.  She took the time to text me back assuring she was okay and later wrote.
 
I love every line of “Self Portrait”  but the line “I want to know if you belong or feel abandoned.” especially stood out.  Since I often work for/with/care about those dealing with addiction to alcohol, other drugs, sex, food other something else I feel sad when addiction takes over the life of some dear person leaving them feeling abandoned by God or the Gods, themselves and the world. Addiction, by its very nature is a very isolating “disease.”
 
With good friends I never feel abandoned. I know I belong no matter how distant we live from each other.
 
In loving me unconditionally my friends  support me in searching for that core of me which needs to be lived, spoken, danced, painted, or sung.  They know that whatever risks are involved that to fail to search for that part of me in this journey of life is to die without having lived.  Since I am a naturally curious fellow I had to look up more poems written and shared by David Whyte.    One of those , The Journey, validated my own believe in needing to support those I love in finding that part of them which needs to be lived, spoken, danced, painted or sung.  
 
The Journey, by David Whyte
Above the mountains
the geese turn into
the light again
painting their
black silhouettes
on an open sky.
Sometimes everything
has to be
inscribed across
the heavens
so you can find
the one line
already written
inside you.
Sometimes it takes
a great sky
to find that
small, bright
and indescribable
wedge of freedom
in your own heart.
Sometimes with
the bones of the black
sticks left when the fire
has gone out
someone has written
something new
in the ashes of your life.
You are not leaving
even as the light fades quickly now
you are arriving.
*From the Book: House of Belonging, by David Whyte
 
David Whyte – his voice, his words, his passion – will continue to nurture me. The sharing of him by Howard has validated my need to keep reaching for the sky – to keep reaching deep within my heart for another kernel of what it means to be a friend – to myself, mother earth, others, and the God of my understanding.
 
Thanks to all the friends who give me love and encouragement to keep searching/reaching.
 
Written September 14, 2015

 
I should not have been surprised when Sam came over early Wednesday morning to question me about what she had spied while looking over her dad’s shoulder. He was reading my blog which discussed moral imperatives and ethics. Leave it to a six year old to  challenge me to quit complicating subjects.
 
Me: Good morning Sam.  I am surprised to see you here on Wednesday.
 
Sam: (jump up on my lap and gives me a big hug) Good morning Uncle Jim.   Dad and mom said that if hurried with breakfast and getting ready for school I could come over here until the school bus arrives.
 
Me: That is great Sam. You know I always enjoy your visits. This is the perfect way to start the day. Is there a reason you particularly wanted to visit today.
 
Sam:  (sighs)  Yes Uncle Jim
 
Me: Ok. What is it Sam. You sound a little frustrated.  Is it with me?
 
Sam: Well!  Yes. (crossing her arms and looking very stern as only a six-year old can do) Dad was reading what you wrote on boral  or something like that and then another big word. What was it?
 
Me:  Oh yes. Moral imperatives and ethics was the subject. I guess that can seem like a rather pretentious way of talking. Do you know what the word pretentious means Sam?
 
Sam: Predentious??
 
Me:  No. Pretentious. I guess I did it again.  I used another big word to talk about a big word.  You must get frustrated with Uncle Jim
 
Sam: Yes.  Sometimes.
 
Me:  Pretensious come from the word pretention which comes from the word pretend. It is funny how one word grows into another word isn’t it Sam?
 
Sam: (Big Sigh)   I guess.
 
Me: Well, we both know the word pretend.  Sometimes Uncle Jim uses  big words when he is pretending to sound important.  Do you understand that Sam.
 
Sam: That is dumb!  Why would you do that?
 
Me: Well, I guess we get used to using words which are expected in certain settings.  Words and phrases like pretentious and moral imperative are used a lot in some settings. I need to remember to use words we all use.
 
Sam: That would help!
 
Me: So, to get back to the writing which your dad was reading about. I was talking about how we know what is right and and how we know what is wrong.  You know we have talked about the fact that sometimes kids at school fight or argue about who is right. Sometimes even your parents might argue about who is right.  Sometimes we see pictures on the television where people are fighting each other or where countries are fighting over who is right. Both sides think that they are right.  Sometimes you think that we adults are really dumb.
 
Sam:  Well.  Yes! (Sam raises and lowers shoulders as she signs)
 
Me: Sometimes we do argue about the dumbest things.  Do you think that sometimes you are wrong and someone else is right!
 
Sam: I hate  it when mom or dad proves we wrong.   They asked me over and over again to do my school project on Saturday.  It was Saturday!  I wanted to play!  I told them it would not take long to do on Sunday night.  Well. Sunday night came and we did not have several things I needed such as colored paper and egg shells (to make gravel).  Mom had to go to Walmart  when it was already past my bedtime!  She was not happy and reminded me that we would do school projects on Saturday morning next week.
 
Me: That is a wonderful example. What is another example.
 
Sam:  Well some kids said that Columbus Day should not be Columbus day because he did not discover America. The Indians were already here.
 
Me: That is anorhwe great example. Some cities used Monday to celebrate the Indians or Native Americans. Can you think of another example.
 
Sam: Well, Susie wore a yellow blouse with her school uniform and her dad had to bring in white blouse for her  because that is the right color.  Is that you mean about doing the right thing?
 
Me: Well, yes and no.  Wearing a white shirt or white blouse is part of the school uniform. That is a rule but it is not a moral rule.
It may be based on a moral rule.    Susie was not bad for not wearing a white blouse but the school make it a rule because they want all the kids to look the same and to not judge each other based on what they are wearing.   Susie is not bad but it was silly of her to  think that the teachers would not notice.
 
Sam: Well!  Yes!
 
Me: Susie was not bad but she did not think about how her decision would be received.  On the other hand, if Susie hit another child really hard and hurt them; if Susie started a fight than your parents, I and the school teachers would think that was wrong. When we mistreat others it is something that we know is wrong because we know that we do not want to be treated that way.  You, your parents, your brothers and I have talked about the golden rule. Do you remember that?
 
Sam: That is what the big sign on  the kitchen wall says – In this family we treat others the way we want to be treated.  Is that what you mean Uncle Jim
 
The other day, Tommy was picking on other boys and Bobby told him to stop. When he did not stop Bobby hit him really hard and Tommy fell down. We all clapped and I even saw Mrs. Smith, the teacher smiling.   Tommy is a bully.
 
Me: Oh dear.  Good example Sam.  So it seems as if it was okay for Bobby to hit Tommy to show Tommy that he could not bully without getting hit?
 
Sam:  Yes.  He did not bully any more that day.  I think he was embarrassed.  Oh!  I just used a big word. (She smiles and covers her mouth.)
 
Me: Yes you did.  Why do you think Tommy was bullying the other kids?
 
Sam: Because he wanted to seem important.
 
Me: Very good Sam. I think that is probably exactly why he was being a bully. He wanted to feel important. Do you think that all of us want to feel important?
 
Sam:  You mean like when mom says that she is really proud of me or I get 100 on a test or I get to help the teacher I feel good.
 
Me: Right. It does feel good You also have two parents and a brother who think you are wonderful and often tell you so.  Well, maybe your brother does not tell you,  but your parents, your grandparents, and many others often tell yous.  Do we know how Tommy gets treated at home or anything about him?
 
Sam: Well.  Someone said his dad is in jail a lot for hitting his mom. Someone else said dad is an holic or ?
 
Me: Alcoholic meaning he cannot control how much he drinks and then he drinks so much he gets drunk. When we drunk our brains get really confused.
 
Sam: Why does he drink:
 
Me:  Sometimes we  cannot help it. We have a really strong urge to drink and cannot stop.  That person needs help.  Perhaps he started drinking because no one told him he was important.
 
Sam: That would be sad.
 
Me?  So if Tommy does not feel important we can understand why he might bully. Bullying is not a good way to try to feel important but it sounds as if his dad does the same thing at home with his mother.  If we wanted to make Tommy feel important how would be treat him.
 
Sam: Well, I am certainly not going to tell him that he is a good person for bullying other kids.
 
Me:  No.  That is not good, but what it we found something good about Tommy. 
 
Sam:  He is really smart in history but still gets bad grades because he does not do his homework.
 
Me:  So you could tell Tommy how much you like that he is good in history.
 
Sam: I guess.
 
Me: You two are in the same history class, right.
 
Sam:  Uncle Jim, you know except for music we have the same teacher all day long.
 
Me: Oh, that is right.
 
Sam:  (Sigh!)
 
Me:  What if we found a way to help Tommy with his homework so he could get better grades. Do you think that might make him feel better.
 
Sam: How would we do that?
 
Me: I am not sure.  Let me talk to your parents and see what they think.
 
Sam: Okay!
 
Me: So bullying another person is not good and hitting the bully is not good.   We do not want to be bullied and we do not want to be hit when we make a mistake.  We could say that those are moral rules or we could use the big word and say that they are moral imperatives.   On the other hand wearing a while blouse is a rule but we could accomplish the same thing by everyone wearing a yellow blouse or shirt.  Wearing a white blouse does not make us a good person.  On the other hand if you did not have a school uniform wearing clothes to prove you were richer or better than others – showing off – would not be kind. Could we say that it is important to be kind? Is that a moral rule?
 
Sam: Oh my. There is the school bus. Thanks Uncle Jim.
 
Me: Have a wonderful day Sam.
 
 
Obviously the discussion about moral imperatives has just started but it feels like a good start to me.
 
Written October 13, 2015

 
Sunday, when listening to Dr. Cantor, Chancellor of Rutgers University on the NPR program On Being she used the term moral construct in reference in talking about her beliefs regarding the duty of the institutions of higher learning to be of the world rather than in the world.  The use of the term moral construct immediately went off on its own to review various folder in my internal file cabinets containing many questions and the thoughts of many philosophers, theologians and others about such issues as moral imperatives, ethics and the general process of how we humans decide what is right and wrong behavior. 
 
As is true for most professionals living in this time I have had to agree to several different codes of ethics. For he most part they are similar. I have noticed that in the past few years the booklets containing these codes have grown from a few pages at most to thick documents which attempt to cover every possible behavior in which one might engage in interacting with a client or with any other person or institution about  the client or the case concerning the client.  Of course, no document can cover all possible contingencies and, thus, one or more ethics boards still might examine one’s professional behavior. It might also be examined by the full board of an organization or by someone representing the legal system.
 
Of course, these rules may, at times, conflict with one’s personal beliefs about what is right or wrong (what is ethical or what is moral).  A recent situation in the United States concerned a county clerk in Kentucky who claims that her personal morals prevents her from issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. In this case she is refusing to obey a law outlining the duties of county clerks in Kentucky.  She was, in fact, jailed, by refusing to obey the law.  Her behavior was, however, lauded by many as a courageous act in which she obeyed the moral imperative to listen to her religious conviction which I am sure she would say are the clear will of the God of her understanding.
 
The other day I was talking to a Muslim friend who is the Inman for the local Mosque.   His religion tells him that same sex behavior is immoral and that women and men need to be kept separate in the services of the Mosque.  Those beliefs are different than mine.  Many of his other religious beliefs are very consistent with my own.
 
We in the United States live in a secular society, which means that the laws and community expectations have to strive to be inclusive enough to respect the diverse moral imperatives of all of its citizens. Obviously this is not an easy task.

It falls to we parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and other trusted adult to impart to the children for whom we are responsible our beliefs about the moral imperatives and the ethics of the community. In addition to ethics there are also community standards and customs. 
 
I noticed in the St. Petersburg, Florida Tribune on October 12 that the Florida Supreme Court has decided that judges in the State of Florida must wear black robes with has no decoration when they are in court. Apparently at least one judge had been wearing blue and red robes.    No one was suggesting that the wearing of robes, which were not black, was a violation or a moral imperative or an ethics rule.  One Chief Judge suggested that a black robe carries a lot of weight and suggests, “This is a serious business that we are in.”  This then is a custom
 
Obviously, teaching our children the customs, ethics, laws and moral imperatives by which a community now lives is no easy task. Many of us also believe that even as a parent we want our children to learn to think for themselves and, to do what they decide is the most moral behavior while also teaching them the consequences of violating accepted customs, ethics, and laws.   More than ever, with few exceptions, our children have access to a great deal of information about the various customs, ethics, laws and moral imperatives which guide we humans in various communities around the world.   Increasing good nutrition for many and other health habits have allowed many to get beyond having to spend all their time and energy just surviving although the number who still are in that position are staggering.  While our children often have more information their experience and actual brain development necessitates that we continue to be available to mentor them to sort through their thoughts and feelings about the moral imperatives and habits which are going to guide them in their day to day decisions.
 
Since the terms ethics and morality are often used interchangeably it is important to agree on how we are going to use those term or at least to have operational definition of the terms.  It will then be important to come up with a set of criteria we are going to use to examine issues of morality and to evaluate ethical rules.
 
Lo and behold! There is a web site called ethicsdefined.org as well as many other sites dedicated to these questions.  When one goggles such an important topic and gets hundreds or thousands of hits one might be tempted to think that we humans are indeed moving quickly to a level of development which posits morals and ethics based on ongoing prayerful/thoughtful, and open, non-biased exploration.   Yet, if one accesses any major news sources one will get the impression that thoughtful consideration of the questions is limited to a few theologians, philosophers, and social scientists.   After all, how could any thoughtful person continue to engage in war, be self-righteous/arrogant, or think that they and only they have the correct understanding of moral imperatives and ethical rules. On ethicsdefined.org we find:
 
“Jonathan Haidt has come up with a definition of Morality that is quite useful. He used secular means (the scientific method) to arrive at what he considered a sound foundation for Morality (which he denotes as synonymous with Ethics). He has reduced Morality to be comprised of five basic components.
1 Harm/Care
2 Fairness/Reciprocity
3 In-group/loyalty
4 Authority/respect
5 Purity/SanctityEthics and morals relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong. “Ethicsdefined.org

Obviously the unidentified author (as far as I could determine) of ethicsdefined.org was incorrect in asserting that Mr. Haidt denotes morality as synonymous with ethics. 
 
Another organization (edge.org) recently sponsored a conference, which they entitled “The New Science of Morality” (apparently they had not been aware of pre-Socratic, Socratic and subsequent thinkers).
A consensus statement signed by several scholars (list below):
 
1) Morality is a natural phenomenon and a cultural phenomenon
2) Many of the psychological building blocks of morality are innate
3) Moral judgments are often made intuitively, with little deliberation or conscious weighing of evidence and alternatives
4) Conscious moral reasoning plays multiple roles in our moral lives
5) Moral judgments and values are often at odds with actual behavior
6) Many areas of the brain are recruited for moral cognition, yet there is no "moral center" in the brain
7) Morality varies across individuals and cultures
8) Moral systems support human flourishing, to varying degrees
(From http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/...)
 
Obviously this subject is going to require a lot of very sustained, serious, time-consuming thought, prayer, reading and consultation. If we are going to fulfill our responsibility (Is this ideal of responsibility itself a moral imperative, a custom or an ethical rule?) we should quit our outside jobs (sometimes often inaccurately referred to as our day jobs) and devote full time to this task. Alternatively we should turn the task over to teachers, to professional child rearers which whom the children live full time and at whose knees our children sit engaging in Socratic discussion for many hours every day (they should especially enjoy the ADD child)  None of this is practical of course.
 
I suspect that the mere fact that so many of us are asking these questions and, hopefully, sharing them with the children with whom we come into contact, will set the stage for how thoughtfully we and they approach each of the many decisions we must make every day.  My guess is that the more that it is a “we” humbly asking each other to engage in this endeavor the closer we will come to behaving in a manner with is mutually respectful and loving.  That assumes, of course, that we see mutual respect and loving as moral imperatives. Hummmm,
 
I can hardly wait to have this discussion with my six-year-old friend Sam.
 
Written October 12, 2015

 
Dr. Nancy Cantor, chancellor of Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey spoke as part of panel discussion at a meeting of the American Council on Education's 97th Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C.  The panel discussion was moderated by Krista Tippett  and was also rebroadcasted on the “On Being” program on NPR on October 11, 2015. The other member of the panel was Dr. Christopher Howard who is the first African-American president of a historically white all male school in the South — Hampden–Sydney College of Virginia.
 
One of the issues as “named” by Dr. Cantor was existential identity crisis referring both to we as individuals, to academic institutions, and the inter-relationship of schools and the larger community.   Dr. Howard has similarly challenged Hampden-Sydney College of Virginia whose history includes the school slogan, “Forming good men and good citizens since 1776.”  This slogan needs to be put into the context of a school, which began on a plantation, which is all male and historically all white.  It is also important to be aware of the fact that Dr. Howard is an African-American whose ancestry includes being five generations removed from a slave  (his great, great grandfather) “from a chattel.”
 
Both of these individuals bring a passion for asking difficult questions to the institutions which they lead at a time when the viability of being able to afford college is in question for a significant segment of college- age individuals in the United States.
 
What does it mean to say that an individual or institution is having an existential identity crisis?  Mrs. Tippett kidded Dr. Cantor about being a Sarah Lawrence woman. She was, of course, referring to the very academic sound of the framing of the question.  Actually it is, in my mind, a very concise, accurate way to describe a stage of life or, more accurately, various stages of life. The phase is probably most often used to refer to the process whereby adolescents explore what it is that makes them who they are.   More technically, this process is referred to as one of questioning identity cohesion as opposed to questioning role confusion (terms borrowed from Wikipedia).  Essentially, existential identity crisis refers to a process which I think for many of us is ongoing throughout our life.  Certainly this has been and is true for me.  The question for me asks what it is that forms the essence of my being – what defines me as me. This is the same question which in 1974 I addressed to the mountain stream near Juneau, Alaska.  As I have previously written, I would sit for hours talking with the stream about that which constituted its essence. I knew that it was not the water, which constantly changed; not the bed, which constantly changed; not the banks, which constantly changed; not the debris, which constantly changed; not the fish which constantly changed;  and not the other life forms in the water and on the bed, which constantly changed.  Its essence was none of these things and, yet, there was something which I and others comfortably call the stream. What was or is its essence? I have continued to ask the same question of myself. Certainly my essence is not my religion. It is not my maleness. It is not my age, my height and weight.  It is not even my DNA or my heritage.  My formal education surely does not tell one who I am. 
 
One might ask the same question of education. In fact, I addressed that very question to two young Egyptian, high school boys who are living in this country while their father serves as Inman of the local Mosque.   What is the purpose or essence of education? Is it learning facts, formulas, memorizing The Elements of Style by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, memorizing the chemical table of elements, learning how to design a building, or even how to do service in the community?   (Dr. Cantor asks, “What if we really thought that being “of a community”, was not just happenstance located in the community, but was a moral construct about collective responsibility?”)  I would then suggest that we posit the possibility that the purpose of education is to instill the moral construct of questioning what it might mean to take collective responsibility for each other.  This, in my mind, would mean that we would approach the teaching of all subjects with the question of how we might use an area of study to explore ways we can assume collective responsibility for each other.  The measure of success would be the creativity of our questions and the extent to which we could commit to using that tool (chemistry, music, art, engineering, English, anthropology, language, health care) in finding ways to take care of each other as equal.  As Dr. Cantor would say, to learn to function as a collective. Dr. Howard’s goal is very similar.  It is interesting that under Dr. Howard’s leadership, the percentage of non-white students has dramatically increased at Hampden-Sydney College of Virginia. This means he is enlarging the concept of community which, of course, forces us to look at the questions differently.
 
I was telling the high school students that one of the more valuable graduate school classes I had was a small seminar on the concept of justice led by Dr. Walter Kaufman, the famous philosopher and poet. For an entire semester we 13 or so people gathered to explore the concept of justice.  We, of course, did not come to any conclusions, but we did come out of that experience knowing that it was imperative that we continue to acknowledge to and with each other that we did not have the definite definition of justice.  That was huge. As soon as we think that we know something we quit asking questions. 
 
Some might call this ability to admit that we do not know and even that often we do not know that we do not know, humility.   Others might call it acceptance. Some might term it freedom. Some might suggest that freedom releases us to have fun being creative; to experiment with designing communities whose worth is not about how much we have or even how many degrees we collectively have, but the willingness to find joy in taking care of each other and in exploring new and fun relationships with the interplay of all the parts and forces in the universe.   Freedom would not make us less passionate or make us passive. It would leaves us with endless energy leading to more curiosity and a desire to draw closer to our neighbors. 
 
There have been times in this country and throughout the world in which individuals have come together to form intentional communities, usually based on sharing resources and taking care of each other in all ways.   Some have continued to flourish. Others have long since ceased to exist. In the mid-1970s, I traveled to and stayed at a number of these communities in the United States. These included The Bruderhof in Pennsylvania and Twin Oaks in Virginia, both of which continue to be still operating with the same basic sense of communal sharing of responsibilities and gifts.  None of these communities have come up with “the model” which would work in every setting and for every person.   Variations of the model such as now the urban Kibbutzin in Israel continue the experiment.   Some of the intentional communities require one to share a particular religious or cultural framework while others only require that one share the commitment to sharing resources and responsibilities.
 
The people who explore such options are committed to education – to expanding the mind and the “soul” of the individuals and the body politic.
 
What is education? What is the purpose of education?  As soon as we have honestly asked the question we have opened ourselves to new possibilities of expanding an every widening circle of neighborhood. Perhaps?
 
Written October 11, 2015