The People on TV

I've spoken of the virtues of tuning into the immediacy of the moment. You know, being more mindfully aware, more fully conscious and present to whatever is happening right now. Well, what about the idiocy of the moment.

Think about it. "The idiocy of the moment." The thought occurred to me just a few minutes before while switching through the television channels and not being able to find anything worthwhile to watch, and realizing that at that particular moment in time, at least from my particular point of view, idiocy completely ruled the television airwaves. Every single channel was a medium for idiocy.

What do I mean by idiocy? Complete and utter mindlessness. Ignorance. Like babies crying, with the yearning to be fed, comforted, and held. But in this metaphorical scenario, there is no one there to hold them. No tangible way to feed them. No way to teach them, communicate with, or get through to them. All that you can do is passively watch them, crying, helplessly...and this is supposed to be entertainment?

You see, this is when you're supposed to turn the TV off. When you realize that a) you are not being entertained, and b) you are not learning anything useful, and c) you are hating every moment of what you are seeing. Yet, you continue to watch, because you are enslaved to the boredom and the misery of this televised absurdity of life.

Television. Not all of it is bad. But very little of it is good. In many ways it is a mirror of the darkness, the confusion, and idiocy endemic to the collective consciousness of humankind. What I dislike on TV, I dislike face to face and in the flesh. People acting like ignorant, stupid assholes. Yeah, not everybody is a super intelligent, intellectually, morally, spiritually evolved, advanced form of life.

I'm not saying that I am. I lack compassion. I feel hatred in my heart more often than not. But if you are looking for the best that humanity has to offer, you are likely not going to find them on TV. Which is not to say that they'll never make an occasional appearance, but for the most part, more often than not, the people you see on TV are about as clueless and lacking in wisdom as they come.

Pilgrimage as Purification

"The more difficult the journey, the greater the depth of purification."

This is an old Tibetan saying recorded by Austrian mountaineer Heinrich Harrer in his WWII era travel memoir Seven Years in Tibet. I read the book a few years ago, and it stands out in my mind as being one of my all time favorite adventure travel books.

I bring it up because a couple nights ago I watched the movie adaptation, starring Brad Pitt, which is not nearly as good as the book, but being a fan of mountaineering movies in general and anything to do with Tibet, it was worth watching again for that reason alone. Well, this was the second time I saw the film, the first time was shortly after its theatrical debut back in the late '90s. So it had been awhile, was almost like seeing it for the first time. And like I said, while I enjoyed the book version very much, the movie version, though it has some merit, is not really anything special, but on this second viewing one line stood out to me that I found thought provoking enough to write it down in my journal and share it with you here.

"The more difficult the journey, the greater the depth of purification."

I thought that was an interesting line. It was in reference to the fact that the Tibetan people as a whole, both peasant and priest, were culturally orientated toward going on regular pilgrimages. It was believed that the act of pilgrimage, walking long distances over difficult terrain to visit sacred sites, while enduring numerous obstacles along the way, would help cleanse one's sins. That the more difficult the journey, the more rewarding that journey would be. So it was like an act of atonement, a way of finding forgiveness and consolation and strength in moving forward, helping one to discard, however large or small, the bonds of guilt and grief and discontent accumulated from past misdeeds and mistakes.

Though I suppose that's true of all pilgrimages, not just Tibetan, about it being an act of purification; that regardless of which spiritual or religious point of view one is aligned with, a pilgrimage is fundamentally about seeking clarity through the purification of negative thoughts.

Kind of reminded me of the Catholic concept of purgatory, that intermediary stage between death and resurrection, except that the pilgrimage is a sort of a purgatory one experiences while still alive. You could say that it's a way of dying, without dying, to be reborn again in this life; where pilgrimage provides a means of purification along the journey to enlightenment.

As a hiker, who also considers myself to be a spiritually minded person, what I find exceptionally interesting about pilgrimage, is that not only does it involve travel and adversity as a means of purification, but that walking in particular is considered an essential component of it. And I think that is not simply because of the fact that walking is more challenging, particularly because it is slower, and a greater hardship if you must carry your own gear, but that it is also because of the very specific state of mind that walking tends to inspire.

For instance, walking is more humbling, because you are more vulnerable, being momentarily homeless, living out of a bag, perhaps sleeping outside, and at the mercy of the hospitality of strangers. But another reason is that walking is essentially a moving meditation, which helps to ground you to the immediacy of the ever changing landscape of the moment; where there is struggle, but also exceptional clarity and mindfulness which makes it all the more conducive to the task of mental and spiritual purification.

Musings on Diversity and Localism

"Cotton kills."

I'm sure you've heard that before. It's in reference to wearing cotton based fabrics in cold weather conditions, in that, cotton loses its insulating ability when wet, which could be deadly when worn in freezing temperatures.

I don't know why I was thinking about this, but it just popped into my mind last night completely out of the blue. I guess maybe it was because it was so unbearably hot outside that I was thinking about taking a vacation near an iceberg. Contemplating the adage, "cotton kills," lead to a long chain of associations in my mind, about the materials we use in various products, such as clothing, building materials, etc., being most suited for the climate of the materials origin.

For instance, cotton clothing is probably most suited for the type of climate where cotton plants grow, which is generally hot weather conditions. Which means that the statement "cotton kills" is only applicable to cold weather conditions, and not at all true in hot weather conditions, or those conditions where the cotton plant naturally thrives.

Okay, we all know this right? Nothing new here. But the essential insight I got from this, is that the same general principle is true I think for all things, at least in reference to natural materials. Synthetics, on the other hand, are a crap shoot, their efficacy depending entirely on whether their design matches the needs of the climate. Generally the best materials to use for any given place, are those that are either locally obtained, or if imported, come from, or are adapted to, an environment having similar climatic and geographical conditions.

That generally, what's best for the south, comes from the south. What's best for the north, comes from the north. What's best for the desert, comes from the desert. What's best for the tropics, comes from the tropics. What's best for the mountains, comes from the mountains. What's best for the forests, comes from the forests. What's best for the plains, comes from the plains. Or what works well in dry conditions, probably will not work well in humid conditions. What works well in cold conditions, probably won't work well in hot conditions.

It's so obvious, right? But look around you, and see how much stuff follows a standard homogeneous cookie cutter design, used everywhere the same way, even when it is not appropriate to the local conditions.

This is another example of the importance of diversity. Not diversity for diversities sake, or solely for the appearance of diversity, but diversity in the sense of different places having different strengths and weaknesses, and different needs, which require using different methods, that invariably produce different results. Diversity in the sense that the world should not look the same everywhere, or use the same materials or methods wherever you go.

****

But diversity is not just about appearances, it is about adapting to different conditions in ways that are most appropriate to those conditions. Doing things the same way, when it is in fact the best way for the present conditions, is not wrong. Doing things in different ways that don't work well for the present conditions, just for the sake of valuing or promoting diversity, may be wrong. That is a distortion of diversity. Misunderstanding that diversity is a product of environment, and should not be reproduced in environments inappropriate to it. Or in other words, what works here, may not work there, and to force something to fit in the name of diversity, is like forcing a square peg into a round hole, and not at all a healthy form of diversity at all.

It is not healthy diversity to import building materials or clothing that is most suited for humid conditions, if it is to be used in dry conditions.

I'm wondering if there is some greater truth here, concerning diversity and localism, that extends beyond material resources, that applies to systems and cultures and intellectual ideas, about how to build cities, how to manage businesses, how to organize societies, and how to govern people.

This is not at all a complete idea, but was just an example of the associations that came to mind last night as a result of contemplating the idea that "cotton kills," but not always, sometimes it is actually the best and most suitable fabric around, depending on where you live and how you use it.

What I learned by thinking about this is that the factors that determine the suitability of any given material or method, and which is also the primary shaper of cultural diversity, is more often than not the actual environmental conditions and unique physical geography of the earth itself.

Attempting to make everyone the same in all places, is just as unhealthy and counter to true diversity, as making all places equally diverse representations of all things; that is, importing diversity simply for the appearance of diversity, like for example, encouraging the use of different building materials or clothing, even though they may be inappropriate for the local conditions, is not real diversity. It is a mockery of diversity, because real diversity is a product of the natural adaptation to different physical environments over time, where culture is the result. Culture is the effect, environment is the cause. When you put different people in one place together, over time, this group of people becomes something completely different than what it used to be, where they become more alike than different, but completely different than what they were before.

Example, you can export a bunch of cotton clothing to cold weather climates, but eventually people are going to figure out that the local materials, that grow well in that environment, like wool, for instance, is much better. People adapt to the land, and if they don't, they have a difficult time, or they don't survive at all. Diversity is a direct response to the land. Different land, materials, and methods produce different culture.

A multicultural rainbow means absolutely nothing, other than being a shallow façade of diversity, if everybody looks different but thinks the same, or if the way we think and act is out of harmony with the needs dictated by the environment.

Gemini Dreams and Insights

Metallic Toad Dream

I had a dream last night that I was sitting out on my patio and noticed a spider web up above me. It extended from a corner of the patio's ceiling with strands of webbing attached to some of the potted plants in front of where I was sitting. The webbing was sort of in the way, that someone could accidentally walk into it, so I cleared it away, just the bottom strands, and left the uppermost part of the web attached to the corner. Finally I see the spider curled up into a ball in the deepest shadow of the corner. It was white and large, with almost a squarish body, and my first thought was that it may be poisonous.

I looked away for a moment, but when I looked again in the same spot, instead of a spider, it was now a round silver coin, which appeared to be very old and of foreign currency, attached to the web. The spider appeared to have changed into a coin, or perhaps I had doubts about it having been a spider in the first place. As I'm thinking this, the coin turns around to its other side, and reveals itself to be not a coin, but a small metallic looking toad. Not a lifeless object, but a living creature. No sooner than revealing itself, or shape shifting into a toad, it quickly moves further into the shadow, and disappears completely into a hole in the wall. And that was it. End of dream.

Random Insights

I had these random insights a few days ago. The first one occurred to me while watching a movie. Just completely out of the blue, unrelated to the subject of the movie itself, I was looking at a woman on the screen and this thought spontaneously popped into my mind:

"The Body is a Spacesuit For the Soul"

Assumption being that there is a non-material essence underlying the fundamental being of each person. Perhaps you could call it a mixture of consciousness and spirit, spirit being the energy that animates the body, soul being the individual personality of the spirit, and consciousness being what links spirit to matter, as a self-aware being living among other self-aware beings.

Nothing too revolutionary here, and I'm sure anyone who doubts the existence of a non-material reality or spirit, would think the idea completely absurd and dismiss me as being a naive flake, but either way I thought it was interesting to think of our bodies as being like spacesuits perfectly adapted for earthly travel.

Just like astronauts can't walk on the moon without wearing a spacesuit, people can't walk on the earth without a physical body. But the body is more like a vehicle or a specially fitted outfit of clothing, than the actual person. The body as a tool essential to our survival in this environment, is an extension of our being, but it is not the source, or the fundamental substance of who and what we are.

"The Power of Will"

This other insight I had shortly before going to bed a few nights ago after having had a couple of beers. I was holding this almost empty bottle of beer in my hand and thinking about what was stopping me from throwing this bottle of beer against the wall. I had no intention of doing so, but just as a sort of thought experiment, the idea entered my mind. Well, of course, thinking about the consequences of it is what stopped me. The broken glass. The spilled beer. The mess. The noise. The anger it would cause my housemates. It would be a totally senseless act, with absolutely no good reason for doing so. But what was really stopping me? The power of the will, that's what.

The power of the will is extremely strong. It's like a superglue. Once an idea sticks, it's very difficult to get it unstuck. Thinking about this beer bottle and the choice not to throw it against the wall, got me thinking about the greater role Will plays in the physical laws of the universe, and to what extent Will is a defining ingredient in determining whether something is possible or impossible.

What role does will play in things like gravity, and not being able to walk through walls? What role does will play in the aging process, in what is considered to be the natural lifespan of the human being? Perhaps it is possible to change reality and to redefine the limits of what is possible and impossible, by changing and refocusing the power of the will. To walk through walls. To astral project your consciousness thousands of miles away without "physically" leaving the room you are in. The ability to see with microscopic vision, with telescopic vision, to see into the future and the past, and to do these things without the use of external technological devices like telephones and computers, but purely through the conscious manipulation of your mind and the power of your will.

The power of the will is not just a matter of thinking differently or trying to convince yourself of something, but is actually a matter of really believing it with all of your being on both a conscious and a much deeper subconscious level. You have to really actually believe it. As long as you "know" that it's impossible to walk through walls, either through personal experience or because all the scientific studies say so, your will shall reflect that impossibility. But as soon as a scientific breakthrough is made in that area to enable that to happen, it will revise your entire thinking on the matter, and what was previously considered impossible, becomes possible, because the information needed to support that idea, to confirm it in your will, has been modified.

Because the power of will is not just an individual matter, but is shaped in great part by the power of consensus, or collective agreement, reinforced by way of authority, popular culture, science, religion, and the law. The more people who believe in something and are told it is true, the more powerful and the more real this something becomes.

Addendum (added a few hours later):  The point of this insight, concerning the power of will, is that physical laws operate according to a similar principle, and that by observing the power and influence of your own will power in action, you can gain a better understanding of how the universe works. Or something like that. Just thinking out loud here, trying to retrace the line of thought going through my mind a few days ago, and writing about it here after the fact.

As Within, So Without

"One has to investigate the principle in one thing or one event exhaustively...Things and the self are governed by the same principle. If you understand one, you understand the other, for the truth within and the truth without are identical." -- Er Cheng Yishu, 11th century

For many years I have shared a similar perspective to the one expressed in this quote, but have struggled to put this philosophy into words. The idea that there are universal truths which can be applied to all areas of knowledge and to all circumstances of life. And the idea that these universal truths can be translated into both complicated theory and simple common sense.

That all things can be viewed from both a literal and a metaphorical perspective, and that all material truths, regarding the laws and processes of nature, have a corresponding psychological and philosophical truth. That the workings of nature, reflect the inner workings of the mind, and both the mind and the body reflect the workings of nature.

For instance, take constipation, having difficult or infrequent bowel movements. Constipation is essentially a blockage of energy. The bowel is like a river. Constipation is like a dammed up river. What prevents a river from flowing? Thick murky sediment. Pollution. Stagnation. Obstruction. An excessive narrowing or constriction of the channels. And what kills the fish in the river? Lack of food. Lack of oxygen. Lack of space. Starvation, dehydration, and asphyxiation. The inability to eat, breath, absorb nutrients, and expel waste.

Constipation is a physical ailment, but there is also a corresponding constipation of the mind, feeling mentally and emotionally and creatively blocked, being rigid and close minded, inflexible in your thinking. Having a closed heart full of hatred and prejudice is also much like a clogged pipe, or a damned, stagnant, dying river. Like having your blood circulation cut off. If it goes on for too long, you'll lose a limb, or you'll have a heart attack or stroke, or you'll die. The whole entire body is like a flowing river of water and blood. When it is healthy, it is in movement, flowing, recirculating, revitalizing energy.

Same is true of the quality of our life, whether we are happy, whether we are feeling vibrant, energetic, enthusiastic, optimal, or whether we feel like we are missing something, like we are stuck, all depend on whether the river of our life is flowing healthfully, or if its blocked and filled with muck. In other words, there are correspondences to be found by observing the laws of nature, that may be applied to our own lives, and to the systems and organizations that govern our lives.

Assuming that there are universal principles of truth that can be applied to all things, I'm thinking that in testing the validity of any system or theory, it helps to look at it through the perspective of different circumstances, and different fields of knowledge, to determine whether the principle still holds true, and whether it is equally valid within as it is without. If there is any incongruity between the two, between the inner and the outer, and the philosophy and practice, it suggests that there is an error somewhere in your system or theory, that is damming up your river, so to speak.

In other words, a universal truth must be true in both theory and practice, and it must be equally true when applied to any subject. So for instance, the conditions and underlying principles that contribute to health and disease, should be reflected in all things, not just the body, the mind, and nature, but also in society, technology, business, relationships, and the management and organization of systems of all kinds.

*Note: This is all very rough. I have more to say about this, and not sure if I said this as clearly as I could have. It's way too hot to write. The desert is killing me. I'll have to revisit this topic at a cooler time.

Creativity

Creativity is very much connected to health and confidence.

When I'm feeling creative, I'm feeling strong and confident in myself. I'm not looking to others to tell me what to do, or to give their approval of what I'm doing. When I am creative I am my own master, and whatever I do, no matter how unconventional or unpopular it may be, is done with a clear and confident resoluteness of purpose. When I am feeling creative it effects all spheres of my life. Not just a matter of doing this one creative thing, it effects everything that I do. And consequently, if I'm feeling creatively blocked, that too effects all spheres of my life, reducing my confidence, diminishing my energy, and negatively effecting my health.

To me, creativity is intrinsically connected to feeling healthy and confident. Not just a physical feeling of health and well being, but having a healthy mental outlook. To be creative is like always being in love with the art of creation, with the process of discovery and exploration of inspiration, and the sharing with others what you find in your meetings with the divine, the metaphysical ecstasies in your mind, like a prism reflecting the energies outside of time.

Potential creative energy is activated by a spark of heat and light, where the mind is like a prism and the creative inspiration is like the sun passing through that prism. Where the prism must be positioned in such a way that allows the light to pass through it, otherwise if the sun is obscured, or if the prism it out of alignment with this light, darkness ensues. So it is with creativity.

To create something on your own, developing an original idea, or reinventing an older idea, is very much about tapping into a certain potential energy that exists everywhere in the world at all times, as an invisible quality permeating the mind like air, always there, but not always recognized, but upon making the connection of recognition, it creates a spark that ignites a flame, a flash of insight making the invisible visible, creating an illuminated bridge between the world and the mind and the creative soul fire that lies outside of time.

What happens when this creative link is lost?

If you are a creative person, who suddenly finds yourself feeling creatively blocked, it can be a very disturbing situation to be in. You may feel like you are experiencing an identity crisis, like you have lost your sense of direction, that you no longer know who you are or where you are going. If for instance, you are an artist who paints, not just as a vocation, but whose entire life and sense of identity revolves around being inspired, thinking creatively, and creating art, but who has suddenly lost the inspiration and the ability to paint, what then, and how does such a person reclaim their creative inspiration?

What does a creative person do, who suddenly finds themselves unable to create?

Well from what I've learned of it, creativity, much like insight, cannot be forced. (See: Random Insight #2: Insight Cannot be Forced, and Creative Soul Fire.) All one can do, really, is to improve the conditions that make one more receptive to inspiration, removing any obstacles in the way to make it easier for you to see and to hear and to receive the gift of creative insight.

To create is to feel vibrantly alive, passionate, confident, like a flowing river unimpeded by nothing in its path. For myself, one of the main obstacles to creativity is illness. Feeling poorly, sick, depressed, in pain, too hot, too cold, weak, exhausted, uncomfortable, unable to relax, and unable to focus. If you are feeling sick, or depressed, your creatively will often be blocked. This is because you are distracted by these other concerns.

Therefore, if you are feeling creatively blocked, the best way to reclaim your creativity, is to do everything within your power to make yourself feel better; take a vacation, rest, recuperate, detoxify your body, increase your strength and energy, and improving your overall mood and state of health.

That's all I have to offer about that. Improve your health and the creativity will follow.

Fake Gurus Versus Real Gurus

Want to know what criteria I use to evaluate the authentic teachers (gurus, philosophers, leaders, and prophets) from the false ones?

1. Do they practice what they preach?

2. Do they have healthy habits?

Almost nothing turns me off more than an unhealthy hypocrite.

Anyone who is brilliant, and gives good advice, but who neglects their own health, or who minimizes the importance of health and longevity, is revealing a major lack of wisdom.

Anyone who is all talk, no action; who doesn't strive to attain a balance between theoretical knowledge and experiential knowledge, or who doesn't recognize the value of both philosophy and practice, not merely as a theoretical ideal, but as a lifestyle habit to be implemented in this lifetime, is revealing a major lack of wisdom.

It doesn't mean that such a person doesn't have anything to teach, we all have something to teach, but it reveals gaping holes in their lessons. They are teaching not by example, but by words alone, which are empty of the fruits of experience, empty of the essence of power which would be embodied within the nourishing words of an authentic teacher.

It doesn't mean that an authentic teacher is perfect, or doesn't ever suffer from poor health, or doesn't ever make mistakes, but they at least make the attempt to be healthy, and make the attempt to practice what they preach. And if they fail they don't gloss over their failure to do so as if it's a good thing, and they don't minimize the importance of being healthy and the importance of being consistent in what they say and what they do, simply because they have failed to implement it themselves. Again, anyone who does so, is revealing a major lack of wisdom.

Yeah, I judge. If you are unhealthy as a direct result of poor habits, and make no attempt to regain your health, or if you make major mistakes, and make no attempt to correct them, I tend to have less respect for you. If you are a fat ass, with the bloated physique of a refrigerator, I don't care if you have an IQ of 180, and a PhD in Medicine, you are revealing a major lack of wisdom.

I do not say this to make myself seem like I am so much better. I have my flaws, most notably being judgmental, and drinking alcohol too frequently. I do not consider myself a teacher. While I sometimes play that role, as far as what I know, I am a novice with limited knowledge. I am more of a student than a teacher, but I refuse to recognize the credibility of any teacher, of anyone who gives advice, or who proposes a philosophy for others to follow, who at the same time has unhealthy lifestyle habits, or who does not practice what they preach.

This is the quickest way to gain or lose my respect, and to clearly discern the fake gurus from the real ones.

The Difference Between Experience and Theory

Some people claim that intellectual knowledge is just as good as experiential knowledge, that you don't have to actually practice what you preach to be considered a credible source of advice. That there is little difference between being able to describe how to do something, and actually doing it. That theoretical knowledge is a sufficient substitute for experience.

I really couldn't disagree more.

To me the whole point of a theory is practical application. Certainly both philosophy and practice are important, but I would have to say that experience is even more important than theory, because without practical application, all your theories are little more than unsubstantiated fantasies.

The whole point of brainstorming ideas, of proposing speculative theories, is testing them, and putting them into action, otherwise what's the point? Life is about living, doing, implementing, interacting, not about daydreaming in isolation.

For instance, if you are thirsty, you don't go read a book about water, or visualize a picture of water in your mind, and expect that to quench your thirst. If you read about water, or think about water, you do so for the purpose of helping you actually find water, or to improve your relationship with water (how to find it, purify it, store it, use it); and unless you actually apply this information to the real world, you will die of thirst.

No amount of theorizing on its own has the power to sustain or enhance life. The value of anything depends on whether or not you find it useful. Does it add value to your life? Does it help you in anyway?

Real world experience and the practical application of ideas, is the only thing giving an idea substance, the only thing giving an idea life. An idea is like a seed, and the experiential application of the idea is like a seed bearing fruit. Unless an idea is actually applied, it remains barren, like a disembodied spirit without a body.

If all you do is understand things on an intellectual level, without ever actually applying the things you know experientially, your life will remain very much like that seed that does not bear fruit.

I'll give you another example.

Imagine there are two little boys who both dream of someday riding a bicycle.

1. One day one of the boys is given a bicycle. He rides his bicycle all the time all over the place, to such an extent that he becomes quite an expert cyclist. Not only does he ride his bicycle well, but he knows what foods and drinks provide the most efficient fuel for his body, he knows how to fix his bicycle, how to maintain it, how to prevent it from getting stolen, and also how to travel well over any terrain and in any weather, in the city, in the country, off road, uphill, over long distances, and riding with traffic. Everything he needs to know about bicycles, he learned from riding his bicycle. He may have paged through a few books on bicycle repair, but only through the trial and error practice of actually working on his bicycle and riding it, did he actually learn how to fix his bicycle and ride it well.

2. The other boy did not get a bicycle, but instead he got a pile of books about bicycles. So he read them all and became quite an expert on the subject, memorizing everything that he read. You could ask him any question about bicycles, and most likely he could answer it. Except that the ideas were not really his own, he was just repeating what he read, as he still hadn't actually road a bicycle himself. He hadn't even seen one in person, only pictures and descriptions in a book is the closest he ever got to one. His knowledge of bicycles was very much like a blind man describing color after being told what to say, but because his memory was so good, he spoke like someone who knew what he was talking about.

Who knew bicycles better? The person who actually road them, or the person who only read about them?

Isn't it obvious?

The major difference between these two ways of knowing bicycles, is that one is a spectator, the other is a participant.

One is based on fantasy, the other is based on reality.

Both intellectual theory and practical experience go hand in hand, it's helpful to have both, but the whole point of knowing about something is putting it into practice; otherwise without doing it, you're engaging in little more than a fantasy.

The boy who knows all about bicycles from having read about them, but who has never actually rode one before, can't actually call himself a cyclist. He could call himself an expert in bicycle history and trivia, but he will never be a cyclist until he actually rides a bike.

It's all well and good to speculate upon things, to contemplate abstract philosophical concepts, but unless you can actually apply it to your life in some way, to put the philosophy or theory into practice, it's like doing nothing at all, and where is the value in that?

A person possessing intellectual knowledge without experience, is like someone looking into a reflection of reality as an outside observer, but not actually participating in it. Like watching a dance, but not dancing; like reading about bicycles, but not actually riding one. It's not the same thing. To know something you must participate with it. Trying to do otherwise, is like describing the taste of fruit, based on what you have read about it, without ever tasting it yourself. It's fake. It's hollow. It's like a blind man accurately describing color without ever seeing it for himself, because he's memorized someone else's description of it.

The point is that there is a substantial difference between knowing things from experience and knowing them from a theoretical perspective, and that the only thing that really makes ideas come alive, is when they are applied.

Failure to apply any idea, to demonstrate its practical value to the world (and practical in this sense does not only mean utilitarian, but is anything that adds personal value to your life, including entertainment and the arts) is an indication that you are engaging in a fruitless pursuit, a form of intellectual flatulence. Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of that going around lately, especially here in blog land. If you like gas, all the power to you, otherwise maybe you ought to try something else.

Soul Fire

I thought of the title of this post last night while sitting outside and staring intently into the flame of a candle. I had a terrible sinus headache that came on suddenly in the evening and lasted the entire night. I had hoped that sitting outside in the cool air would help, but while it did stimulate some interesting ideas, I found it impossible to write under those conditions.

Which got me thinking that all creativity, productivity, the ability to contemplate big ideas and to translate these ideas into words, depends on your health. If I were in poor health I don't think I would be able to have a blog. So health is an essential ingredient, but it's not the only ingredient. In order to regularly blog day in and day out, and to actually create something from thin air, requires yet another ingredient, something I call Soul Fire.

I got the idea for soul fire, while thinking about this blog, what I write about here, and the reasons for doing this. No, this is not another Why am I Blogging? post. It's too soon for that. But I was thinking about what really motivates a person to blog? And where does the energy come from to write here? Not only do I not make any money at this, it's largely a thankless endeavor. And so, given those circumstances of zero recognition and minimal feedback, what keeps a person doing this day in and day out?

You know, sometimes I read over my blog and see so many imperfectly written posts, rushed posts, posts that were unclear and didn't express everything I needed to say, that really should have been rewritten, and are somewhat of an embarrassment to read. And other times, I'm pleasantly surprised to find that some of the posts are pretty good. Either way, whether good or bad, it's come to my realization that the fact that I consistently publish anything here at all is an accomplishment in itself. Not many people are able to do this.

The problem is that when you are able to do something with ease, seemingly effortlessly, it's easy to take it for granted, to undervalue your skills; that sometimes you don't know what you had, until you lost it. Having a sinus headache that prevented me from being able to write (despite having ideas to write about) or to even bare the sight of a screen, showed me a whole new appreciation for this.

So I was thinking about this, about this creative impulse underlying blogging, which is more than just an idea, it's a motivating force that propels an idea into action, that translates unspoken thoughts into written words. And the name I came up with for this creative impulse was "Soul Fire". It came to me as an epiphany while staring into the flame of a candle, and thinking about my blog, about my health, and about what motivates me to write here.

The ability to have a blog is not just about having the right hardware and software, you also have to have the right combination of motivation and creative energy; or soul fire. Having ideas to write about and the energy to translate those ideas into words, and the ability to do so day in and day out for absolutely no reward; no money, no recognition, and minimal feedback; you have to admit that's pretty remarkable. I've been called selfish before, but I think this is actually an instance of selflessness; either that or stupidity.

It becomes ever so apparent to me during those times when I am unable to put my ideas into words, that the ability to create requires more than just having ideas and talent, the essential ingredient is soul fire. Soul Fire is the fuel that powers this blog. Without it this blog would not exist. It is not only responsible for the creation of each post, but is the energy that is responsible for keeping the entire blog going.

Soul Fire, a type of applied inspiration, that enables you to create something from nothing. It's not really something you own, it's more like something that you borrow, like a gift from the gods; you don't call it, it calls you, but in order to hear it your health must be crystal clear, or else the reception will be too fuzzy to translate into words.

Nothing can be created without soul fire; and without health the soul fire burns out.

Scattered Reading Habits

Hmm, while looking through the list of books I've read over the last six years, it's come to my attention that strangely enough for someone who professes a primary interest in the subjects of health and fitness and longevity, I've only read five books on those topics since 2006. Isn't that odd?

Of course, this list only mentions completed books, and not books I may have browsed through but not read from cover to cover; or magazines and websites related to health and longevity; or books I've read prior to 2006.

But still, for someone who reads a lot, it is peculiar to me that I haven't read more on these subjects. Is it because I feel like I already am well educated in these matters, that I no longer need to read books about it, because I already know all there is to know about health and longevity? Well, if that were the case, I better start writing about it then, right? But no that's not the case. So what is the conclusion then? That I better get cracking; meaning that I better start reading some health and longevity books soon.

Of course my problem, as far as independent study goes, is that I tend to jump around. I lack focus. I get bored easily. As soon as I read one thing, I find something else to read that is extremely interesting to me but completely unrelated to what I just previously read. It happens every time. When it comes to my education, I really don't have a definite plan, or specific goal. All I know is that I like to learn, and enjoy reading about whatever interests me, which changes from month to month.

Which means that I acquire a basic understanding of several different topics, but attain mastery of none. Instead of reading five good books on one topic, I read five good books on five different topics, and then I read five more books on five other topics, and then after a few months maybe I'll read a book on a topic I've already read about. It's sort of a scattered approach to learning; it's a very slow and unfocused process.

Although the more I read, no matter how different the subjects, I suppose it's improving my overall reading proficiency, my vocabulary, reading speed, and comprehension, which I hope is also carrying over into the way I think and communicate, and especially in the way I write. As they say, if you want to become better at anything: practice, practice, practice. If you want to become a better reader, spend more time reading. If you want to become a better writer, spend more time writing. If you want to become a better speaker, spend more time speaking. If you want to become better at anything, spend more time doing it.

It's really as simple as that. So while reading a lot of unrelated topics may not give you mastery of those topics, it will improve your general knowledge, your reading skills, as well as your overall competency with words, whether that be reading, writing, or speaking. But, reading in itself, is not my primary goal. The goal is knowledge, understanding, wisdom. Reading is the means, not the end. If you are interested in health, it pays to read a lot about health. If you are interested in business, it pays to read a lot about business. The more you concentrate on a specific thing, the more you read about it, think about it, speak about it, write about it, the more you will learn about it, the more you will know about it, and the more successful you will be in this subject.

In other words: the more you concentrate, the faster you'll learn; the less you concentrate, the slower you'll learn.

This is so obvious that it probably doesn't even need to be said. And yet, despite being so obvious, why is it so difficult for me? Why do I continue to jump around? Why do you suppose this is? I think it is because my mind is so active, and has so many different interests, that if I don't add variety to my reading I become easily bored.

This I think explains my lack of success, or rather my lack of mastery of any single topic. The fact that I jump around a lot, means that it could take me years to master one topic that someone else could master in months.

I think besides having an overactive mind, another reason for my scattered reading habits is due to indecisiveness, of not being able to make up my mind of what I want to master. I'm over 30 and I'm still struggling with the idea of what I want to be when I grow up. Am still conflicted over whether or not I should integrate my passions and interests (which are just as scattered and unfocused as my reading habits) with my employment, or if I should continue to keep them separate. The idea of the latter, being that you develop a business plan that would enable you to make more money working fewer hours, which doesn't necessarily need to be a job you love, but would be lucrative enough to give you an abundance of free time to pursue your real passions in life; like what The 4-Hour Work Week guy suggests.

The second of the two options is what I've unsuccessfully been attempting to do over the last few years, but unfortunately the income has not been lucrative enough to give me the time I need. Instead of working 4 hours a week, it would be 40 hours of hell, multiplied by several months, all done with the aim of taking an extended vacation to pursue doing the things I love. This plan works out all right the first or second time around, but as the years go by, you find out that you're still spending more time doing what you hate, than doing what you love, which is not a very healthy long-term plan. Option two only works if you have a lucrative business or skill.

So you basically have three choices: you either have to figure out a way to make a lot of money in a short period of time, or a job that enables you to have fewer hours with higher pay, which will give you the free time that you need to pursue the things you love; or you have to love what you do regardless of how little you make; or you just make the best of your situation and stop complaining about it.

And what does this have to do with my scattered reading habits? My scattered reading habits are a reflection of my scattered employment habits. The difference between having a focused goal and not having a focused goal, is the difference between having a job you hate and a job you love.

Successful people are focused people. They have goals, and they achieve them. Without a plan, what have you got? Chaos. Weakness. Uncertainty. Indecisiveness. Being lost. Not knowing where you are, who you are, or where you're going. Very easy to be taken advantage of or manipulated in such a situation. The strong shepherd the weak, but the strong are not always your allies, the strong do not always have your best interests at heart. The strong have their own goals, they know exactly what they want, and will use other people to get it. Which reminds me of the Occupy Movement, a mob without a clearly articulated goal or unified objective, is easy prey for outside manipulation from those who do know what they want, but whose longer range goal may not have the mobs true interests at heart. In other words, a leaderless mob, will gravitate to a leader, any leader, even the wrong one, even a tyrant.

As far as my scattered reading habits go, it's good that I at least continue to maintain an interest in learning, that I continue reading books on my own without being required to. Surprisingly many people once their out of school, stop reading all together. Or if they do read, it's limited to magazines and newspapers and novels. Reading is certainly not the only way to learn about things, but I think it gives a decided advantage. The only danger though, is that while it's good to read, you shouldn't read too much, to such an extent that reading become a substitute for thinking. When that happens, you stop learning, and your imagination starts to die. You could read a whole library of books in this way, and not have a single original thought of your own to contribute. In fact you would become more like a robot, and less like a human. What a sad state of affairs that would be.

You want to think about what you read and apply it to your own life and your own experience, to synthesize the ideas with your own, rather than thoughtlessly regurgitating everything you read word for word like a parrot; this is the difference between thinking and repeating, and between understanding and memorizing without understanding.

So the point is that scattered reading is probably better than no reading, but you'll achieve more from your reading with focused concentration. Having a clearly articulated goal, while at the same time being flexible enough to modify your course as necessary, will yield faster, more concentrated, and more productive results than not having a goal at all.

Cycles

I'm someone who's always for as long as I can remember been attuned to natural cycles. I have very strong pattern recognition skills, and the strongest patterns I see around me are those occurring in nature: diurnal cycles, seasonal cycles, celestial cycles, circadian cycles.

And I'm particularly observant of the transition points from one cycle to another. Such as the meeting of day and night, night and day, also known as dusk and dawn, the setting and rising of the sun, the setting and rising of the moon and the stars, and the changes from one season to the next. I've always felt those times to be magical, having a special quality in the air that is only present at those times. I didn't have to read about these things to pay attention to them, to value them, it is something that has always intuitively come natural to me.

I've always tried to make an attempt to be outside during those times, to be present, watching, listening, soaking it in, acknowledging the change. I don't always succeed, but whenever I do I walk away feeling blessed by something special, a certain intangible quality, like a subtle inspiration that bathes over my whole being. I walk away feeling inspired, revitalized, in awe of a mystery. Perhaps this too is key to longevity. Making the time to greet the day and the night, to bear witness to the passing of the torch, the points of transition between seasonal and celestial change, and being thankful for its continuity.

Why do people not notice these things? Perhaps because they do not like their surroundings. Maybe they live in an ugly place, where the objects of man distract from the objects of nature, where it is unpleasant to be outside. Where the streets are loud, and the buildings are oppressively large, and people are physically too close together and mentally too far apart. Where there is a feeling of separation and animosity and alienation and apprehension, and the consequential feelings of frustration and boredom. Or maybe the objects of man are architectural wonders, objects d'art, that keep us enthralled, and distracted from nature's own magical moments of artistic wonder. Or maybe you are just really busy, and would rather be inside doing whatever it is you do, paying little attention to nature's holidays, these special moments during the day and night and on certain days of the year that mark changes in the landscape, that whether we notice them or not, subtly effect the quality of our lives, the quality of our moods and frames of mind.

If you've been reading for awhile you've probably noticed that I label each post according to whatever astrological sign it was in during the time it was written. This is an experiment of mine, to see if I notice patterns in my blog posts, to see if I write about certain topics more frequently during different signs. For instance, do all the posts written in Libra share something in common, that sets them apart from other months? Libra is a sign that begins in late September and occupies most of October, pretty much from September 23 to October 23. It's a sign that is closely aligned with the advent of Autumn. Virgo is the end of summer, and Libra is the beginning of fall.

There probably are noticeable changes in my posts at this time, primarily due to the cooler weather, which is especially apparent here in Arizona, where summer lasts much longer than other places, and we are just now finally reaching the end of a long cycle of approximately six months of temperatures in the hundreds. The hot weather puts me to sleep. I become lazier, not just physically but mentally, and I usually complain about the heat and how much I dislike Arizona. I do like warm weather, but when it is in the hundreds it pretty much puts a break on all outdoor physical activity. It is simply not safe to move around much in that kind of heat. You pretty much have to stay indoors for most of the time, or stay in the shade and not move around much. Six months is a long stretch of time to be indoors, especially for someone who is very physically active and who loves the outdoors, and who doesn't drive and must ride a bike or walk for my primary form of transportation. Which means I have to go outside when it is extremely uncomfortable to be outside and is actually dangerous to be outside. Fortunately that cycle is ending, and we are slowly entering a cool down.

The cooler air that correlates with the onset of Libra, is characterized by a more logical influence, my thinking becomes clearer, I'm less likely to complain about things, my sense of humor returns, and I have more of a propensity to post more frequently, to post more pictures, especially fine art, and more likely to explore themes concerning mythology and symbolism, and topics that require a deeper level of concentration and awareness. The writing seems to come more easily too, because it is easier to concentrate when I do not feel like my body is in a vise, and like I'm slowly suffocating to death as I'm being baked alive in this desert oven. That is my experience of six months of 100 degree temperatures. Despite my proclivity for exaggeration and melodrama, the comparison to hell is really not all that far fetched.

I would say that each astrological sign is a reflection of the seasonal changes present at different times of the year, changes that alter not just temperature, but also the qualities of moisture and light. Cool, Warm, Moist, Dry, Light, Dark. There are distinct patterns that are present in each month. The essence of Libra is the essence of October, and the essence of October is most noticeably shaped by the weather patterns, by the unique seasonal changes occurring at this time. But you could say, why not just label each post by its month...September, October, November, etc.? Well the beauty of the astrological signs is that they each contain the transitions between months, they each overlap months, containing the seeds of their opposite, the cusps between one month and the next. So that Libra begins in September and ends in October, and Scorpio begins in October and ends in November. It makes it kind of interesting, I think.

Anyway, the astrological signs mirror the changes of the seasons, embody the qualities of a particular time of the season, which may be warmer or cooler, wetter or dryer, or darker or lighter. The weather effects our mood. But of the course, the weather varies from place to place. A desert Libra will differ from a tropical Libra. A northern Libra will differ from a southern Libra. But the changes will be more similar than different for those living in the same hemisphere. For instance, although the Arizona desert is still warmer in Libra than it is in Wisconsin, there is still a noticeable cool down at this time effecting both places, which gives it its unique Libra "vibe".

If you get nothing else from this post, get this: Pay attention to nature's cycles. Be present to the transition from one natural cycle to the next, between day and night and night and day, sunrise and sunset, moon rise and moon set, star rise and star set, the changes between one month and one season and the next. And just to make it more interesting how about paying attention to the transition between zodiac signs, between Virgo and Libra, Libra and Scorpio, etc., or how about Chinese astrology, commemorating the twelve year intervals between the year of the snake, the year of the dragon, etc. If you don't like astrology, don't worry about it, but do pay attention to the natural cycles around you, and within you, that influence the rhythms of your life.

These are special times. I can feel it. They have special lessons to impart. I've been studying them all my life. They are lessons of transformation, wordless teachings that get etched into the tapestry of our experience as a sort of unspoken wisdom. I don't know why or how, but there is magic during these times of transition. They are good times to meditate with your eyes wide open, or to simply be outside, being mindful of the experience of being outside and aware of the natural landscape and aware of the subtle changes of light and moisture and heat that are especially visible during these times.

The Difference Between Thinking and Reading, Realizing and Repeating

Our creative faculties are all too often stunted from living in noisy overdeveloped urban environments, and spending too much time indoors watching television and looking at computer screens, but did you know that even reading too much can also be detrimental to your creative faculties?

How so? Well as someone who absolutely loves books, spends a lot of time reading books, and whose life would be significantly diminished without books, what the hell do I mean?

It's not that reading in itself is detrimental. Of course not. Reading is good. Reading is the surest way of rapidly improving your education. But reading too much, without regularly taking time out for personal contemplation, to process what you've read, to think for yourself, to directly listen and observe and ask yourself questions and form your own answers, without doing that, both reading and watching television, or doing anything that becomes a substitute for thinking, can become detrimental to your intellect.

It is possible to be an avid "well read" reader without being a thinker, without being much of a creative, independent, or innovative thinker.

There are a lot of repeaters in this world, many who are overpaid and overrated, people who dutifully repeat whatever the experts say, without really understanding or verifying the facts independently for themselves.

It is possible to appear quite learned and intelligent by merely memorizing what you have read or what you are told by others, to be a walking encyclopedia, a human computer regurgitating assorted facts and trivia, while at the same time being little more than a thoughtless repeater, a programmed robot parroting other peoples ideas without having any actual experiential grasp or understanding of those ideas independent of books or words, or without even having any original thoughts and ideas of your own.

Well maybe you'd counter that there are no original ideas, that there is really nothing new under the sun, everything is borrowed, recycled, rediscovered, and re-exchanged. That all ideas are a collaborative affair, and that nothing is truly independent or original. Maybe so, but in this case, when I speak of an original idea, I mean it in the sense of the idea arising from the quiet contemplation of your own mind. It doesn't matter if that idea was partially shaped and influenced by other ideas not uniquely your own, nor does it matter if you are not the only one, or are only one among thousands receiving the same insight or realization. What matters is the experience of the idea arising seemingly independently within your own mind, rather than being feed a prepackaged version that requires little to no thinking or experiential knowledge.

I hope I inspire you, but ultimately your inspiration is your own, is a personal relationship between the inner you and the outer world. You may feel as if the inspiration comes from outside of yourself, but actually inspiration always originates from within each person. Or rather, it is an experiential connection between the microscopic and macroscopic, between self and the cosmos.

Inspiration is like a radio frequency that's always on, but is only received if you are tuned to the right channel. When you are inspired by someone or something, it's not that they are the source of inspiration, but that all that is happening is that they've helped you turn the channel within yourself in alignment with the frequency of inspiration, that they too are tuned into, but it is up to you how long you maintain the connection, whether you raise or lower the volume, or whether you change to a different channel completely.

All knowledge and insight emerges from a receptive state of mind, but there is a difference between receiving ideas from others in their finished product already translated into words, and having the same ideas emerge independently in your own mind. There is a difference between experiential knowledge obtained on your own, and theoretical knowledge obtained from others. Theoretical knowledge can be experienced if the abstract ideas can be applied to the real world, as theoretical principles visualized affecting objects in space, or otherwise conceptualized having some real world application. And of course experiential knowledge can be translated into theoretical knowledge the very moment it is articulated into words.

If you get most of your ideas from books, from other people, without actually experiencing the insights yourself or applying them to the real world in your own way, how many ideas in your head are actually your own? Not only that, but to what extent do you truly understand and have personally tested what you are reading, and to what extent are you merely repeating?

That's the primary danger of reading too much, that of thinking too little. When reading and absorbing other people's ideas becomes a substitute for thinking, that's what I mean when I say that reading too much can potentially be detrimental to your capacity for independent creative thought.

Read to enhance your mind, not to completely erase your mind and replace it with somebody else's. The goal should be the expansion of consciousness, not the annihilation of consciousness. So by all means don't stop reading, but do consider turning off the television and going outside more.

Just make sure to also spend some time thinking, questioning, contemplating, realizing, and better yet reading the wordless wisdom written in the tapestry of the earth and the sky, and listening to nature's wordless sounds circulating all around, within and without, above and below, and beyond the written word of pseudo experts, thoughtless repeaters, and other overrated clowns.

The Meaning of 'Dissent is Patriotic'

Earlier last month I wrote a post called Dissent is Patriotic. Well, it's been getting some traffic lately, but it was really nothing more than a rambling rant, that didn't really do either the title or the subject justice. 

In fact, I see now that I didn't even explain in that post exactly what that slogan means, because I took it for granted that it was self-evident. 

Well, I'm sure the phrase 'dissent is patriotic' has probably been used by many people, but it is officially attributed to the historian Howard Zinn. That is where I got it from. But what does it mean? I'll tell you what I think it means.

To say that dissent is patriotic does not mean that all dissent is patriotic, or that dissent in and of itself is patriotic. What it does mean is that dissent, which generally means the opposition to official policy, can be patriotic in certain circumstances. And not only that, but the right to disagree with official policy, or the freedom to have a dissenting opinion without fear of suffering unreasonable punishment for disagreeing, is built into the very fabric of a free and democratic society.

For instance, if your country is founded on a specific set of rules and principles, and the people in charge institute actions and policies that violate, undermine, or subvert those rules and principles, dissent (meaning rebellion, opposition, protest, the failure to comply or support the people in charge and their polices), would in such circumstances be considered patriotic.

Patriotism simply means love and support of country. By country we mean not only the land and its people, but our collective society, our culture, our government, and the founding principles and laws of our nation.

But laws can and do change. Just because something is lawful, doesn't necessarily mean that it is true, or just, or morally sound. For instance, slavery was once legal. At the time of legalized slavery, would you say it is patriotic to support the institution of slavery? If the founding principles of your country support slavery, than perhaps you could. However, if you believe that the institution of slavery violates what your country stands for, than supporting slavery would in fact be quite unpatriotic.

If you believe that all men and women are created equal, and that all human beings have a natural born right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and such a belief is written into the very laws and principles that your country was founded on, support for slavery, or anything else that opposes those principles, would be inimical to not only patriotism, but the ideals of truth, justice, and democracy.

So in such a circumstance those opposing the legalized institution of slavery, would be a good example of dissent being patriotic.

In a society based on democracy and the rule of law, patriotism does not mean uncritically supporting your country, right or wrong, no matter what. Country in this sense meaning government, your elected representatives, their official policies, and the military. Patriotism means supporting certain fundamental founding principles, values, and laws inherent to a democratic society, and holding your elected officials accountable to them.

If on the other hand a democratic nation is for instance taken over by a fascist tyrannical coup, that subverts democracy and the rule of law, it would not be patriotic to support such an administration's policies or military engagements.

So in conclusion, to reiterate my points: The phrase 'dissent is patriotic' basically means an opposition to tyranny and evil, corruption and injustice, and the abuse of power in high places, while actively seeking to change the people and policies responsible for subverting democracy and the rule of law.