RSS
 

Archive for the ‘Writing’ Category

On the nature of Santa Claus

05 Jan

A friend asked me if my kids still believed in Santa Claus.  I said, “Well, of course!  Don’t you?”

There’s been a wisdom for years, especially in my family, that Santa Claus is the modern “spirit” of a sense of giving and joy, especially for children, during the winter solstice celebration time.  We kinda go along with the cultural norms since it’s difficult to explain that we don’t mind working on Christmas but could we please have the 21st and 22nd off instead (experience has shown this), although this year (and possibly in years to come), we deferred “the Santa Spell” for a week and had our “Christmas morning” on January 1st.

The Santa Spell is the formal name for the process of acquiring and wrapping and tagging all of the presents for the family, putting up the final festive decorations, and preparing the family feast.  It’s a little bit of childhood magic, but it’s just as important as any other mythological figure.  For us, it invokes a kind of energy that just manifests things, sometimes seemingly out of thin air, that enable us to always have a kindly time of the holidays.  Some friends have gotten visited by the Turkey Fairy on an occasion or two, some have had their entire Christmas process provided spontaneously by charitable folks (myself included), and possibly more often, some kind of circumstance will pop up out of nowhere that will just make everything come together.

Perhaps my view of this is skewed somewhat by my deep love for Terry Pratchett’s “Hogfather”.  That is our annual Xmas Eve watching tradition, and the end of it makes a vital and important point:  Regardless of what kind of scrifical blood ritual may have started the mythology of Santa Claus (or the Hogfather, as the case may be), it is our innocent faith in the ideas of them that is the important point.  Traditions are grown one yaer at a time, and it only takes two generations to make something seem like it’s been there forever.  When we’re talking about mythological beings, there’s often a deeper foundation to it that adds an additional type of magic, and that’s why we aught to give ourselves permission to believe.

At the end of “Hogfather”, Susan asks Death what the purpose was for all of their efforts of the evening (you’ll have to watch to find out, I won’t spoil it here), and he says something to the effect that believing in things like the Hogather, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, et al, prepare the innocent child-mind to believe in things without physical material proof.  In the adult years, it’s the ideas of things like justice and mercy and compassion.  There is no particle or atom or element that can be isolated to identify these ideas, nothing that can be synthesized or produced to increase them (despite what the pharmaceutical companies would want you to think), and yet, we know they exist because we see the evidence of them every day.

The foundation of truth that Pratchett is trying to illustrate is that our power of faith, of daring to believe in the ideas, gives them power.  This ties in with another profound truth that “the way you think creates the reality in which you live.”  When you bring yourself to a place to encourage positive thoughts, positive things happen to you, and the same attraction of same-ness happens if you put yourself in a negative mindset.

Consider, then, that the magic of youth is a kind of exercise to build up our muscles of faith, of realizing that we have the power to choose what we believe and how strongly.  If we can let ourselves believe that a fat man in the red suit might possess our parents and imbue them with a kind of conjuring magic, then we can believe that people are mostly inherently good, that we are worthy by our existence far before our actions, and that love is an inalienable right of all humans.  Without that magic, we are easily torn down by the evidence that suggests the dark and cruel nature of the universe, and by that, we end up giving more power to that darkness.

So, you see, belief in something like Santa Claus or the Great Pumpkin or the Soul Cake Duck is really about arming yourself in the battle of light versus darkness.  You are giving yourself the power to be armored and defended against the onslaught of unpleasantness – outside of yourself and within – and that is the most powerful force one can conjure at all.

Especially when you’ve been taught that positivity leads to gratitude.

 
No Comments

Posted in Healing, Law of Attraction, Non-Fiction, Personal Life

 

The parable of the shit-filled twinkie

04 Jan

Should I be bothered that searching images for a "shit-filled twinkie" only returned pictures of regular twinkies?

Once upon a time, there was a fellow who fancied himself quite the pastry chef. He spent many long hours in the kitchen, coming up with countless inventions, but he was so focused on his recipes and his presentation that he rarely if ever tasted his own work.  And, as though his devotion to perfect proportions were not enough, he also seemed to be without olfactory senses.

One day, he came upon an idea to fill a light spongy cake with a rich brown filling. The contrast would be lovely, he thought, and his friends (who all humored him, often to their own detriment) agreed that it would be quite exciting.  He scoured his kitchen to find something that was the exact right color to match his imagined dish, and could find nothing in the cupboards.  He searched the pantry and the refrigerator, the drawers and the shelves, but it wasn’t until he found pile of richly colored pellets behind the cabinets that he settled on his ingredient of choice.

He went to work collecting them and cooking them in a double-boiler, bringing them to exactly the right consistency.  Gently, he squeezed the concoction into the spongy cakes and presented them to his friends, none of whom seemed to have an appetite at that point and took their leave.  He presented them instead to the object of his affection, who not only turned her nose up to them but admonished him for attempting to give her such horrible confections.

Hurt and offended, he was left with his invention all alone, peering at them in anger and sorrow that no one wanted to share his vision.  At last, he tried one for himself, but lacking the ability to smell, he merely found the texture disappointing and the flavor a little off.  Even in that moment, he could not understand why no one wanted them, and he finished the plate with tears in his nose.

****************************************************

I do not like to say that I am an “abusive relationship survivor” any more than I’d use the word “victim”.  Both words (survivor and victim) denote a kind of permanent damage that I don’t entertain.  Still, it’s a problem that I ponder frequently and every now and again, I come upon an inspiration about it.

One of the markers of an abuse survivor is often a lingering and persistent anger towards the abuser.  This is totally justified in many cases, but it doesn’t do the survivor a lot of good.  Holding on to anger, as the saying goes, is like holding onto a hot coal with the intention of hurling it at someone – in the end, you suffer more damage than they ever could.  But it’s not acceptable to just say “let it go” or “forgive”.  There’s a part of us that needs to understand the mechanisms behind the abuse, especially when it seems that the abuser is confused by our refusal to be a part of it.

Keep in mind that this is not an “across-the-board” description.  People are different, and natural variation is enormous, but for many cases (and you may recognize them for yourself), this could be the case.

The theory that I am playing with in this scenario is that the abuser’s main issue is a combination of poor emotional training and severe lack of self-awareness.  The poor emotional training is obvious in the means of abuse (physical violence, emotional manipulation, etc), but the lack of self-awareness is what prevents the abuser from changing the behavior and fixing problem because they don’t see it as a problem.

This could be as pervasive as not recognizing that the behavior hurts other people or believing that their rationalization for accepting that behavior from others (parents, guardians, teachers, etc) should be universal to everyone else.  If they were raised to “accept the unacceptable”, then your refusal to accept the abuse would be confusing to them – and that creates an additional anger response.

The protocol when you realize that you might be dealing with this situation is to ensure your safety first.  Make sure that you have a safe place to go if things get hairy, whether that’s a relative, a friend, or a shelter.  Address the abuser in a way that is as non-confrontation as possible, non-accusatory as possible, using words like, “When you do this, I feel scared/unvalued/unloved/threatened/etc, and I don’t think you mean to make me feel this way, so could you please…”  The “could you please” applies to the specific scenario.  Is it a drinking problem, is it a stress problem?  What are the triggers?

If they are unwilling to acknowledge that their behavior may have to change, then it’s time to leave.  You may not have to leave for good, but your absence sends a message that you are serious.

So, try to understand it like this.  Someone who is trying to get you to eat a shit-filled twinkie might not know that it’s a shit-filled twinkie, but if they refuse to accept that your experience is that it’s a shit-filled twinkie, then no amount of cajoling and reasoning is going to get that message across.  Your options are either to eat it anyway (and make yourself even sicker) or remove yourself from the possibility of having it foisted upon you.

Sometimes – and more often than you might expect – pointing out the nature of the twinkie can work.  It’s up to you to assess in your own situation if you think that bringing the problem to light will help.  Sometimes it could make it worse – but you’d already know that.  Do your best and accept that what you’re going through is not necessarily “your fault” – some people just can’t smell shit.

 
No Comments

Posted in Dating, Personal Life, Writing

 

Thoughts on terrorism

03 Jan

A few weeks ago, like many of my colleagues, I signed petitions and wrote letters to congressfolk to try to prevent changes to certain pieces of legislation.  The specifics of the laws in question aren’t really important at this exact moment, but one of the responses that I received really caught my attention and got me to thinking.

A congressperson who shall remain nameless sent this as the opening line to the email justifying the passage of the NDAA:

“I do not believe terrorists should be brought to the United States and granted the same rights and privileges as American criminal defendants.”

Now, maybe my Constitutional law is a little fuzzy in all these years since I was in grade school, but I’m pretty sure that’s not how it’s supposed to work.  Here was my reply:

“Let me point something out to you:

‘I do not believe terrorists should be brought to the United States and granted the same rights and privileges as American criminal defendants.’

 ”You said that in your form letter to me.

“Now, let me point out something else:

 ’We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…’

 ”That’s from the Declaration of Independence that started the process of American’s country-hood.  I realize it’s probably a little unfamiliar to you, but the point is that your first statement implies that what you term as ‘terrorists’ are somehow NOT human and therefore do not deserve the same rights as ‘all men’.  I strongly encourage you to re-examine your understanding of the ‘terrorist problem’.  Perhaps it’s this attitude that ‘terrorists’ are somehow not human and therefore ineligible for basic human rights that creates the problem in the first place.”

I know damn well and good that the chances of Senator Nameless actually reading my response are slim, but it’s been on my mind ever since.  I’m frankly still disgusted, even ten years later, that our response to the 9/11 event was the subsequent fear-mongering by the government to whittle away basic rights and liberties of not only “foreigners” but of our own people.

It is the daydream of many where we must sit and really wonder, though, what we would have done were we in the position of those in power.  Really think about this.  What would you do?  What would you have done?

I can tell you that I wouldn’t have done what they did – and I sure as hell wouldn’t be propagating the mistake now.  I have never regretted a single vote I’ve ever cast, but I’m hard-pressed right now not to.

Okay… besides this point about the current administration’s weaknesses, let’s really answer this.  What would I have done?

First, the question is, what created the problem?  What was done to whomever committed these acts that they felt this was their only recourse?  This is grade-school stuff.  Billy hit Johnny because Billy was mad.  Why was Billy mad?  Johnny took Billy’s toy truck without asking.  Was Billy right to hit Johnny?  No, but Johnny shouldn’t have taken the truck.  Johnny and Billy both get a time out, Billy gets his truck back, Johnny gets an ice pack, and they both apologize to each other.

Yes, I know that international politics is more complicated than that, but the premise is the same.  Really, especially on the international political level, it should start with “don’t take things that don’t belong to you” and “don’t hit”, but that’s already been done, so it’s really just a matter of cleaning up the mess from whomever sat at the desk before you.

Right after 9/11, there was a little internet game that came out.  It had you in the “sniper chair”, and the goal was to spot and shoot “terrorists”.  The catch was, for every terrorist you shot, two to ten more ordinary people became terrorists.  This is the crux of the problem:  we (they) use the word “terrorist” to dehumanize a person who has been hurt to the extent that they feel that terror (violence, bloodshed) is the only way to be heard, the only way to get things done.  (This is also known as “blaming the victim”.)  Except that most of the time, the person that created the hurt in the first place is a great big bully, and bullies don’t respond to “an eye for an eye” by realizing that they were being doodyheads and need to stop because we don’t live in a Hollywood-produced feel-good family movie.  They poke out the victim’s other eye.

It’s very similar to an abusive relationship.  Here we have an estranged ex, and the abuser keeps doing things to mess with him – being late on palimony payments, taking things from the garage when no one’s home, calling in anonymous complaints to the neighborhood association.  Finally, the estranged ex has enough and screams at the abuser in public – but no one realizes all that other stuff was going on, so the ex is the one that looks like a jerk.  The abuser continues the passive-aggressive behavior, and then the ex snaps to the point where he leaves a burning sack of poop died to a pack of dynamite in the abuser’s car.  Oh noes, the ex is such a bad person for blowing up that car!  Really?

Now, I will add a caveat at this point that suggests that the terror problem is exactly what it seems to be, that the truth has been told, and that we know everything about it.  No one starts acting like a jerk for no reason – especially not against an opponent several thousand times his size and even stronger than that.  Even more so, it’s especially weird when you consider that Islam is itself a wholly embracing and non-judging religion in its foundational points.  (And for this, yes, I’m back to speaking directly of the particular problem.)  Yes, there are sects of Islam that are extremist and violent and repressive, but there are also sects of Christianity that make those Muslims look like pacifist hippies by comparison – and in neither case do the actual numbers of those sects count more than a few thousand total.

And there are seven billion people on the planet.

You do the math.

I think my point is that to continue to use “terrorism” as an excuse to violate the rights that are allegedly being protected has always smacked of being disingenuous, but now it’s just getting ridiculous.  If, by the time this post goes live, there has not been some kind of mind-blowing and cataclysmic change in the system, I may very well have to do the unthinkable and run for an elected office – racy videos, checkered past and all.  I mean, it’s pretty obvious that the “clean-nosed” folks aren’t doing the job, so how about some people who didn’t go to Ivy League schools?

 
No Comments

Posted in News, Non-Fiction

 

Learning from Solitaire

02 Jan

I’d thought about titling this, “Everything I need to know about life I learned from Solitaire”, but almost as soon as I thought it, I realized how silly that is.  There’s nothing – no matter how glorious – that teaches you everything about life.  It’s all a culminate experience from moment to moment.

Still, there are a number of things that I’ve learned about how life works as I play game after game of that simple Klondike-style pastime.

1. No matter what you’re dealt to begin with, success is mostly determined by that which you cannot see.

2. Even the best equation of potentiation cannot take into account the unknown variables.  (Or, to put it another way, any assessment of potentiation is impacted infinitely by the factors of probability until all variables are defined.)

3. Even when you know all the variables, success is not guaranteed.

4. If you don’t like the hand that is dealt, reshuffle and try again.

5. Sometimes the way forward is the way back.

6. Always count your cards.  Sometimes you have to sacrifice making an easy move in order to get to the good move.

7. No matter how silly it seems, your attitude does more to impact your success than any range of chance.  Keep a good outlook and a positive expectation, and even the disappointments will be not so bad.

8. Figure out where your aces (foundational materials) are first, and then worry about the Kings.  Without the former, having the latter won’t matter a hill of beans.

9. At some point, it’s time to hang it up and and try again later.  Relentlessly attempting a win streak will only lead to sleepless nights and intense frustration.

10. Solitaire is great, but sometimes, you just need to play cards with other people – especially if you want to raise the stakes.

11. When faced with two possible moves of seemingly equal value, opt for the one that will show you something new.

12. There’s an undo button for a reason, but don’t go too far forward before going back or you might forget where you were trying to go.

13. Overall, the best algorithm will offer you a 20% chance to win.  That’s one in five, averaged out.  That’s pretty close to real life experience, too, so if you’ve had a bad streak, know that a good one is coming – life has just been saving it up.

 

 
No Comments

Posted in Healing, Non-Fiction

 

An Open Letter to Yahoos

01 Oct

Compliments of 1000searches

Dear Yahoos,

Please note that I am addressing a rough collective of individuals, not the company.  (That would be a whole other rant.)

One of my e-kids had a great quote in their signature a few years ago that I absolutely adore:  “Being well-adjusted to an unhealthy society is not a sign of good mental health.”  What this means is that there are certain universal principles of decency and compassion that supersede politics and social conventions, and that there is nothing wrong with a person if they recognize that politics and social conventions are not consistent with those universal principles.  Rather, there is something very, very right with a person if they recognize these things.

But how does society enforce unhealthy standards among individuals?  This occurs when a social convention is challenged by an individual, but the surrounding individuals do not perceive that the convention must be challenged (for whatever reason), so they in turn challenge the original individual.

See, there are actually two potential endings to “the Emperor’s New Clothes”.  To refresh your memory, the gist of the story was that a couple of swindler’s pretended to make a suit for the Emperor that you can’t see if you’re really stupid, which meant that everyone pretended to see how beautiful it was to avoid looking stupid.  When the little boy points out that the Emperor is stark raving naked, either everyone around him realizes that they’ve been duped and they point and laugh at the “Crown Jewels” OR they insist on clinging to their disinformation about the nature of the cloth (and thus their stupidity) and turn on the boy for being stupid himself.

In this day and age, it’s now become very en vogue to fall squarely into the latter category.  That’s incredibly obvious in the political (governmental) arena, but remember that a society cannot act against the nature of its individuals, and so that same defense of dogma (“Of course there are clothes there!”) is turned internally both on direct associates and within the selves (we suspect).

To cut to the chase a bit, when someone starts thinking outside the box and they are not supported by their peers, there’s usually one of two reasons.  The first is that their peers cannot relate to the outside-the-box thinking presented by  this someone.  The second is that the peers have an invested interest in that someone adhering to the original social convention.  In other words, the peer group is served (often in unhealthy ways) by the individuals keeping with an unhealthy perspective.

Here’s an example:  Abby is going to school for accounting.  Her friends Brad and Cynthia totally “support” her in her pursuit of an accounting degree.  Brad “helps” Abby by “letting” her do his taxes for his business.  He’s receiving a direct benefit from her experience by getting his taxes done essentially for free.  Cynthia is also in a business major and loves studying with Abby in many classes.  Then, one day, Abby realizes that she doesn’t really like accounting.  She only got into it because her parents said it would be a “stable career”.  Abby really loves nature and geology and archaeology and things like that, and she’s thinking of switching majors and following her dreams of being the next Indiana Jones.

Brad is going to lose his free tax prep, so he tells Abby that it’s a terrible idea and that she’s wasting her talents on this pie-in-the-sky thing, there are hardly any jobs in archaeology, and it’s very irresponsible of her.  Cynthia wants to be a good friend even though she’s afraid of losing her study partner – which is something that she really needs sometimes – so she says that she understands Abby’s feelings on this, but maybe she should think about teaching or managerial development instead.

Neither is actually listening or even really caring about what Abby wants or how Abby feels.  They each want her to continue serving their purposes, which often comes with an element of convenience for them – and people are, in general, deeply devoted to their conveniences.

Here’s the really, really tough part:  Hardly anyone will ever recognize that they are being a Brad or a Cynthia.  They will tend to think that they are being the True Friend and Being Wise And Supportive.  It takes balls (ovarios?) to look at yourself and honestly examine your own motives and truly put someone else’s true nature and true needs ahead of your own.

There is a situation like this that I’m dealing with as we speak.  I’m not going to get into specifics or name names or anything, but I realized somewhere in the last couple of days that the phrase or sentiment “think of the children!” is the worst underhanded manipulation one can use.  It’s designed to turn off the higher brain functions and force the individual to act purely from a sentimental point of view, and we all know that emotions can be much more easily manipulated than reason.  And because everyone has an opinion about “how to raise kids well” – not all of which is based on direct experience – when actions are suggested that go counter to a “conventional” model, there is a great deal of panic and fear, often resulting in attempted manipulations.

Here’s a direct message that will mostly make sense to those for whom it is intended, and will act as a warning to anyone who might fancy pulling the same type of crap in the future:  Handle up on your own emotions before calling mine into question.  I am not mentally unstable because I find fault in a known broken system.  I am not irrational because I insist on exploring options to not fall prey to that broken system.  A little clarity and honesty from you would go a long way to bridge the problem, but more than that, listening honestly and not putting my words through your filter will go even further.

I am not one to suffer fools lightly.  I’ve actually tried this in the past, but I realized that in leaving room for people who Just Don’t Get It, I was giving them room and permission to wreak havoc in my life.  I will not make that mistake again.

It’s another way to say, “Stand with me, cheer me on, or get the hell out of my way.”  My “potential” has been the stuff of legends for years, and now that I’m preparing to realize it, gods help the soul that tries to interfere.  That’s not to say I don’t want input – I love input, it’s good stuff – but the first sign of emotional manipulation or half-truths, and there will be hell to pay.

 

Love, Me.

 
No Comments

Posted in Non-Fiction, Personal Life

 
« Older Entries