tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-356583242024-02-08T12:08:59.772-08:00CHANGING OUR MINDSI'm trying out some ideas about human development and maturity, psychology, political philosophy. Comments, thoughts, agreements and disagreements are welcome because they help me focus my thoughts. Discuss with me! And read the older posts on psychotherapy first if you're reading about psychotherapy.Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.comBlogger240125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-73738881324706097232022-02-07T12:15:00.001-08:002022-02-07T12:15:49.069-08:00A therapy problem<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt;">At an out-of-state convention I was talking with another therapist who presented an interesting treatment problem. I had no really adequate answer,
and after having been a therapist for 60 years that's at least a little
unusual.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt;">His patient told him that many
years previously he had committed some terrible crimes. Without going
into detail, the patient stated that he had accepted money to kill several people. More recently he had gotten sober for the first time in many years
and had subsequently fallen into a severe depression. He had become
suicidal and been hospitalized. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">His therapist told me that later on in the therapy his patient recognized his nearly unbearable guilt as
undoubtedly the driver for his suicidal impulses and depression. The patient's depressive thoughts were severely self-blaming, and in some ways even appropriate.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt;">Here are the questions the other
therapist asked me. Should he even be assisted in recovering from his
depression? Isn't his guilt an appropriate response to his
behaviors? Is it an appropriate use of psychotherapy to be relieved of
the guilt for his crimes? Is it acceptable to kill people and then expect
to be relieved of the psychological cost of committing such awful crimes? Is
that even ethical?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt;">I thought a long time before I
was able to give the other therapist any answer at all. After some thought my initial response was that the first and
second principle of the psychologist's ethical code is: Do no harm.
Act to help the patient. There are no exceptions to those principles, and
to me there should be none. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 13.5pt;">That being said, the other
questions are open for your answers. I'll be glad to hear any comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-42450550988013250212020-08-24T10:23:00.000-07:002020-08-24T10:23:15.197-07:00So before that was what?<p> I apologize for my ignorance of physics. However, ignorance doesn't stop me from puzzling over the larger mysteries, such as the state of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang. In fact, ignorance seems assist me in being puzzled. So if you are knowledgeable in this area, you have my apology, and you might want to spend your time reading something more useful to you. Nevertheless I will appreciate any comments.</p><p>In the universe entropy always increases, which is to say the universe gradually becomes more disordered, ultimately resulting in a state of maximum entropy or disorder in which nothing can happen. Time has even been defined as taking its direction from increasing entropy, i.e. that time is the rate at which entropy increases. </p><p>The point-universe at the moment of the Big Bang was in minimum entropy, or maximum order. Since that moment. entropy and disorder have increased as we move slowly toward total disorganization. At the end of the universe, it will become a "soup" of undifferentiated states of energy in which nothing can happen. Time will have stopped since there can be no events. All the little fires will be out. Like a giant firework display, the Universe will have happened. </p><p>Prior to the Big Bang, what can be said of the nature of the universe? Probably we can't use the concept "prior" since there would have been no time in existence. Time requires events which it can discriminate between. A famous physicist (whose name I can't recall) said that time was what kept everything from happening all at once.</p><p>At the moment of the Big Bang, an event occurred and thus time began. We can't conceive of a prior universe existing without time. "Prior" requires a preceding time. Events require an increase in entropy, so there could be no events in a timeless universe. We do know that the universe at the moment of the Big Bang must have been in a state of minimum entropy/maximum order. </p><p>How did a state of maximum order occur, and how can it be described? The Big Bang was an event, and therefore it happened within time and space. How did that event happen prior to time? Once it has happened we can consider the order of events. But "before" the Big Bang nothing can exist. Time begins with the first event, the Big Bang.</p><p>To fall back into the supernatural and posit an agent who starts the Big Bang seems to me a cheap and superficial way of avoiding the problem. The Big Bang is itself a causeless cause. Since event history began with the Big Bang, it is pointless to assume a prior event.</p><p>Someone out there, please enlighten me. I also recognize that it may be impossible to do that, but I will appreciate the attempt.</p>Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-62658222284408690492020-06-29T07:42:00.001-07:002020-06-29T07:43:33.367-07:00A request for rational thought in emotional times.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">Much has
been publicized about the way police officers differentially treat particular
ethnic or other easily identifiable groups.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">
</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">It is almost invariably implied that the differential treatment observed
arises solely from the racial or religious (or other) biases of the
police.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">If group A is treated
differently than group B, it is implied specifically that this is because of
the attitudes of the police, not real differences between the groups.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">This
implication ignores the possibility that group A may behave differently than
group B.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What if there is a higher rate
of crime in group A than there is in group B?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Other factors may also make the groups actually different in their
public or private behavior.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The police
may of course be biased, and that can be a terrible thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The police may also be responding to
legitimate and measurable differences between groups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In fact, of
course, the factors of bias and behavioral differences may play into each
other, each making the other factor more embedded and extreme.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We should also consider the important
functions of “prejudice”, meaning, of course, to pre-judge a situation on a
basis of incomplete data, as in to judge an individual solely on the basis of
some group to which he belongs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nature
seems to have intended prejudice as an emergency default judgment in a rapidly
unfolding situation in which the data are not yet clear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, when a homeless stranger knocks
on my door wanting to spend the night, my prejudices kick in instantly, based
on the generalities I have in my head about homeless people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fair?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Of course not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Pro-survival?
Maybe so!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certainly my first response is
skeptical/distrustful, at least until I have thought through several scenarios.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Back to my
original topic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Police in particular
frequently respond to a ongoing violent situation with little or no time to
step back and rationally assess it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such
situations invite, even demand, pre-judgment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is easy to observe that in video recordings of confrontations between
police and groups of people that both sides display prejudice and
over-generalization in their attitudes and behaviors, and this tends to
intensify the irrational violence already beginning in the situation. In such
situations, immediate distrust is not an irrational response, but it should not
be the only factor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Many
questions need to be asked that are not being asked.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead we are encouraged to “take sides”
without ourselves knowing all the facts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Our responses are becoming more and more extreme and emotionally-driven.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nobody asks if group A (or B) is actually
more violent than the other, or asks if there are more crimes committed by
group A than group B.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The society in
which we live needs to look harder at how specific groups are treated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there is more violence or crime in group A
than B, why is that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We need to look at
the systemic illness, not just the symptoms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We need to address the illness itself, our systemic rationalization for
the unfair treatment of various groups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Out of
systemic unfairness comes rage against the system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Systems don’t like to change.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We don’t like to change. Perhaps it takes
rage to get us to pay attention, but rageful decisions are invariably exaggerated
and extreme.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We need to think, not just
feel, and think clearly and publicly about what we need to do differently.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Talk is cheap.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Change is hard, painful and
anxiety-producing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For change to last,
it has to be studied and carefully planned. Immediate emergent responses are
not a basis for real, stable solutions. We need to slow down and make our
changes work.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
More to follow.</div>
<br />Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-1802396764215921882019-12-21T10:03:00.000-08:002019-12-24T11:34:30.086-08:00A comment on TrumpI wonder whether the politicians who scream so loudly against Trump have ever paused to ask themselves what his appeal to the voters is?<br />
<br />
It's clear he is crude, poorly educated in general, tasteless and oblivious to political (or even common human) decency. But he is also blunt and direct. He says what he means whether people/voters like it or not. He is not clever, calculating and politically devious. At least, if he is any of those things, he is good enough to fool me.<br />
<br />
However, in a field of politically correct dishonest and devious candidates, he stands out for his directness. He isn't a standard bullshit artist like all the professional politicians. Sometimes, frequently in fact, he doesn't use even basic good judgment as to what he says. Sometimes he could say the exact same thing differently in a way that wouldn't be so egregiously crude, vulgar and tasteless.<br />
<br />
And maybe that is exactly his appeal. We are so fed up with the dishonest, slick and devious politicians and their bullshit that his honesty and even his ignorance/stupidity look good. Why don't the politicians read the handwriting on the wall? When this many of the voters are fed up with their political crap that they will vote for a candidate like Trump, shouldn't that be a red flag to them? How about the "career politicians" try saying what they mean and meaning what they say? Don't they see they have almost totally lost their credibility? They have caused Trump to be elected and probably re-elected in spite of his poor quality as a human being. Their quality is even worse because it is better hidden.<br />
<br />
Trump is such a dumb-ass that even when he tries to be dishonest he gets caught. He doesn't even know why he gets caught, because he is so lacking in common sense. Doesn't it say anything to the politicians that he still looks better than they do? We need a different kind of politician.Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-25657477737145081272019-01-07T11:29:00.000-08:002020-01-27T11:37:10.060-08:00The function of shameIn recent years there has been somewhat of a movement in the direction of treating "shame" as a bad, neurotic, harmful sort of thing. It is treated as an illness, something to be eliminated or to be recovered from. It seems to me that this view of shame as a pathology ignores the positive and useful aspects of it.<br />
<br />
What does "shame" do for us? It seems to me that shame is a group function whose purpose is to emotionally motivate an errant or deviant member of the group to change their behavior so as to conform with the group norm. Shame is an unpleasant experience, of course, that being its point. It is perhaps the primary force intended to produce conformity. (Conformity to a group's norms, of course, is one of the characteristic elements defining the boundaries of group membership).<br />
<br />
It is frequently important to a group to establish its identity by publicly displayed behaviors or dress. The threat that shame poses to an errant member is that of being expelled from the group. The threat is not just to the errant behavior, but to the identity or self, and therefore is experienced as a depressive event. As a result, the experience of shame has elements of depression as well as of anxiety.<br />
<br />
When we try to imagine a "shameless" society, we picture a group of people whose behavior is totally without regard to the norms or standards of ours. Certainly we are most likely to imagine a group whose norms are very different from ours. We find ourselves "shocked" or repulsed by their behaviors. Historically, when this has occurred, we have attempted to "shame" the others into conforming to our behavioral norms.<br />
<br />
Instances of "shameful" (or aberrant) behavior by an individual may be defined by their group as "sick" or "insane" or even "evil". The norms that an individual violates usually have little to do with realistic limits, and are frequently irrational or unreasonable. The shaming carried out by a group can be personal, aggressive or even violent, and may not be proportional to the offense.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, people with untreated schizophrenia have great difficulty in understanding or conforming to the norms of the groups to which they belong. An individual might dress or behave in a bizarre fashion and experience no discomfort from the disapproving or shaming behavior of others. In fact, as such individuals get older, their behavior may depart more and more from the local norms, since they experience no shaming force to cause them to comply by modifying their behavior.<br />
<br />
Sometimes the norms of the group have (or had, at least at one time) a rational basis. But the real motive force behind a group norm is to identify the group, keep it separate from other groups, and to make it readily identifiable. There is nothing rational about clothing norms, for instance, but they are highly important to specific groups of people.<br />
<br />
Currently there has been a sort of rebellion against "body shaming". People who are obese experience instances in which a group rejects or shames them for their body shape. Ostensibly this shaming is based on health issues and sexual attractiveness, and is expected to provide pressures for the obese person to conform by losing weight. It is rarely effective, however, and almost always painful to the object.<br />
<br />
But without shame, why would we conform to the norms of our social groups? We would have no manners, no etiquette, no rules for acceptable public behavior. Many people would say we are moving in that direction fairly rapidly already. Without shaming, there would be little to stop the drift into ungoverned public behavior.<br />
<br />
However, while shame may have its uses in producing conformity and rules, it does so through producing discomfort and unhappiness in the person shamed. When the shamed behavior is out of the control of the individual, the shaming is only damaging and hurtful. For instance, "making fun" of an individual with a physical or intellectual defect is obviously a hurtful thing to do. It can't produce conformity, which is not in the realm of possibility for the shamed person.<br />
<br />
A more serious instance is in the case of the individual who shames themselves on the basis of what they consider unacceptable behavior. As a result, they emotionally expel themselves from their group. What makes this more serious is that the group from which they think of themselves as deviant, from which they deserve expulsion, is the human race itself. They withdraw and isolate themselves and ultimately may become suicidal as their ultimate non-membership.<br />
<br />
Individuals whose behavior or characteristics are the subject of shame may prefer to view their non-conformance as "not their fault", i.e. something out of their control and thus not be subject to shaming. Sometimes that is true, but sometimes it is an attempt to justify behavior that the subject knows is aberrant and probably not acceptable to their group, so they believe they can be granted an "exception".<br />
<br />
The more "exceptions", the less potent shaming can be as a force producing conformity in manners and behavior. Too much shame has produced in the past societies with rigid and narrow standards of behavior. And too little shaming produces a society whose standards are rude and "uncivilized". Which direction do you think preferable?<br />
<br />Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-37905780594633425862018-03-10T10:04:00.000-08:002018-03-10T10:04:25.116-08:00GunsMaking it legal to possess weapons that are either automatic (or can be made so) is absurd to the point of laughability, if it were not so tragic. How can anyone defend the use of an automatic weapon for hunting? How many bullets are needed to kill a deer? And 30-shot magazines? Are people actually shooting down entire herds? But the guns are not root causes of the problem, although they make it easier to do more damage.<br />
<br />
Why do we not give people the right to own other kinds of weapons capable of large-scale destruction? Hand-grenades? Flame-throwers? Bazookas? (Although I have to admit that many times when driving on the highway I would love to have a roof-mounted bazooka.) <br />
<br />
There are only two reasons for defending the power for civilians to own automatic weapons: to provide us the power to defend ourselves against a totalitarian government, e.g. to rebel, and to have the emotional satisfaction of owning a powerful weapon, which of course is most satisfying to the least powerful. It is, in fact, the least empowered people, such as adolescents or adolescent-minded adults, who want the automatic weapons.<br />
<br />
However, I think there is a deeper and more basic cause, and it is a cause that can't be addressed with simplistic solutions. We are, as a nation, fascinated by guns and are in love with violence, in particular fantasies of "revenge" and "fighting back". We are apparently terrified of being powerless, and concomitantly we are in love with the idea of personally having the power to hurt those who might hurt us. We love movies and television about people who are victimized fighting back and victimizing others.<br />
<br />
We have to be "ready" all the time. We don't need the guns, but we want them desperately because of our fear of powerlessness. Our culture is largely about violence. Look at our tv shows, our books and comic books, our movies. What percentage of them are violent? As a nation, we won't give up our fantasies about having weapons of mass destruction, even if we kill each other to exercise the fantasy.<br />
<br />
Children learn solutions to problems by watching adults. What they see is that we kill people who cause problems for us. They see other solutions as well, but the most dramatically satisfying and frequently observed are those in which we use weapons to blow apart our opponents. Our movies, books and televisions have always relied on violence as a dramatic solution, but over the past 20 years or so the violence depicted is increasingly gory and detailed. So violence becomes a solution, and one which they increasingly have the power to evoke. This is especially convincing to them when they watch their parents treat each other with violence. How do you deal with a frustrating person? You kill them, and as many of them as possible.<br />
<br />
I don't see any easy way to deal with this issue. No law that can be passed (and we probably won't even do that) will solve the problem. I have to admit reluctantly that I enjoy the same movies and the same television series. I also note that after all the bad guys are killed, nobody seems to care. The bodies disappear somewhere. Nobody suffers. Nobody mourns the loss of the dead. The "heroes" of the shows don't regret the killings, apparently. Death is basically trivialized.<br />
<br />
Why would we think our kids would have any more respect for life and death than the heroes we give them to model themselves after?<br />
<br />
<br />Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-66988185318725661052018-03-03T13:57:00.000-08:002018-03-03T13:57:01.509-08:00A talk with GodMr. Smith is sitting alone in
his office, looking at memos.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is a
tap on the door and it opens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A middle-aged
man of indeterminate race, wearing casual and unremarkable clothes, comes in.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hello, can I help you?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I know you have been wanting to talk to
me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, here I am.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="color: windowtext;">(Sits in one of the office chairs)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And who are you?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The short version might as well be
"God".<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(laughing) Thanks for dropping in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Who put you up to this, and i</span>s this just a casual chat or do you have
something specific in mind? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God: Neither. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I'll explain later, if 'later' is a meaningful
word.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I had considered My need for some time
to get some things done, but then I realized that 'time' is something I'm in
charge of, so I simply stopped it for ... (laughs) whatever we need.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You've ... um... stopped time?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(looks around uneasily)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God: Yes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your phone won't ring.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Oh, do you have one of those smart phones? How sad! But it won't work either.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don't panic, I'll restart... later (laughs).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith: (picks up phone,
listens, shakes head, picks up smart phone, looks intently, tosses it back on
desk, looks at watch).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don't know how
you did that!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course you are aware that I must have the
power to do that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You just aren't
prepared to believe it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Look, I don't
want to make this any more difficult than I have to. Why don't you just pretend
that I'm telling the truth (as if I could lie) so we can have a little
discussion?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So for the sake of a little … discussion, you
can be considered to be God?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why
not?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I need to explain some things, and
you are as good a connection to the rest of humanity (and I use the term
lightly) as I need.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You'll almost
certainly... wait, it is, in fact, certain, that you will write this up on your
blog thingie.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To make that a little
easier for you, I'm putting a transcript of our conversation on your computer,
so you won't forget anything important.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Actually, everything is important, so..<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I got that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>(looks at desk clock, then at wrist watch).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Umm... It's still </span><st1:time hour="9" minute="34"><span style="color: windowtext;">9:34</span></st1:time><span style="color: windowtext;">!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We’ve already covered that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can we move on?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(laughing unbelievingly).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What’s the hurry? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God laughs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does it matter that I don't believe in
God?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>umm.. in You?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not a bit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A better question is, do I believe in you?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But you have interesting questions and a
point of view that I want to address.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, at least this begins to be a more realistic
conversation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m nothing if not realistic.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>You’re here to discuss some topics you want to make available to other
people, do I understand You correctly?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Of course I already know your questions, but unless you ask them, they
won’t show up on the computer transcript.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>So, take your time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since there appears to be no hurry… it’s
still 9:34… I’ll take my time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is that
all right?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hard to get you to listen, isn’t it? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In fact, it’s not your time, it’s Mine, but I know what you mean.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You look just like other people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would have thought you’d be more… imposing,
you know, clouds, lightning, burning bushes, stuff like that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(God laughs, shakes his head).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, you look like a middle-class
American male, about my age, not that old.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Why did You choose that stereotype?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Pretty hard to have an intelligent discussion
with lightning or a burning bush, not to speak of how it might affect you if I
walked in here like that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Back in the
day, it was harder to get people to take me seriously.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So it had its uses.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But not needed now?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You’re taking me seriously, are you not?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Umm… yes, I suppose I am.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you’re thinking that I’m showing sexual or
racial bias by taking this particular form, and of course I know you would be
thinking that, I picked a form in deference to your racial and sexual biases.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I Myself have little interest in your
specifics, skin color, dangly bits, hair style and so on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That stuff is important to you, of
course.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have a good idea, actually, a
perfect idea, as to how this works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
this isn’t my first time down here talking to one of you. That answer your
question?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, at least, I guess so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You had to pick someone to talk to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So why me?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now there’s a question that’s been asked
through the ages.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’ve answered it many
times, of course, but you humans don’t like the answer, so you forget it
quickly.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Umm… remind me, please.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why you?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Why not you?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are so many of
you, and there’s little to distinguish one of you from any others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Right now, you’re handy. And you’ve been
considering the questions I would like to deal with.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Saves me some time (smiles).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would have thought that anybody would be
equally handy to God.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>True.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Why me?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Never mind, I got it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(laughs)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The “why not you” answer raises an
interesting question.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I expected it to.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You’re implying that, at least at times, what
happens to a particular person is simply a matter of who’s handy to You at that
moment?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s correct.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not merit, reward, punishment, answering a
prayer or…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(says nothing, smiles)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Asked and answered.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(after a moment of silence)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That implies there’s no real system of reward
or punishment behind Your choices.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Have you ever read the newspapers? Watched
what you call ‘news’ on television?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let
Me ask you a question:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do you see any
system of reward and punishment?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But I always hoped that… that things somehow made sense, that I just
couldn’t understand them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nope.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So things are just as irrational as they appear?
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Bad things and good things happen to
people without regard to their personal worth or accomplishments?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You need to hear this, so I’ll say it
again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> w</span>ithout regard to worth or merit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Why don't I </span>just go ahead and answer your next question: The universe is neither fair nor unfair.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has its own rules, and it doesn’t operate
on the basis of what you humans think are better rules, such as good and evil,
kind and unkind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You think The Rules
should involve moral choices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s a
contradiction in terms. Rules eliminate choices, that’s why they’re Rules.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Duh.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This implies that prayer, worship, things
that are intended to communicate with You, are not of any use.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Depends on what you mean by ‘use’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you mean, do I change the laws of the entire
universe to grant a request from a particular person?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, of course not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I'm not Amazon or an on-line ordering
catalog, and the universe doesn’t operate on the basis of your personal preferences
or beliefs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I do think that prayer
improves your attitude toward the universe, it reminds you that you’re not in
charge of anything, really.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Humility is
good for you, at least to a degree.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You don’t need or .. particularly value our
worship?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Being God does not require that I have needs
for worship or even admiration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So,
no.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is nice to be appreciated, of
course, but not required.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>OK, another question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What I’m here for. Go for it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did you create the universe and the rules it
apparently runs by?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Short answer:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Yes. In a nutshell, I made the Rules and then I started this thingie, the
universe, running.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s held together
quite a long time, at least, long in your terms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, it’ll eventually stop, nothing
lasts forever.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it’s been pretty successful,
for the most part.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Have there been, will there be, other
universes?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes indeed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I’ve been here a long time, although I know my answer is a little misleading.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What’s the point of all these ... universes, if I can ask?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I knew I picked the right connection! Good
question!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Listen carefully.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact that I made the rules doesn’t mean I
know how they will all develop over time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The future of every universe is unpredictable, and that’s what makes it
interesting.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it operates by rules, how can it come out
different every time?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some of the fine details are a little
‘iffy’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ask one of your scientists about
quantum physics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Laughs).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s an in joke, by the way, don’t worry
about it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Free will is a quantum
phenomenon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And free will means that
different choices will have different outcomes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>So free choice means multiple outcomes, by their nature not predictable
though they are determined by the Rules.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>OK.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That answers another question, about whether You have a sense of humor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What conclusion did you come to?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like I don’t know.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A sense of humor is indispensable.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(looking at watch) By the way, it’s still </span><st1:time hour="9" minute="34"><span style="color: windowtext;">9:34</span></st1:time><span style="color: windowtext;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You’re telling Me this as if it were
news.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And yes, I suppose, in a certain
way I do have a sense of humor, or at least of amusement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a shallow sense, the universe serves the
same purpose for Me as a video game does for you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It… passes the time in an interesting way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By the way, that’s not a trivial answer,
although it might seem like that to you.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus Christ!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I wondered when that would come up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Before you ask, I’ve visited here many times,
I already told you that, trying to put you on a better path.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In past years,
the computer wasn’t available to record things, so people with whom I spoke
relied on their memory, or in at least one case, stone tablets.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Memory is extremely unreliable, of course, as
you know.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I had to save some space in
your little brains for a new idea or so, so memories get compacted and
reorganized to suit you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Takes up less
space but introduces a bunch of errors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Hey, nobody’s perfect!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Except me,
and I’m not a person, strictly speaking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It’s all I can do to fit inside this (points to self)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(bitterly) I’m so glad we amuse You.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You’re welcome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sometimes I wish your egos had not turned out
to be so… touchy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You have such a wide
variety of amusing antics, you’re very inventive and find surprising, even to
Me! ways to use the rules to create new things, new ideas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because of free will, you come up with
amazing ideas, such as wars.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your wars
are always fun to watch, of course, and you all seem to like them too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> E</span>ven when you’re not actually having one,
you make them up on your computers!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That
almost surprised Me when it happened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And the wide variety of things you’ve found to do with your bodies! Jumping,
running, adventures… Amazing! I love
being surprised.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My opinion of You is getting lower and
lower!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You find our sufferings
‘amusing’, you’ve designed a universe that is brutal and unkind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You can dismiss my opinion as being
worthless, which it is, of course.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>You don’t like the way the machinery that I designed and brought into
being works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s (laughs) inhuman!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s unfair!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It’s unkind!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You don’t even
understand the meaning of the word ‘unfair’!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I understand it well enough.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God: No, you don’t!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You only use that word when somebody other
than you has something you want.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You use
that word when what you really experience is not the need for justice but is
simply envy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the world were fair, if
the playing field were really level, you rich white guys would have far less
than you have. You sit in a house that 99% of the population can hardly
imagine, and think it’s unfair when the rich white guy next door has a nicer
car.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If I had a somewhat different sense
of humor, I’d make the world fair and then watch you whine and bitch.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You ought to be careful what you ask for, you
know.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m too kind to give you what you
deserve.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since for the sake of argument You created
the universe, you had the power, you could have made the choice to make it both kind
and fair.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I may be just an amusing bit
of protoplasm, but You appear to be a cold-hearted bully, perhaps even a monster.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe you’re the Devil, in fact.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Oh yes, of course I am, and God as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You can’t really comprehend me, so you divide
me up into smaller and more comprehensible pieces.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And you give them names.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You judge Me and the universe (and We’re kind
of the same thing) by your personal values and preferences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does it occur to you that you judge from a
very limited perspective?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can only judge from my perspective.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A perspective that You created and
limited.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And for that matter, so can You.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s a cheap answer to point out that Your
motives must be incomprehensible to the likes of me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I didn’t create my limits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You did, and that makes You responsible for
them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(laughs) That’s true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s also true that My perspective is
considerably larger than yours.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t
fault you for being limited, although I remind you, I am under absolutely no
obligation to be ‘fair’.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith: (frowning,
clenching fists) While of course it doesn’t matter, at least, not to You, I
don’t like your values, your amusement at our suffering!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you were human, I’d be shouting, ‘Who do
You think You are?’<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">(God stands, sudden
darkening, huge roll of thunder and a bolt of white light on the figure of
God)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(In a huge voice) Where were you when I
created the universe?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">(Mr. Smith falls to the
floor, covering his head with his hands.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Then normal light returns and God sits back down.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Smith gets slowly up off the floor and
makes it back into his seat, shaking.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I thought it appropriate to remind you of who
we are.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I got that. (Takes a deep breath) <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And frankly I think that was rather a cheaply
theatrical way to win an argument.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it made the point.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That my understanding is limited?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course it is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You made it so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You set the limits that I have to operate
in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can only judge with the
equipment I was given.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There might be a much broader set of values, but I don’t have them,
which is, of course, on you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By my
values, which are all I have to go on, it seems to me we humans would be much better off
without you, you and your amusing little games, your justification for
unkindness, your randomly and uncaringly allowing terrible things to happen to innocent
people.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I might point out that not all “innocent
people” are innocent, but clearly there are some that are. But that’s really
irrelevant. The Rules that operate the universe don’t have the power to
exercise judgment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Gravity doesn’t
decide who to let fall or fly. The Rules are in many ways mechanically fixed,
they have no discretion in their operation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>When you humans set off an atomic bomb over a city, it killed without
discretion or judgment, adults, animals and children, bacteria and lichen,
plants and viruses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s the way laws
work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are by definition
indiscriminate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When a rock falls on
your toe, the rock has no power to choose.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In that sense, the rock is innocent. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There would be no universe at all if there
were not laws that govern its operation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Can you even imagine a universe without rules?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, of course not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Could you not imagine a universe whose rules,
at least for sentient beings, require kindness?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You want kindness by law? Without
discrimination?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How kind is it to kill a
cow or a carrot?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What would you
eat?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can you even walk without killing
insects, bacteria or plant life? But wait, there's more! If you had no choice but to be kind, how would good and evil exist? </span><br />
<span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">Mr. Smith: You're saying that good and evil only exist because they are voluntary?</span></span><br />
<span style="color: windowtext;">God: Of course. You humans
are the only creatures really capable of judgment, of having choice and
discrimination, and how have you used that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Did you become more tolerant, more kind, more honorable?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You did not!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Why did you not? </span>I created a universe in which you had a choice, and we can both see how
you have used it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You blame Me for
creating a universe in which you chose to be heartless, unkind and without compassion?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You did that yourselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You did that without instruction from Me. You
exercised your free will, and you chose what you chose.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I see.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If there is evil in this world, it isn’t Your fault, it’s ours, you're saying.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I didn’t say anything about ‘fault’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How can I take more responsibility than by
acknowledging that I created this world?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Or at least, the rules by which it developed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those rules included free will for humans,
and free will means the power to make choices, good choices and bad
choices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t interfere with your choices.
If I did, that would make your choices irrelevant and meaningless.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have chosen that the world be free (at
least in a limited way) to develop according to the choices you make. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That means you have the power to choose badly
or heartlessly. That’s the way free will and choice work.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We didn’t make the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We didn’t make ourselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You allow evil to exist. You created our
brains, and you created the conditions under which we survive, including
killing and eating. You can’t escape responsibility. If the buck stops
anywhere, it must stop with You. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You heard Me, but you just can’t make yourself believe I meant
exactly what I said.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I created a
universe that can unfold and develop unpredictably.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The rules are real, but the outcome of the operation of the rules is not
entirely predictable, even by Me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There
has to be the possibility of evil for the choice of good to be meaningful.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you had no freedom of choice, nothing new
could exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The universe would be like
a giant clock, totally predictable and equally trivial.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I forgot for a moment. We are here to be…
amusing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s an oversimplification, of course.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If I oversimplify, perhaps You should have
created me in a more complex way.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You have made that argument already.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> You're trying to make me responsible for your momentary mental laziness. </span>When I used the word ‘amusing’, I had
meanings for that word that the language we are using doesn’t have the words
for.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You are more like an experiment
than an amusement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And before you get
all bent out of ego-shape, as participants in this particular experiment you
are free to make any choices you like.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
am not controlling you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You use “amusing” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>to convey a sort of contempt for the objects
of My amusement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is simply untrue,
but my ‘feelings’ are not the subject of this discussion, and in reality they
are not even comprehensible to you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Which, as you will point out, is not your fault, since I am your
Creator. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You should get over the “fault”
thing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So what is the point of this discussion?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You apparently have had this discussion, or
something like it, many times in human history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What are You trying to accomplish? What is it You want us to know?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Good question, and in fact, the only
question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I want you to know you have
choices, for good or for evil, for kindness or cruelty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact that the universe itself is uncaring
about humans or their values, does not excuse humans for being uncaring.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You blame Me for the unkindness of life, but
you have the power to make life more kind, and you instead make it worse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can't foresee the outcome of the universe,
but you have the power to change that outcome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>At this moment I’m not particularly optimistic about you humans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s a good thing I have back-up plans.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You mean, like if we don’t… work out?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Exactly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There are other species, even on this world, who may eventually develop
choice and free will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And if not on this
world, then … <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You don’t seem to care personally, I notice.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course I care.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’ve put a lot of energy into this particular
arrangement. I’m just not optimistic about you guys.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What would a … a positive outcome look like?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Oh, what an interesting question!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I didn’t foresee that one, so thanks!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I had this thought… the universe might be changed
by you, by your decisions and choices, perhaps might even become sentient
itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And at last I would have a
companion! But even if that doesn't happen, your freedom to choose means an interesting trip, at the very least|.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">(A long silence ensues.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t have any more questions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I know that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Have you noticed the time?<br />
Mr. Smith: (looks at watch)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s … </span><st1:time hour="9" minute="34"><span style="color: windowtext;">9:34</span></st1:time><span style="color: windowtext;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you’re surprised at this point, you’ve
missed a lot. By the way, in the heat of the discussion, you have forgotten one
of the questions you have been thinking about a lot, over the last few
years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Shall I remind you?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>How about you save us the energy?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reverence is certainly not one of your
traits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> On the other hand, </span>I wouldn’t have chosen you if it
were.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your question is, in general, about
life after death.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Can You, will You tell me about it?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Short answer, there is none.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Death is death.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the ending of your individual self,
your awareness. But there are lots of other 'selves' and awarenesses out there.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I was afraid of that.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God: You needn’t be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What was it like 200 years before you were
born?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rhetorical question, by the way.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I wasn’t there.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Correct.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>You weren’t in existence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There
was no ‘you’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You didn’t wait
impatiently through the first 14 billion years of this universe, because there
was no ‘you’ to wait.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The next 14
billion years<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(and I pick this number
randomly) will go the same way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You just
can’t imagine a universe without you in it, but believe me, the universe can
and will go on without you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It will be neither pleasant nor
unpleasant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There will be no 'you' to
experience, feel or remember.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s … depressing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s one way to look at it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Some people might consider sitting around with nothing to do for 14 billion years a little depressing. </span>You can choose to think of it another way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I think that brings our conversation to
an end.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s </span><st1:time hour="9" minute="34"><span style="color: windowtext;">9:34</span></st1:time><span style="color: windowtext;">, and getting late.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>(laughs and gets up)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">The text is on your
computer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You don’t have editing rights,
by the way.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">Mr. Smith:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What am I supposed to do with it?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">God:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(goes to door and opens it, then laughs)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why, anything you choose, of course!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: windowtext;">(shuts door behind self)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-50015964701011052552018-02-22T08:34:00.001-08:002018-02-22T08:34:47.493-08:00Ignoring the futureThe real problem with legislators arises from the fact that they are elected for a specific limited period of time. As a result, they are not particularly interested in the longer-term consequences of a current vote, when 'longer-term' is defined as 'not on my watch'. Their concern is focused on their own term of office, and what serves them best over that range of time.<br />
<br />
So when we see the huge and rapid increase in public debt, we see the direct consequences of being focused only on the current issues. Legislators won't be around to take responsibility for the debts they have incurred. Current needs are met. The future can take care of itself, or at the least other people will take care of things.<br />
<br />
Another example is the issue of global warming. That's a future event, well after their current term of office. Right now oil is profitable and reasonably available.<br />
Who cares about the emissions? I can't smell a thing. Unless I go into a town.<br />
<br />
The limits on this kind of spending and thinking, if we can call it thinking, were originally managed by keeping the dollar tied to the gold standard. We couldn't print more money than we had gold to back it up. It was harder for the country to go into debt. Having the requirement to live within our current means limited our ability to incur debts. There is no such limit now, of course, because otherwise we (as a nation) would have experienced great restrictions on our ability to spend money. Money that we don't have.<br />
<br />
We thought that in the future our increased prosperity, triggered by our ability to spend vast amounts of money we didn't have now, would generate the taxes that could be used to pay off our debts. Kind of like spending money with a platinum card on the assumption that we would earn enough at some time in the future we could pay our debts.<br />
<br />
Legislators aren't the only short-sighted people. I am old enough that it's very clear to me that I have a relatively short number of years ahead of me. I sometimes find myself thinking about such issues that they won't be my problem because I won't be around to deal with them. So for those who are both elderly and legislators, the incentive to deal with future problems becomes rather weak. Can we afford the luxury of short-sightedness?<br />
<br />
A final note. The voting population seems afflicted with the same disorder. They (and I mean 'we') want what they want when they want it, which is now. The hell with the future. It will take care of itself. We can indulge ourselves in what we want. Someone else will have to pay the credit card bill.Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-69687992530614514492018-02-02T10:07:00.000-08:002018-02-02T10:07:19.382-08:00The AfterlifeFirst of all, you should know I don't believe there is an afterlife. I think the 14 billion years or so after I die will go as rapidly and painlessly as the first 14 billion years or so before I was born. To believe in the super-natural is to open your mental doors to believe in absolutely anything without any evidence at all. Not a good plan, and when people have acted on their supernatural beliefs, it has led to really catastrophic consequences.<br />
<br />
Given the above, I would have some preferences if there were an afterlife. And since to believe in the afterlife we have to accept the supernatural, I can posit any conditions I want. After all, there are no limits or rules about 'supernatural'. People have manufactured a wide variety of afterlife conditions from clever to adolescent.<br />
<br />
My idea of hell is boredom. The conventional idea of heaven includes clouds, harps, streets of gold, and lots and lots of singing, maybe doing nothing, or maybe sitting and talking to relatives long dead. That's about as close to hell as I can imagine, and I do NOT want to be sent there. I don't even know anyone who wants that in this life for a brief period, much less for eternity. Like holiday get-togethers that last forever. Without wine.<br />
<br />
But least in hell, there might be something to do. Different torments, scenery, demons, and so on. Maybe I can get a job. In fact, I would prefer to be a worker in hell than a guest in heaven. I could push burning coals with a red-hot broom. I could dirty up torture rooms (I don't imagine keeping them clean would be a priority). I could carry hot lava in my hands to the lava pools.<br />
<br />
Perhaps I could run group therapy for famously bad people. There are some very interesting people in Hell, and they would have a lot of time on their hands. Would a group with Hitler, Judas, various mass murderers and child killers and political figures, be interesting? Of course. However, there is the problem that if the therapy helped (and I would certainly have plenty of time to work) and if the members got "better", what would happen to them? Would they be sentenced to heaven?<br />
<br />
And in this hell there would be other workers like me. I could organize a union of workers, and maybe later we could let the demons join as well. I wouldn't suggest we could strike for more interesting working conditions, but I wouldn't rule it out, either.<br />
<br />
Considering my strong preferences, perhaps the worst punishment for me would be heaven. I don't like being bad, andit's hard to know just how bad I would have to be to get out of being sent to heaven. I don't want to be any worse than I really have to be.<br />
<br />
I'll have more thoughts later if I last long enough.<br />
<br />Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-45733521450382582262017-09-01T09:55:00.002-07:002017-09-01T09:55:21.830-07:00Financial Bailouts for the ImprovidentLots of people in Houston are suffering after the last storm. Some of them need and deserve help. Some need the help but should not be entitled to it. <br />
<br />
When you build or buy a home in the flood plain, you know without a doubt that you are taking a risk. This is especially true when you buy or build in a coastal city such as Houston. So you have the option of buying flood insurance. Like all insurance programs, flood insurance spreads catastrophic individual costs among a larger pool of people, so that no one person gets wiped out. <br />
<br />
Now, many people lost their homes due to the flooding in (of all places) the flood plain. The government offers to use our money to provide financial assistance, as if the government were a huge insurance company that you don't have to sign up for. You get flooded, the government will help you. You don't have to pay premiums or anything. Maybe you don't even pay much or any taxes.<br />
<br />
Buying a home in the flood plain and electing not to purchase insurance in the knowledge that the government (i.e. all the rest of us in the US) will chip in and buy you a new home. Makes it a lot easier to buy the house when you don't have to pay for insurance. You are ENTITLED to help you didn't pay for and didn't sign up for, so what is the risk for you? Not much. If you had to take a share in the risk you might think twice, but you don't even have to think once. <br />
<br />
Our representatives in the government feel the same way about banks. We will bail them out, too, if they make unwise investments and take high risks, because we can't afford for them to fail. So what holds them back from taking such risks? Nothing, of course. Lots to gain, little to lose. We got you, buddy. Do we get to share in the profits? Ummm... no.<br />
<br />
The degree of risk in an endeavor should be factored into the costs of the endeavor, otherwise there is nothing to limit risky behavior. When the risks could not be anticipated or avoided, we can and should help. But when people gamble, it should be with their own money, not ours.Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-79597543329283531742016-11-13T10:30:00.001-08:002016-11-13T10:30:43.849-08:00The Problem With Buddhist PhilosophyI want to be clear and avoid unnecessary offense to those who might be bothered by a critical discussion of some aspects of a particular religion. I am not concerned about the religious aspects of Buddhism. As far as I am personally concerned, all belief systems that are based on supernatural events are equally absurd, but there's nothing to debate about that. Absurd is absurd. I am interested in the practical outcomes of living by some specific philosophy in this world.<br />
<br />
Philosophies about how one should live are frequently embedded in religious belief systems, and it's hard to consider the ethos of a religion without being influenced by the mythos. I am here interested only in the applications of the Buddhist philosophy and its impact on individual and community life. I will say it again: this is not about religion.<br />
<br />
Buddhist philosophy, like Confucianism or Christian philosophy, is about how an individual might live in this world to achieve a better or happier life. As such, it can be evaluated apart from its religious aspects in terms of how useful, effective, or practical it might be, and how much its practice results in a happier life for the practitioner.<br />
<br />
Buddhism prescribes behaviors, attitudes and beliefs that are intended to create a better life (in this world) for the practitioner. The individual is taught how to adjust their attitudes in such a way as to result in less pain and conflict. A person practicing Buddhist philosophy learns to adjust himself to his environment and social situation. He learns to accept what happens, to let go of desires and "false goals", to live at peace with his environment without conflict or struggle.<br />
<br />
Such an approach works well. Much of human unhappiness is related to our tendency to hold on to things, to refuse to let go of bad feelings, of envy and resentment. Learning to let go of our past is an important and difficult task, but one that promotes freedom and joy in the present.<br />
<br />
Buddhist practitioners adjust to their environment. What they do NOT do is adjust their environment to themselves. They accept what is, and make no attempt to change it or improve it. And while this is certainly beneficial to the practitioner, it creates a community which is basically passive, which accepts the status quo and adjusts to it. Buddhist communities and governments are stable and essentially passive. They are rarely involved in scientific exploration or technological advancement. <br />
<br />
Of course individual Buddhists may not fit the above description, but that doesn't change the overall flavor of their communities. Just look at countries that profess Buddhism in this century. They are much the same as they have been for thousands of years. <br />
<br />
Is learning to be at peace with one's life, even if it is unhealthy, uncomfortable or unsafe, a good thing? On the other hand, philosophies that lead to constant change, improvement in individual conditions, at the cost of unrest and violence at times may or may not be good. Sometimes individual comfort/happiness conflicts with community improvement. Sometimes miserably unhappy individuals have given rise to amazing and beneficial changes. Sometimes happy and content individuals have played their fiddles while Rome burns.<br />
<br />
Which is better?Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-91344178355625775072016-11-06T08:42:00.002-08:002016-11-08T07:57:39.274-08:00How "belief systems" are born and developedLooking around at the world, full of conflicts and wars, incompatible and irrational belief systems, it is important to look at the processes by means of which all belief systems are created. How, living in the same world, did we come to have such widely discrepant belief systems, totally incompatible with one another and all believed to be totally right? How did individuals grow up with such peculiar beliefs about themselves and the people around them?<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We seem to have the inborn trait of curiosity and speculation about how the world works. We want to know what influences what, what controls what. We want to predict and control the future. Where this trait arises is open to speculation. How we use it is fairly clear. Humans make theories about causation.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Two factors are important. The first factor is the <b>post-hoc fallacy.</b> This fallacy stipulates that when thing B happens directly after thing A, thing A "caused" thing B. This is a fallacy because it is not always and invariably true. However, it is true a lot of the time, and leads to our first discoveries of the laws of the universe. Eating the fruit of a strange plant, followed by miserable illness, leads us not to eat that fruit again. We don't know for sure that the plant was poisonous, but logical certainty is not as important as avoiding taking the chance.<br />
<br />
The key phrase here is "not sure". We form theories of connection or causality. We think "A may have caused B". Eating the fruit MAY have caused our illness. How do we know? We try it out, or at least observe carefully. We look for evidence that our theory is valid. It is important to our survival that we try to understand how things work and make guesses (theories) as to what might hurt us. We have to accept probabilities, that is, relative proof rather than absolute. We have to look at the data coming in and allow it to strengthen or weaken our theories.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
The second factor is called (by us psychologists) <b>confirmation bias.</b> This bias tells us that when we think X theory may be true, we pay selective attention to evidence supporting X. We do NOT look systematically for evidence disproving X, at least not until the birth of scientific thought. And even scientists trained in collecting data don't think scientifically most of the time.<br />
<br />
For instance, someone who believes they are "unlucky" will selectively attend to "evidence" of unluck and selectively ignore evidence of luck. The "unlucky" person accumulates data over time that "proves" his theory about luck to be correct for him. Someone who believes they are unlovable will collect rejections, and even invite them, believing rejection to be inevitable. It is easy to see how religious and political beliefs are supported.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
These two factors are sufficient to give rise to thousands, millions, of conflicting ideas and beliefs, many of which are so strongly held that people will kill to defend them. Our beliefs tell us what to look for, what to believe, how to behave. They define our civilizations, our religions, and our politics. They define which groups are "good", and which "bad".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In children the process is easier to observe than it is in adults, but adults function in pretty much the same way. Suppose we are given a theory, such as: step on a crack and you'll have bad luck all day. We then begin paying selective attention to cracks. We try stepping on one or two, and then observing the following events, which by means of the post-hoc fallacy, we believe to be directly connected to the crack-stepping behavior. A number of things happen, as they always do on any given day. However, because of confirmation bias, we notice particularly the events that "confirm" our theory about cracks. We discount or minimize those events that do not confirm it. For at least a few days, while we are paying attention, the theory seems to be more and more true. We do accept negative evidence, but it takes a lot more of it to disprove the theory than positive evidence to confirm it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When events occur that have special emotional meaning to us, we try to find a theory that accounts for them. We wonder what we did or observed that might have "caused" the event to happen. We form a theory. When we are young, our standards for a good theory are loose. (Hopefully they get tighter as we mature). A small child once asked me if her mother had died because the child had "bad thoughts". The child is not capable of seeing the weakness of the connection between the child's thoughts and the mother's accidental death. So all of our theories seem worth investigating, at least while we are young and not appropriately skeptical.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Many events can give rise to theory formation, but events with a lot of emotion attached are primary stimuli for theory formation. Theory: If I don't take a raincoat to work it will rain. Event: If I don't take a raincoat and it does rain, the theory is supported. Event: If I don't take a raincoat and it does not rain, that doesn't count. So theories mostly find support and rarely find disproof. They get stronger over the years as we collect more "supportive evidence" and continue to discount negative evidence. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This pattern results in our changing beliefs about ourselves as we grow older. Something happens to get our attention and we form a theory of connection. We accumulate support for that theory, but not disconfirmation. Suppose some event happens that causes us to form a theory about ourselves. As an example, imagine getting a bad grade on a test in the first grade. We might begin to form a theory, such as: "Maybe I'm stupid". We then begin to look for evidence, but we pay most attention to the evidence that supports our belief in being stupid. From then on we accumulate more evidence and become more convinced that we're "stupid". </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Religions get formed in the same way. In the dawn of time, a loving parent falls to his knees and prays to the heavens for the return to health of his child. The child recovers. The parent forms a theory: praying to the heavens results in blessings. He tells his friends what happened. They all begin collecting evidence that supports the theory and discounts the negative evidence. When a parent prays for their child and the child dies, the parent discounts the negative evidence by forming a new theory: one must have to pray in a specific way for it to work, and he must have got it wrong. The future evidence is heavily weighted in favor of support of the future theory(s).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Some of the theories formed may be valid, others not so much. But they continue anyway as if they were confirmed. We still throw rice at weddings, even when we are not strongly in favor of immediate fertility. A problem is that theories can never be absolutely proven or disproven. There is always the possibility of getting more evidence. We may find connections between event A and B that we didn't know before. So our world is more and more full of divergent and supported (but not proven) beliefs.<br />
<br />
We believe we are right. We forget that "belief" is not proof. We do not really question our beliefs unless something happens that forces us to reconsider. That takes a lot of force. For instance, many people believe the universe is "fair". A cursory reading of the newspaper should be enough to cause doubts about that theory. However, in order to keep the theory intact, people develop new "theories" as to why the universe appears unfair: the people to whom bad things happen "must have deserved it" or "there must be some higher purpose we don't understand" or any number of theories designed to allow the old theory to continue in the absence of supportive evidence.<br />
<br />
To overcome our own confirmation bias requires conscious attention and respect for new data, a conscious willingness to question your beliefs and an equal willingness to consider and evaluate new data on its merits. For instance, to overcome your belief in being unlovable, you have to be willing to consider data that supports your being lovable. By challenging beliefs, you can become more aware of contradictory data, and vice-versa. Perhaps you can't entirely eliminate beliefs that have accumulated "support" over the years, but you can weaken them over time. (A central tenet of CBT).<br />
<br />
I always value comments.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-24989852987431812692016-10-26T17:55:00.000-07:002016-10-26T17:55:30.736-07:00Brainless politicsHere we are again, heading for an election that has some real importance in our future. The candidates, such as they are, have clearly decided that voters will vote on the basis of which candidate can generate the most emotional environment. In the debates and the speeches, it's clear that the goal is to emotionally activate voters, to get them excited and angry, to get them suspicious and thoughtless.<br />
<br />
The whole operation reminds me of a basic trick in stage magic. You get the audience to watch the wrong hand, while the unwatched hand pulls the trick off. In politics the illusion engendered is not sleight-of-hand, it's emotional discombobulation. Excited and angry voters don't think. They react. They are not weighing policies and considering outcomes, they are choosing a personal champion with whom they identify, and whom they trust to be bigger, meaner, louder and more aggressive than their opponent.<br />
<br />
Where is the thoughtful consideration of policies? Economic plans? Foreign relations? Immigration policies? Social security assets?<br />
<br />
Of course you know the answer. There is none. None at all. The political parties have read you and the rest of us correctly. We don't understand all these policy thingies, but we know who we like and who we hate. Thoughtful voters are not really predictable nor are they easily controlled, if they can be controlled at all. Emotional voters are a piece of cake, easily manipulated with colorful language and over-the-top speeches. Emotional voters can be whipped into a frenzy and have the illusion that their vote is based on good thinking and good values.<br />
<br />
What a laugh. We don't really care about those things. We like to be excited, to take part in a real soap-opera battle based on bad language, racial and sexual slurs, incitement to violence and distrust of the only political process in the history of the world that has ever even briefly been successful.<br />
<br />
Don't vote your heart. Vote with your mind. If you don't know the policies of a candidate, don't vote for them. How hard is that?Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-44778572677755257152016-09-11T09:54:00.000-07:002016-09-11T12:27:57.109-07:00Marriage and Deal-Breakers Marriage is a very complex concept. We tend to think about it emotionally, which makes it difficult to conceptualize. At least, however, it is a contract between two people which binds them as partners with mutual obligations and responsibilities. We publicly state that this contract is "forever" and indissoluble, but we have certain unacknowledged conditions that allow the breaking of the contract. These "deal-breakers" are almost never discussed because to discuss them would destroy the romantic fantasy of eternal love.<br />
We do sometimes consider what would happen if the contract is broken. Pre-nuptial agreements are an example. They spell out the division of goods and services between the former partners if the contract is terminated. Although they are clearly useful, they are extremely unpopular with couples who are "in love", because they are inconsistent with the romantic fantasy that characterizes the beginnings of most marriages.<br />
We don't, as a rule, consider the conditions under which we consider the contract to be broken and terminated. "Deal-breakers" are specific behaviors and conditions under which one partner is unwilling to continue the marital contract. We like to pretend that nothing could make us unwilling to stay married, but this is clearly purely fantasy. In fact, the majority of marriages end in divorce, so it is quite unrealistic to pretend this cannot happen.<br />
Therefore it is extremely important to consider exactly what "deal-breakers" are for each member of the contract. When they are not considered they don't go away. They are simply not discussed. In the majority of divorces, the reasons for dissolving the marital contract are accumulated over a period of time. They are, in fact, based on accumulating increasing negative feelings, which people typically describe as "being fed up".<br />
<b> "Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage.</b> Being "fed up" requires a partner to accumulate instances of intolerable behavior, which is tolerated on the grounds that at some time in the future the other partner will change. The amount of negative feelings carried by the first partner must accumulate until the breaking point, at which time there is typically an explosion of feelings used to stimulate the partners into breaking up, usually a very anxiety-provoking situation in itself.<br />
Often the partners are not clear about what they are beginning to consider "intolerable". Frequently the transgressing partner is not aware of exactly what their partner is finding unacceptable. Often the first partner is not clearly aware of what it is they will not be able to live with. The ambiguity and uncertainty continue until some event "the last straw" and has crossed the line.<br />
It is easier to cross the line when you don't know exactly where the the line is. Neither partner may be clear as to how close they are to marital disaster until the line is crossed. To spell out where the boundary is, is to commit yourself to an action you cannot easily imagine in advance. Yet without knowing the boundary it is far easier to cross, and once crossed it may be irrevocable. <br />
<b>"Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage. </b>Whether boundaries are easily imaginable or emotionally uncomfortable is not a good reason to ignore them. When you are contracting for a life-long partnership, it is extremely important that you know the conditions under which your partner will no longer be willing to remain in the partnership. To do that, each partner has to carefully consider exactly what their personal boundaries are and to what degree, if any, they are willing to act on their crossing.<br />
<b> "Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage. </b>For example, a deal-breaker for Partner A might be sexual infidelity by B. If A is willing to be clear that such behavior is unacceptable, then A is committed to divorce if B is unfaithful. If A is not willing to be committed to divorce under such conditions, sexual fidelity is not a boundary for A. When a boundary is set, the person setting the boundary must be willing to take action or else it is not in fact a "deal-breaker". <br />
Deal-breakers do not have to be mutual or "equal". What is a deal-breaker for A may not be so for B. What is important is that when A sets a boundary, B knows exactly what the consequences will be. There is no boundary-testing behavior that will be acceptable. Of course, no one in the throes of romantic love wants to commit themselves to ending their romantic relationship under specific conditions. However, without such specification, boundary testing will more often lead to divorce. <b>"Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage.</b><br />
It's unlikely that at any given moment a person can specify in advance all the possible deal-breakers. Conditions can arise in the future that could not be anticipated; life-changing events can occur that lead to unimaginable conditions. People can change in unexpected ways. A partner can become a drug-abuser or a physical or emotional bully. However, such possibilities can be considered even if they seem absurd in the present. They need to be considered whenever they arise. <b>"Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage.</b><br />
It would be a very difficult conversation to have, considering the deal-breakers and their consequences. Each partner has to know something about their own boundaries and limits of their tolerance, no matter how deep their feelings for the other. That takes more self-knowledge than most young people have, which is why it is so difficult for early marriages to endure. Difficult or not, the attempt is an important one. Deal-breakers should not only be discussed before marriage, they should be discussed as soon as one partner becomes aware they are an issue, and should be discussed before they are irrevocably crossed.<br />
<br />
A note on specific deal-breakers and issues related to them will follow.Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-80804437495102608222016-07-15T09:49:00.000-07:002016-07-15T09:49:43.219-07:00A letter to young composersAs you engage yourselves in the laborious process of learning the mechanics and structure of music, it is important that you ask yourself the following questions: For whom are you composing? To what end?<br />
<br />
It's easy to get caught up in whatever the current style of music is being prompted by your teachers and your classmates. It's easy to begin writing music that will impress your peers and be approved by your teachers. A certain competitive element can creep in to your composition, emphasizing your desire to be known as "an original" composer. Your audience becomes very local, and as is the case with all music written for a local and limited audience, parochial. Music in such a setting becomes more of an intellectual exercise than a creative one. Music can become based on non-musical ideas, and as such is more self-congratulatory than satisfying. It may have been an exercise in originality but that is not enough to make it worthwhile or memorable music. <br />
<br />
The second question follows from your honest answer to the first: What do you want to express in your composition? Clearly any event and any emotion can form the basis for a piece of music. Richard Strauss is quoted as stating he could set a laundry list to muic. But he didn't. Are all emotions worthy of expression? Why do you think people listen to "serious" music? Do they want to hear the chaos and wickedness and violence of our world brought into the concert hall or the living room?<br />
<br />
Or is music ideally a reminder of a more beautiful and perfect world? Some of the best music, modern as well as 100 years old, is based on the following elements: melody, harmony, couterpoint, rhythm and to some degree repetition. We like to hold it in our heads and hearts as we travel through an imperfect and frightening world. It gives us a sense of order and beauty, words which many young composers don't seem to understand. To be beautiful, music does not have to be happy. It can express sorrow, grief, rage and a host of less pleasant emotions. But for those emotions to move us as an audience, they must have the basic elements. There must be a structure we can feel, not just understand intellectually.<br />
<br />
Probably in modern times film and television musical scores are closer to the musical ideal. While they can be chaotic and without apparent structure, the visual images accompanying them provide a background against which they can be at least understood. Some of this music stays with us, and deservedly so. Some that is more purely expressive of the visual events (the "laundry list") disappears forever when the images are turned off. They served a purpose, of course, but not a musical one.<br />
<br />
If I can't hear it in my head and heart it disappears into the chaos of everyday existence. It might as well never have been. Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-50852019336279491072016-07-09T09:26:00.002-07:002016-07-15T09:50:40.553-07:00Bad statistics make a bad situation worseThe shootings of white police officers in Dallas is horrific and unacceptable. It is also horrific that blacks have been treated with such violence and disrespect that many feel impelled toward violence as the only appropriate response to law enforcement. I don't know the solution to this appalling set of events. But I do have some understanding of the kinds of thinking that make this terrible situation worse and make resolution even more difficult.<br />
<br />
In the aftermath of the Dallas shootings, lots of articles are popping up that cite statistical differences between blacks and whites in a variety of areas, including socio-economic levels, employment/income, and death rate. So far every article I have seen indicates a serious lack of understanding about statistical differences.<br />
<br />
I just read a "fact" of this kind published today. Marc Ambinder, in The Week today, said "There's overwhelming evidence that, in the heat of the moment, police officers are more likely to shoot black people simply because they are black. (If you're a black teenager, you are 21 times more likely to be the victim of a police shooting than you would be if you were white)". That's a horrific disparity, and undoubtedly, at least to a degree, reflects genuinely biased use of force against blacks. <br />
<br />
BUT: The ONLY way such a statistical fact can be valid is if EVERY other factor besides race were equivalent between groups. To assume that it is entirely and only because of racial difference is to fall prey to the kinds of exaggerations that promote racial anger and bigotry. <br />
<br />
Are we comparing, for instance, white teenagers in Minneapolis with black teenagers in Atlanta? What about all the other differences? Are the groups matched for education? Socio-economic status? Gang memberships? Who kills the teenagers, white or black police? Other teenagers? Are the groups equally engaged in lawful or unlawful behavior prior to the shootings?<br />
<br />
Actually they are not matched for ANYTHING except race, which means the person quoting these "statistics" is finding what he was already looking for, racial bias by police. We don't need to stir up the pot with misleading and misunderstood statistics. It's bad enough, and responsible reporters and writers of articles should accept an obligation to be careful and accurate in their use of statistics.<br />
<br />
I don't anticipate much interest in the above notes, though I think they are in fact important to understand. But they are not exciting and they reveal that much of the statistical "evidence" cited to account for or explain or justify the shootings in Dallas is primarily emotional and a dramatic interpretation of statistics to exaggerate and justify the shootings.Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-11112754964751964602016-06-05T08:35:00.000-07:002016-06-05T08:35:00.099-07:00Leaves versus boatsThere are two ways to look at how you live your life. Both have strengths and both have drawbacks. As a psychotherapist, I always lean to the side of having more choices, but that's because of the life style I have chosen. If you have not made a conscious and deliberate choice (yet) about your style of life, then you have chosen the one with fewer choices.<br />
<br />
The latter approach (with fewer choices) I call the "leaves on the stream" style. It is by far the most common life-style. In it we simply respond to the circumstances that present themselves, like leaves floating on a slow-moving stream. The leaves go around the obstacles with little hindrance (most of the time) and float all the way to the ocean, where they disappear into the boundless blue water. Such a person doesn't make active choices about direction, but only responds to those problems that present themselves. "Leaf" people (most of us) make temporary choices and handle problems with as little effort as possible. They become the product of the choices that fall to them, and so they are living examples of how "temporary choices" can become our lives.<br />
<br />
Leaf people study whatever their school offers them. They get jobs and do them, some times very well. They may or may not like what they do, but doing what they might like is either not available or not possible. They cope with the problems life presents to them, doing what they need to do to keep floating. They marry, have children, grow old and die without a lot of thought as to whether there were (or are) other possibilities. In many or most cases their culture may not allow for alternatives or choice-making. Circumstances can cause people to have few or no choice, and as a result they just have to keep plugging along, trying to find as much satisfaction and pleasure in their lives as they can. There's a certain nobility in just keeping on, doing the job, handling the problems and not giving up. The world depends a great deal on such people.<br />
<br />
I call the other style "boats on the ocean". People navigate the streams, setting courses and goals, and going there. Choices are made on the basis of how well or how poorly they fit the chosen directions. Lives are measured by how closely People approach their goals. They don't become anything "by accident". They will give up immediate pleasures and ease for the sake of long-range goals. They focus part of their energy on solving problems that have not yet occurred. Of course unexpected obstacles pop up, and they have to deal with them, but they return to their course as soon as possible.<br />
<br />
Things change for both groups in middle age. The "leaf" style of person expects to have fewer problems and obstacles, because they expect life to get less demanding. They look forward to "taking it easy" and drifting comfortably into old age. Sometimes they are uneasy about what they "might have missed" or what might have happened "if". Sometimes they begin to feel that life has passed them by, that life has lived them and they have not lived it. They may wonder who they have become, and may have little sense of uniqueness or individuality. Sometimes their pervasive sense of aimlessness leads to boredom and tedious and depressing self-evaluation. Their battle cry is "What's it all about, anyway?" Sometimes they revert to their 20s in a futile attempt to start over, which results in the "middle-age crisis" accompanied by red sports cars and a new spouse. This only delays the inevitable.<br />
<br />
The people in the "boat" category do very well if their goals were directions rather than specific accomplishments. Reaching a "goal" is a stopping point, and the directions as to where to proceed (if anywhere) after reaching it are not usually easy or available. Having gone as far as you can go, you may find yourself in the same situation as the "leaf" people in middle age. Having moved in your chosen direction, however, does not limit you to an arrival point.\ Directions are open-ended by their nature and not self-limiting. <br />
<br />
It seems to me that the "boat" style has fewer built-in problems, but overall both life styles can be quite comfortable for many years. It's not the long fall that gets us, it's the sudden stop. Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-70542921760177460052016-06-04T11:18:00.002-07:002016-06-04T11:18:48.880-07:00How psychoanalysis lost its wayFreud invented psychoanalysis as a way of exploring the processes of the mind. The 'analysis' part of the title refers to his hope of finding patterns in apparently random thoughts, patterns that would reveal a logic governing mental processes. It was an experimental process. It was not aimed at 'curing' anything or anyone.<br />
<br />
The procedure was very simple. One simply said everything that came into one's mind, without censorship, editing or correction. The 'analyst' simply listened and hoped to find a logic that governed the process of human thought. Freud wanted to explore what had never been explored before. He had no real idea as to what he would find.<br />
<br />
But as with many experimental processes, patterns could be discerned. More properly, the analyst began finding ways of putting together the processes of thought in ways that sounded logical. Freud began hypothesizing various 'causes', forces within the person that without his knowledge dictated the order and content of his thoughts. Having apparently found such patterns, he began to find more and more cognitive events that could be fit within the patterns. The old process of confirmatory bias began to operate.<br />
<br />
When he looked at the mental processes of the depressed or dissatisfied person he found himself looking for 'causes'. What caused people to be so dissatisfied with themselves? Were they hiding secrets from themselves? If so, how could that even happen? The idea of having a secret hidden from one's own self was almost absurd. Why would we do that?<br />
<br />
Freud began making guesses, some inspired, others not so much. A person might keep a secret from himself because it contradicted what he wanted to think of himself. For instance, a person who prided himself on his honesty might prefer to 'forget' an instance in which he was clearly dishonest. Secrets might be kept to protect the self=image or concept. Perhaps keeping secrets from oneself contributed to someone's unhappiness. So telling the truth might be a road leading to greater comfort and self-acceptance. There's still some validity in this conjecture, but comfort and self-acceptance are not the criteria for curing mental disorders, like depression and anxiety. Not having depression or inappropriate anxiety are.<br />
<br />
At this point Freud and his increasing army of followers left the road of pure investigation and began to consider their methods potentially curative. Not a science, now. A treatment. New theories and hypotheses abounded around a wide variety of symptoms. The underlying concept was that understanding would lead to freedom and health. Now psychoanalysis was not only a treatment but a series of methods and concepts that were aimed at a 'cure' of some sort.<br />
<br />
There is some truth in this concept, apparently. For some, it works. For some, analysis becomes an endless exploration aimed at understanding everything, but changing nothing. Knowing how and why you are harming yourself is useless without a change in behavior. But of course there is nothing in psychoanalytic thought that suggests that behavior is important. Some enthusiasts spent years and thousands of dollars in understanding themselves, with no detectable difference. A jerk who understands why he is a jerk is still a jerk until he changes how he behaves. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-58319942946739788802016-05-20T11:39:00.000-07:002016-05-20T11:39:56.175-07:00Then or Never: Critical periods in humansIn many, if not all, animals and birds there is a critical period shortly after birth in which certain events must occur for normal growth and maturation. An early writer in this area, Konrad Lorenz, observed ducklings immediately after hatching. He discovered they would follow any object of approximately the "right" size as if it were their mother, IF the duckling was exposed to the object immediately after hatching. By the next day the critical period was closed, and such attachment (which he called "imprinting") could no longer occur. Some photos exist that show Dr. Lorenz waddling along, crouched down, with a line of ducklings toddling along after him.<br />
<br />
Dogs and wolves have been shown to have the same pattern. If wolves are not exposed to and handled by humans within the first few days after birth, they become untameable and feral. In dogs the critical period for socialization is considerably longer, and may be as long as 12 weeks, with 8 weeks common in certain breeds of dog. (My doctoral dissertation is in this area).<br />
<br />
In humans there is known at least one critical period for language development. If children are not talked to or cannot hear language in the first 3 or 4 years of life, they will never be able to learn to speak. (I have not looked up this period and am not sure whether the length of time I have cited is accurate.)<br />
<br />
It has occurred to me that there may be a critical period in humans and other primates for belonging to a group or pack. We are group animals, of course. We seek out groups to which to belong. This process can be seen in children somewhere before puberty usually noticeable at age 10 and later. It becomes more and more important through the teen years. In this period groups form, whether gangs or social groups or interest groups. What group you belong to is increasingly important.<br />
<br />
Group boundaries can be marked by clothing or location or by title. Probably other methods of marking boundaries can be found. Transgressing a boundary can be a life-threatening event. What people wear becomes extremely important, sometimes puzzling parents, but when this happens the clothing items are boundary markers, and not having the right item can mean exclusion and humiliation.<br />
<br />
In non-human primates being excluded is a life or death issue, and we probably have some genes that dictate this level of importance to membership. It is obvious that membership is highly valued; young people have accepted "beat-downs" or group rapes as the price of belonging to a particular group. <br />
Adolescents have committed suicide because of group exclusion or rejection. College students may accept "hazing", sometimes quite severe, as the price of belonging to a fraternity or sorority.<br />
<br />
So the importance of belonging is clear. We all experience it to a degree. Even adults frequently find group membership highly important. What is less clear is what happens to people who don't achieve group membership during what may be a critical period for group membership. <br />
<br />
These people are seen by other adolescents as "weirdos", "geeks", "loners" and other pejorative names. It appears to me that school shootings have been carried out entirely by loners, non-members of groups, who are filled with otherwise inexplicable rage at those who "belong". Adults who were not accepted in groups during their adolescence are not comfortable with adult groups. They rarely join clubs. In many ways they (we) don't seem to quite know how to belong. They don't get the cues, wear the right clothes, have the right behavioral signals (i.e. "manners"). The tend to be loners their entire lives. Even when they marry, their families tend to remain socially isolate.<br />
<br />
This is particularly observable in military families, in which the teen=age children are moved several times during the critical period for belonging, i.e. the high school years. As adults they tend to stay on the outside of groups and are isolated to a degree even in their neighborhoods. They tend to think of themselves as "different", "un-social", and equivalent titles. In my opinion they will never be able to overcome their sense of isolation. In a funny sense, they (we) are feral as far as groups are concerned.<br />
<br />
Human infants learn at a very early age (prior to 1) to mimic expressions on a parental face. This "mirroring reflex" is automatic and apparently not accompanied by a specific matching feeling. For instance, when the parent face is smiling, the infant "smiles"; when the parent frowns, so does the infant, but does not apparently feel badly. Just the expression itself is mimicked. Very specific neurons in the human brain (and in some primates) are involved. I wonder if the beginnings of social isolation are found in a failure of the parent to provide such up-close and personal contact at a critical period as yet unidentified.<br />
<br />
Certainly some of us on the autistic spectrum have difficulty recognizing and responding appropriately to facial expressions, tones of voice, body language and the like. This makes us easily identifiable as potential social isolates. Asperger's syndrome is an example. However, intellectual understanding of social cues can help supplement or replace missing instinctual responses. We can learn what a specific expression means and practice appropriate responses, which can conceal the genuine social awkwardness that underlies it.<br />
<br />
It puzzles me that there has been so little research in this general area, which is obviously of considerable importance to understanding normal and aberrant human development.Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-65761949728714504442016-04-28T08:35:00.001-07:002016-04-28T08:35:49.349-07:00Lies in relationships, an expansionHonesty destabilizes, for good or for ill. It creates the possibility of change. But change can be in many flavors and directions. For instance, confessing to an extramarital affair will very likely result in substantial change. However, change in itself is by its nature unpredictable. When we tell the truth, something new can and will happen. There is no guarantee that the change will be for the better, depending on how you define "better".<br />
<br />
Psychotherapists and counselors are change agents. We are hired by people who are troubled and unhappy to promote change in them and in their situation. Since they are already unhappy, change is somewhat more likely to be in a positive direction. So we tell the truth and encourage our patients to tell the truth. This honesty can destabilize their inner world and ultimately their relationships, including with the therapist. Therapists are trained in keeping the changes from damaging the relationship with the therapist, although this is not always possible. The relationship frequently becomes uncomfortable and produces anxiety, sometimes in both the patient and the therapist. Sometimes the discomfort is great enough to cause the relationship to end.<br />
<br />
The therapist is also trained to detect dishonesty and to confront it, so that change can take place. People are frequently dishonest, even with themselves, and being confronted with the truth allows for growth to occur. A good working assumption is that recognizing the truth in oneself results in positive change. It is also necessary for the therapist to be honest. That does not mean the therapist says everything in his or her mind. The therapist has the additional obligation to consider the kind of changes and discomfort that arise and to avoid those that might be harmful to the therapy.<br />
<br />
The therapist is obligated to be kind as well as honest. While this is a good idea for all human relationships, it is especially true in the therapeutic relationship. Therapy is not a friendship with equal and mutual obligations. Therapists are not there to get better, themselves. The relationship is not balance or equal, which is one of the reasons money changes hands.<br />
<br />
Honesty in relationships also promotes anxiety, in that the changes that occur are not predictable, and it is easy for most of us to predict bad outcomes. Constant growth and the anxiety that accompanies it would be increasingly uncomfortable. Sometimes we need stability rather than constant change. Yet if a relationship becomes too stable and "comfortable", it can stagnate and become monotonous, even boring. We seek a balance between comfort and the excitement and intimacy of growth. <br />
<br />
So how do we arrange stability in an intimate relationship? We tell lies of omission. In other words, we choose our honesty with care. We have to respect the right and need of the others in our relationships for some stability and comfort. Choosing which things to talk about and when requires considerable skill and sensitivity. All the parties in a relationship are not equally available for change all the time. And some topics require absolute (and kind) honesty if the relationship is to survive.<br />
<br />
There is no simple formula for this balancing act. In psychotherapy it's relatively easy, because the client is there for change, not comfort. But in intimate relationships like marriage the comfort of both parties must be considered. Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-22429266400913724232016-04-28T08:11:00.001-07:002016-04-28T08:11:15.257-07:00Mandatory alcohol detection for drivers10,000 deaths a year and a million arrests for drunk driving. You think that's important enough for us to stop it? Do we do or do we don't want drivers on the road who are impaired by alcohol? I'm not so concerned about the danger to them. I am concerned with the danger they pose to others.<br />
<br />
The technology is here now. Using a built-in breathalizer that disables the ignition when alcohol is detected on EVERY new car sold in the US would go a long way to stop that. New technology involves a finger scan and would be even more effective.<br />
<br />
There would need to be a stiff penalty for disabling the alcohol detector, such as lifetime revocation of driver's license and termination of all accident or liability insurance, for the first offense. Second offense would need to be something like a lifetime sentence to a labor camp.<br />
<br />
We could stop all those deaths and injuries if we chose to do it. The added cost of the breathalyzer is minimal weighed against the deaths and damages incurred by drunken drivers. Make the convicted drunk drivers pay for the installation in everyone else's car. How about adding to the disabling of the ignition a red flashing light on the roof or automatic alert and tracking through gps?<br />
<br />
There is no excuse for driving while impaired. None. We don't stop impaired driving because it might inconvenience us sometimes. Let's be honest. Enough already. It is economic and human common sense to stop it now.Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-4758077799870199602016-03-25T18:41:00.000-07:002016-03-25T18:41:33.447-07:00The SecretThe "secret" has been previously pubished in a variety of forms. Each, in its heyday. had many adherents. Each has subsequently disappeared into the miasma of miracle cures, and has eventually been replaced by a newer and presumably upgraded version. For instance, "the Power of Positive Thinking" was a best-seller a few decades back. The newer "Secret" has nothing new.<br />
<br />Points to consider: Firstly, if this book (or all its predecessors) are to be considered as some sort of scientific proposal, it is missing enough sandwiches to spoil the picnic. The article in Wikipedia states that a principle of the "theory" is that positive thinking sends out "vibrations" in some form to which the universe responds. A few questions arise: What are "vibrations"? Vibrations of what? At what speed do these vibrations travel? Even at the speed of light a relatively small amount of the universe would be included in your lifetime. So one has to assume that these vibrations affect your immediate environment, social and physical. If this theory were true, how would it fit into all the knowledge that we have about how the universe functions?<br />
<br />What power feeds these vibrations? Your brain? Can these vibrations be detected or is this only a metaphor which is to be taken seriously? <br />
<br />Secondly, what receives these vibrations? Does money or gold or good luck have a set of receptors? Does gold bullion or the stock market listen to your personal wants and arrange itself so that you are supplied? And why would it do this?<br />
<br />In genuine science, a proposal has to meet several criteria to be considered seriously: It must be plausible, which is to say, it should not disagree with theories known to be valid, and second, it must be testable, which is to say, falsifiable. A theory must be clear enough that an experiment can be devised which will demonstrate the validity or lack of validity of the theory. How many people reading this book have ever heard of "Occam's Razor"?<br />
<br />A proposal that depends only on the testimony of satisfied customers is essentially identical with a proposal to sell you snake oil or some swampland in Arizona. Market schemes and political positions are also examples. They depend on the willingness to suspend disbelief. Personal experience is the worst and least valid form of evidence, which is why eye-witness testimony is considered the weakest of evidence. There is always someone who claims (and may even believe) that they have had an experience which validates an unusual belief, such as those people who believe that they have been abducted by aliens in a flying saucer. They also seem to believe they have been anally probed, but that's probably just a coincidence.<br />
<br />More importantly, people with a strong belief tend to encounter evidence that supports their belief. Psychologists (like me) call this "confirmation bias". When we have a belief not only do we tend to notice events that support our belief but we tend to discount or ignore evidence that disputes our belief. This is at least one of the reasons that ALL religions find evidence to support their beliefs. People can believe in a benevolent universe or all-loving god while watching children being killed by horrible diseases or fires. That "must have just been an exception".<br />
<br />Richard Wiseman (whom you should look up and read) devised a series of common-sense experiments to illuminate this factor. In his experiments (and I'm simplifying and summarizing) he divided experimental subjects (i.e.humans) into two groups, one group believing they are "lucky" and the other believing they are "not lucky." He arranged for a confederate to drop money near where they were seated. The "lucky" subjects were far more likely to find the dropped money than the "unlucky" subjects, thus proving to both groups that their preconceptions were correct.<br />
<br />We attend to what supports our assumptions. We disbelieve or ignore that which does not. This "evidence" does not prove we were right. In Wiseman's studies, exactly the same amount and kind of luck were present for each subject. Yet each subject experienced proof that they were right. <br />So those people who read "The Secret" and believed it also found evidence that they were right, and the universe rearranged itself to meet their desires. This undoubtedly was convincing to them. That, however, does not make it true.<br />
<br />
I am pretty sure that the authors of this book expected to make some money from it. And I'm sure they did. So does that make their theory valid?Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-22707723240499900322016-02-28T11:19:00.000-08:002016-02-28T11:19:23.044-08:00Social media and relationshipsAs we have allowed more and more of our previously "private" lives become public, we are more and more vulnerable. Not only are our "secrets" becoming known, we are more open to attacks by others which can be highly personal.<br />
<br />
It's much easier to be cruel when we don't have to face directly the object of our cruelty. "Trolling" has become much more common, and people say things on websites that they would never say face to face. It's easier to believe whatever we want to believe about someone when we don't have all the information.<br />
<br />
Typed information is more abstract than face to face contact. We don't have facial expressions and voice tones; we don't have the immediate feedback that comes from a direct reaction to something we have said or done. It's easier to harm others when we don't actually see them being harmed. A number of psychological experiments have confirmed this idea.<br />
<br />
The cruelty of war becomes easier when we don't actually see those we hurt. Over the years our weapons have allowed us to be at a greater and greater distance, physically and psychologically, from our victims. They become "targets" or "casualties". We dehumanize our victims. Could we have dropped the bomb on Hiroshima if we had seen all the faces of those we killed, knew their histories, how much their mothers loved them, how their partner's hearts were broken?<br />
<br />
Now we see the same behaviors on small scale on the internet. We attack, we try to hurt, we urge people to kill themselves, we encourage damaging behaviors... it's all "out there", it's not real, they are just targets in a video game.<br />
<br />
Positive relationships conducted via computer are equally biased and distorted. Fantasies about others, positive and negative, flourish best in the absence of specific information. Anybody can be flawless and wonderful if they choose to be so, and if the person to whom they are providing information chooses to believe them. Fantasies don't like reality. Nobody belches or passes gas in a fantasy.<br />
<br />
People even decide to get married based on a series of internet conversations. People choosing to believe what they are told via computer are easy marks, both financially and emotionally. Not only is a sucker born every minute, as Barnum allegedly said, someone is out there to take advantage of the sucker.<br />
<br />
I myself am going to be a multimillionaire soon. I have to make my bank account open to this Prince from Nigeria and he's going to give me millions of dollars. I can hardly wait. Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-7958137254835113082016-02-26T12:49:00.000-08:002016-02-26T12:49:04.186-08:00Love or likeThe best predictor for longevity in marriage is not romantic love. The best predictors are liking and respect. Marriages based on liking and mutual respect tend to wear well. Over time, with respect and like "romantic" affection increases. Many years ago, marriages were frequently based on convenience and reliability. Many were arranged by families or "matchmakers". Many couples met for the first time on their wedding day. Western cultures, as a whole, did not see "love" as a necessary requirement. It is only with the dawn of fiction in literature and other media that "love" was even a desirable emotion; more often it was seen as leading to disaster.<br />
<br />
Attachment is a naturally-occurring phenomenon. When couples are in close proximity over a period of time, and when feelings are discussed and treated with respect, attachment and mutual affection grow naturally. This is sometimes referred to as the "Stockholm syndrome", but it simply refers to this basic fact of human nature. We naturally become attached to others when we share feelings, goals and respect.<br />
<br />
So if a marriage is based on respect and liking, affection grows naturally.<br />
<br />
However, movies, tv and fiction have emphasized the importance of "romantic" love. Such love is dramatic, fierce and passionate. It makes a better story and better movie. Unfortunately, being based on fiction, it does not last. In a movie or book it only has to last a few hours. But real life is different. Fantasies don't survive real life. The bubble pops, usually sooner rather than later.<br />
<br />
The current divorce rate is evidence of that. Romantically-based marriages only last if over time another basis is found, one based on respect and liking, and the honest sharing of feelings, good and bad. Romance may get us into a marriage and keep us there for few months or a few years, but it alone will not and cannot keep us in a marriage. We need the Stockholm syndrome.<br />
<br />
We expect too much from marriage. Earlier in history the marriage partnership was based on expediency, usefulness, even help in surviving. How the partners felt about each other was no more important than in any other business partnership. Business partners did not need to hold hands or cling together in the moonlight to the sound of violins. They needed to trust each other, to respect each other and value the other person as a person, which meant that how the other felt was important and deserved respect. Usually affection between the partners grew over time, although it is true that sometimes it did not.<br />
<br />
People are now encouraged to believe that their marriage should be permanently exciting and emotionally fulfilling, with all (or essentially all) of their needs being met by their partner and their relationship. This is a huge burden of expectation and demand. None of us can meet every need or fulfill every dream for our partner, and our marriages should not stand or fail based on fulfilling this impossible expectation. Hopefully what we do gain from a healthy relationship is far more satisfying than our ability to mutually act out one another's romantic fantasies.<br />
<br />
Love, like every other emotion, comes and goes. It never remains constant, except in fiction. In real life we love one another more at one time than another, and it is rarely a symmetrical emotion. The Stockholm syndrome insures it will return if we continue to respect and communicate with one another. Commitment should not be a decision based on the sand of emotion. It should be based on the rock of respect. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Harry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35658324.post-56053707309390770192016-02-24T07:16:00.000-08:002016-02-24T07:16:45.724-08:00A possible solution to our drug problemNot only do we spend a great deal of money on drugs, but a lot more is spent as a result of the huge amount of petty crime carried out in order to pay for drug usage. Most of the money spent directly on drugs leaves the United States, and ultimately improves the standard of living for people in other countries at the cost of our own.<br />
<br />
What if the government took over the drug business? Suppose that the US government bought directly from the drug manufacturers at their price, and distributed the drugs in the US to whoever wanted them for free and without legal consequences? Drug kiosks could provide marijuana, cocaine, crack, heroin, opiates to anyone of age who wanted them. The money would come from the huge amounts allocated now to fight drug importation and use. And it would come from the reduction in prison costs and rehabilitation costs and reduction in drug police<br />
.<br />
Since there is no cost there is no profit. The gangs that control, distribute and sell drugs would go out of business. The crime that supports drug habits would stop since it would be unnecessary. There would be no motivation to encourage drug use or to expand a drug market since there would be no drug market.<br />
<br />
What would be the consequences? Some people would probably overdose and die. Many of them would eventually in any case, but there might well be an increase. Fewer people would die of contaminated or adulterated drugs since they would be pure. Fewer people would die in gang wars over turf, which is always a war of the marketplace to some degree. Fewer law enforcement people would be killed and fewer employed.<br />
<br />
Whether or not drug usage would ultimately stop is not an answerable question. People have always sought substances that provide certain experiences and sensations, and there is no reason to think that easy access would change that. But they would be healthier in the process and not at all likely to descend into crime to support what would be a free product.<br />
<br />
Would a drug craze sweep the nation, that is, more than it already has? In fact people already have nearly unfettered access to drugs now. Does anyone doubt that they could obtain any drug they were interested in within the next few hours? Free controlled access would only mean that there would be some ability to limit sales to the very young, but there is no way to prevent sharing of drugs once out of the drug kiosk, and there is no way to prevent inappropriate sharing, just as happens now with alcohol, marijuana, and ... wait. That happens now.<br />
<br />
The problem would be that we are supporting drug manufacturing organizations in other countries. Of course, we are now. But it is possible that competition for our huge business would drive costs down over time. Perhaps eventually drug manufacture would be no more of a major business that the manufacture of tennis shoes. More money would stay in the US. We would have a little more say about the quality of product.<br />
<br />
There really is no way to predict a long-range outcome. But what we see before us now is not very favorable, and seems to be getting worse. What problems do you see with this proposalHarry Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17559424412826377916noreply@blogger.com0