Free will and addiction

The issue of whether or not human beings are able to exercise free will is as old as philosophy itself.  Are we simply the product of the various impulses and hormonal floods and conditioned responses?  Or are we capable of making decisions that are independent of our early experiences and that are truly an expression of free will?

It is quite possible, even likely, according to recent psychological experiments, that we only have the illusion of free will.  It is possible that our bodies and brains make decisions before our conscious awareness even weighs in.  Some studies have found that our choices are made several seconds before our conscious awareness is even involved.

But one answer to this problem continues to arise:  the consequences of believing that we do not have free will, of believing that we do what we do as a result of the operation of psychological and neurochemical operations about which we have no say, are quite  unacceptable.  Such an outcome means that as individuals we are not responsible for our actions.  It means that we are only able to carry out mechanistically determined choices. It means that as individuals we "can't help ourselves", that we are not accountable, that we have no choice but to act as we do, and that therefore punishment or consequences are equally useless in governing human behavior, which under this rubric is simply not governable. 

People who claim to be addicts of one kind or another are claiming that their errant, illegal or inappropriate behaviors are not their responsibility.  They are asserting that they do not have the capacity to make choices other than the ones they make, to do drugs, to commit crimes, even to engage in sexual activities of various kinds.  To someone attempting to hold them answerable and accountable for their "addictive behaviors" they respond "I can't help it", which is the philosophical equivalent of "The devil made me do it." 

Even when others, including the law, their spouses or their victims (in some cases the same things) do hold them accountable, in their minds they are the victims of forces over which they believe they have no control.  Thus, they are also blameless victims, no matter the cost to others.  The hormones, the impulses, the fates themselves have determined the outcomes, and the "addict" is just another victim. 

It is useful to notice the circularity of the above argument, which can be summarized easily in the following statement:  "An irresistible impulse is an impulse one chooses not to resist".  How do you know an impulse was the result of an irresistible addiction? Because you didn't resist it.  Could you have resisted it? If you claim you could not, you claim it because you did not.  Have you ever had an impulse belonging to your addiction that you did resist?  Then you can resist it.  You can't have it both ways.  If the impulse is irresistible, there is nothing to resist and no point in trying.  If it can be resisted, then resist it.

With such logic you can do anything you like, claim that you didn't like it but couldn't  help it, and reap the benefits (such as they are) of being an irresponsible child who is at the same time immune from consequences and punishment.  The world in which "addicts" live is uncivilized, animalistic, brutal and exploitive.  How can it be otherwise? They "can't help it".

This is an unworkable model for a civilized world.  Quite apart from whether or not  addiction is a valid concept, a world in which people are not considered to be in control of and accountable for their actions is not one in which we would choose to live.  The proof of the above statement is easily tested by simply observing and evaluating the world in which addicts live.

It is because their irresponsible, impulse-ridden and animalistic world has to exist in the same world as that of the rest of us that the conflict between us exists.  Those of us who are responsible and answerable for our behaviors have to deal with those who do not, and the results for both groups is what amounts to war.  The citizens have to protect themselves against the lawless, but no less do the lawless have to protect themselves against us.

The only way for coexistence to occur is for physical separation.  The addicted and their suppliers need a place of their own that has limited intersection with ours.  They need some things civilization can supply and the humanitarian principles that characterize civilization requires we help them with those things, such as medicine and food.  There is nothing they can easily give us in return,  but their absence improves the situation for both groups and probably saves money for the civilized to boot. 

Let's give them an island.

Christmas and Birthdays Are Not For Everyone

Let's be clear first.  I am not referring to the quasi-religious aspects of Christmas.  I am referring to the custom of compulsory gift-giving on both the above-named occasions (Christmas and birthdays).  This custom has clearly far exceeded in importance any religious observances  long ago.  The real celebrators are the merchants.  We already knew that.

But apart from the apparent need to create Christmas bonuses for store employees, what importance does gift-giving really have for adults?  (We leave kids out of this discussion because they are supposed to be greedy and self-centered.)  Perhaps when we are young and starting out gifts can be helpful.  It's hard to understand why we need an excuse to give such gifts.  People we know and love will appreciate the gifts but waiting and giving one day a year seems a little constricted.

There comes a time when gifts become more of an obligation than a pleasure.  We eventually have everything we really need, or else the wherewithal to get them, and waiting until December 25 is absurd when we need to buy a new toaster now.  Giving gifts is equally tedious, not because we don't love the recipients (or at least should), but because choosing the gifts becomes an exercise in shopping for things  we are told  to get.  We become an extension of the gift catalogues and shopping advertisements.  We don't buy out of love so much as because they have ordered through us what they want or need.  This is about as personal as online shopping.

Birthdays are much the same.  Past a certain age the actual count of years is pretty meaningless.  Here we are, vertical and above-ground. We shouldn't need to be informed of our age. It's not for the birthday boy or girl.  It's to tell us we matter to them.  But why wait to tell us we are important?  The odds continually increase against us completing the year.  We would like to be told on occasion that we're important to those we love, and preferably on a more regular basis, and not with presents or a ceremony but with a hug and an extra smile, and a laugh at the old jokes that you have heard before.

Now for the old people in particular (and you know damn well who you are). What can you get us old ones that we don't have?  If we wanted it we would already have it.  We get to the age where getting rid of objects that require attention and maintenance is preferable.  We have accumulated "stuff" for years, and now it is increasingly burdensome and needs to go away, not accumulate more.  Maybe a night out together for dinner, or an invite over to see the grandkids, and a lot more often than one damn time a year.  Even items are ok as long as they are perishable.

Don't try to buy us off with a "funny" card pointing out how old we have become, or with a present that we have no use for.  Why make a point of how many years we have been on this earth?  We already know how long that has been.  Reminding us is more a downer than an upper.  Who thought we would make it this long?  But the time for appreciation of the love and support we can give you is now.  Tomorrow comes faster every day.

Is being "wrong" a psychiatric disorder?

When someone commits a horrific crime or crimes we want to know what's the matter with them?  And having decided that something is in fact the matter with them we then want to know why.  Is what they did an "illness"?  Do they need treatment or incarceration?  Is it their "fault"?  How should we treat the perpetrators?

It is tempting to consider such people as "mentally ill".  In that way we don't have to think about what they are trying to accomplish or if they are trying to accomplish any goal in the real world.  A moment's thought, however, is (or should be) enough to recognize that all of the mass murders are goal-directed, not simply an errant momentary impulse.   For instance,  the recent Bakersfield killings were carefully planned over a long period of time and carried out by people whose public behavior had been "normal" even to their closest associates.  So what was their goal?

They were clearly  not motivated by personal gain.  They didn't expect to survive their actions.  Their goals were ideological and based on fervent religious beliefs.  Sanity was not the issue; their belief system was.  To decide they were somehow psychiatrically ill and in need of treatment is to trivialize their behavior.  It also dumps the responsibility for managing them and people like them on the mental health system, which is totally unequipped to deal with them.  These people are not mentally ill.  Giving them a "diagnosis" is to escape from the reality that sane people can actually want to kill us.  We don't want to believe that. To kill people for religious differences seems mad.  But of course many religions, including Christianity, have done exactly that in the past.

Some of the mass shootings fall in other categories.  Mentally ill people can also commit crimes, and the reasons for their behavior will never make sense to the "sane" among us.  A recent example is the multiple shootings in the Denver movie theater.  Such people may believe that others are plotting to kill or damage them, or they may believe they are given orders by supernatural beings.  Their behavior makes sense to them.  It is not difficult to detect the bizarre thinking patterns that characterize such disorders. The only real question is what to do with them.

By the way, the only difference between in psychotic beliefs in supernatural directives and those whose beliefs gave rise to a religious movement is an arbitrary one.  If Jesus lived today we would probably hospitalize him involuntarily and treat him with medication until he no longer heard "voices" and no longer believed in his own supernatural power.  However, he was able to convince others that he was sane.  Other people with similar delusions have not been so convincing and ended up medicated and relatively mannerly.  

School shootings by adolescents might have as a goal some form of revenge on their treatment at the school.  The desire for revenge is not a mental illness.  What they did was criminal and not the result of mental illness. It might be helpful, however, to inquire as to what happened to them to prompt such a desperate desire for revenge?

When sane people commit horrific crimes we need to understand why they feel it necessary to do so.  We can't begin to consider ways of stopping it when we do not understand what they are trying to accomplish.  To dismiss their acts as "mentally ill" is to trivialize them and attempt to ignore them.

A Modest Proposal for Texters

I can see clearly that the following proposals have little likelihood of being implemented.  Unless, of course, I am elected Emperor by acclamation.  Laugh, if you will, but it could happen.
     The intent of these proposals is to stop texting while driving.  Not slow it down or punish the texters, stop it. As with any other activity in which it is possible to kill others as well as one's self, decreasing the frequency is not really a good solution.  Stop it is what we must do.  Texters kill others.  I can tolerate their killing themselves, and preferably early in their lives, if possible prior to breeding.
     First:  Anyone convicted of texting while driving or caught while texting has the following sanctions:
Driver's licence suspended for 6 months for a first offense; Driver's license forfeited for life for a second offense.  But wait.  There's more.
     Second:  A "texter" will have his smartphone confiscated and impounded permanently.  Of course, there is nothing to stop a texter from buying another phone, and thus
     Third:  Their phone account is suspended for 3 months.  For a second offense they are prohibited from having a phone at all for 6 months;  for a third offense it is prohibited for life.
     For additional offenses the texter is placed under "house arrest", which means he or she wears an ankle bracelet with GPS and is limited to his/her home and employment for 1 year.  I believe that for these compulsively socially-addicted people this punishment would be very effective.
     Another suggestion I received was to require convicted texters to have their car marked in some appropriate way, such as a flashing red light on the roof, so that the rest of us can be aware of them and take appropriate precautions.

As Emperor I will be open to suggestions, and the more ingenious ones will be rewarded appropriately.

The dangers of absolute rightness

The art of politics is compromise.  Compromise makes adjustments so that the maximum amount of benefit accrues to the maximum number of people.  At least, that is the ideal use of compromise.

Religion does not value nor even tolerate compromise.  When someone or some group believes they have been given instructions from some form of divinity, how can they even consider compromising?  For that reason all religions have splintered into smaller groups from time to time, as various members get a different set of instructions which cannot be reconciled with the previous ones.  There is no “sort of” in “revealed truth”.

Obviously religions, as a general domain, do not value compromise;  in fact, they see it as sinful because it finds changes in the inerrant word of God(s).

When political compromise is useful, religion can block it.  When the political leaders value religion strongly, they become less and less willing to compromise.  Instead of compromise, one side must win, and that side, by definition, will have been the “correct” side.  According to the winners, at least.  

The mixture of religious thinking with political pragmatism results in wars and terrible tragedies, all in the name of unprovable beliefs.

 

Religious thinking is not restricted to deism or theology.  It is based on the quality of absolute rightness.  History teaches us that there are political beliefs that are identical in structure to religious beliefs with the exception that deism is not a necessary quality for absolute rightness.  The early days of fascism come to mind, as does the Soviet regime in the middle of the last century.  Many other examples come to mind.  No state based on absolute values can be a healthy nor happy state, and the people in it will have neither. 

The problem is not religion, per se, though that is a prime and clear example of absolutist thinking.  It is the absolutist thinking itself that is the disorder.  Unless the absolute value includes human life and the quality of that life we could expect to be trampled and crushed between absolute "rights" that do not value us as human beings.

When several states are absolutist, conflicts become inevitable, and since the absolute values do not include human life or happiness, they war with each other, and their people suffer and suffer terribly.

But how can there be compromise with absolute rightness?  We know the answer and we know the cost.  But we tolerate such thinking, because, of course, it is right.

Depression and free time

When people are fairly depressed, they have no energy.  They would say they have no "motivation", which only means there is nothing they actually want to do.  In spite of that feeling, they can continue to do things that they don't particularly want to do; such as jobs or tasks of various kinds, even going to the dentist or other relatively unpleasant task. They "feel paralyzed", that they "can do nothing", but that's simply not true.  Many people use the word "motivation" to denote some positive feeling toward action. When you're depressed, there are few positive feelings.   However, it is  possible to have purely intellectual motivation, a form that does not depend on how you feel but rather how you think.

The very worst thing for depressed people is to have nothing to do.  We instinctively want to lie down in a quiet and relatively dark place and hibernate when we're depressed.  But that gives us lots of time, time to think about things.  Usually the things we think about when we're depressed are pretty negative, which further increases our depression and inertia.  We disapprove of our own inertia and "laziness", which makes us feel more worthless. We get caught in a vicious circle with plenty of time to deepen the spiral.

To fight  the depression with activity is counter-intuitive.  There is a great deal of experimental evidence that supports the idea that activity of any kind, including exercise, will gradually improve the depression over a several month-long period.  In fact, the improvement is about as fast as the improvement one expects from an anti-depressant medication, but the long-range effects of exercise are clearly a lot better.  It's just that the hardest part, that of actually starting exercising, comes at the very time when the depressed person least feels like exercising.  Of course, that's where medication comes in: a short-range "jump-start" to get going with.  And it's easier to take a pill than to work out.

Having nothing to do but think while you're depressed is really the pits. So how do depressed people get started?  Well, mostly they don't.  To exercise while depressed is like going to the dentist to have a tooth drilled.  To do that we have to understand that "motivation" is neither available or necessary;  it's a luxury which depressed people have to do without for a while.  It does come back eventually, but it takes at least several months for that to begin.  For some of us (including me) exercise always has to be done without emotional motivation.  But so many things are never going to be based on "wanting to".  The world is full of unpleasant and distasteful tasks. Actually we're used to doing things we don't want to do.  Saying we "aren't motivated" is like going back to be an adolescent rebel again.

I have also noticed how many depressed patients I see who lead empty and fun-free lives, and did so for years prior to their depression.  How easy is it to get up to face a day with nothing pleasurable in it?  Why wouldn't we think "What's the use?"  It doesn't occur to us that arranging pleasurable events and experiences on an everyday basis is necessary for mental health.  Taking an anti-depressant does not provide a substitute for an interesting or enjoyable life.

"Motivation" is an award earned only by play.

Letting Go

Some ideas that seem useless when you are young get more relevant as you age.  An idea of that sort  is  "letting go".

We hold on to our "stuff", things we have accumulated over our lives.  At the time we get these things we think they are important and necessary.  As time  passes, however, we find taking care of all our stuff gets  more and more difficult and tedious.  At the same time we begin to recognize how little of it we actually use or need. 

Some times we see this even in the short run, such as after birthdays or Christmas.  Even the new car that seemed the epitome of our dreams becomes a thing to get rid of and a pain to take care of.  We see it more clearly when we move from one house to another.  Getting rid of stuff...  what a nightmare!

Our relatives (even the ones we love) die and we must let  them  go. Our friends for a lifetime die as well.  As we age, and if we live long enough, we will lose all the  long-term friends.  Letting them go becomes a frequent and painful job, but we have to learn to do it.

When someone dies with whom we have a difficult or conflictful relationship, letting go is more problematic.  We feel there is "unfinished business".  We experience the burden of the things left unsaid and the questions left unanswered.  Learning to let this go as well is much more difficult and sometimes we simply don't know how to do that.  (This is one of the things psychotherapists spend a lot of time doing).

Finally we have to let go of negative feelings on a daily basis.  We carry anger and resentment far too long,  hurting ourselves but not the person who is the target of our anger.  We carry anxiety about unlikely catastrophes to the point we can't manage the crises of everyday life.  We carry sadness in our hearts for relationships that are long over.  We hate saying "goodbye".

Old age seems to be the time for me and others of my age to focus on the skill of "letting go",  I have to do a lot of it, it seems.  In fact, I would say that the most important skill for the aged is the skill of letting things go, of accepting your losses, and also accepting the peculiar freedom that results.

Taxes and Benefits: The Great Disconnect

The morning papers have the same complaints and demands, year after year.  Everybody wants the government to do more for them.  The same people complain about paying taxes.  Last year about tax time we were having a staff meeting.  You should be aware that our staff are social workers for the most part, and well-educated ones at that, with a Master's degree and years of experience.  The complaint heard around the room was how once again the Department of Mental Health was taking cuts in budget, as we had for a number of years, on the grounds that tax revenues had again fallen and there simply wasn't enough money.

During a lull in the complaining I stood and asked the following question: How many of you would be willing to pay a five percent increase in your state income taxes if the money were earmarked for mental health?

Not one single hand went up. I then asked for suggestions as to how the money could be found without raising taxes.  There were a number of  suggestions, some obscene or at least impractical.
These included "stop the graft", without specifying exactly which graft was being referred  to;  another suggestion included taking it from the roads budget, although our roads are among the worst in the US.   It was clear that as a group we did  not see the direct connection between taxation and budget.  The money should come from the same place we expected it to come from when we were unemployed teenagers:  the Great Daddy, who now apparently resides in Washington.

As a people we need to reconnect our expenditures with our  income. I have a suggestion, clearly impractical since it makes sense.  We should vote on budget issues online.  Each budget expenditure should be associated with the exact amount of cost, paid by taxes, for each person's bracket.  We need to own what we choose to pay for.   Oklahoma highway bridges?  X Million total, for you personally $437.44 of your income tax. No items can be approved unless enough people vote for the expenditure out of their pockets.  Not enough voted?  The item cannot be paid  for  and we  can't have it.  Just like our personal budgets.

I can think of many possible variations on this idea. It might be disastrous for a few years, but eventually people will see the truth, that they are paying for everything the government spends out of their own individual pockets.  I suspect legislator salaries and benefits would be among the early casualties of this plan, but if I can think of that, so will the legislators,  and they will never allow that to happen as long as they vote for their own pay.

Such a plan was not practical, or even possible, in the early days  of the republic.  Distances and difficult communication were huge obstacles.  But with the internet those problems can be solved and there is no practical reason why the general public should not have a direct voice in allocation of tax moneys and expenditures.

Chronic Anger as a disorder

Fear and anger are produced in the same small and primitive part of the brain. Anger and fear are the emotional and subjective accompaniments to the emergency "fight-flight" pattern that is hardwired into our operating system. Fear and anger are what we experience when our physical machinery is ramped up to near its maximum operating speed; our bodies are ready to fight with our full power or to run at full speed. When the situation that provokes them is no longer a threat, we can "power down" and let our bodies recover. We are not designed to run at such an overload for more than brief periods of time. In wartime, for instance, prolonged periods of fear-anger result in considerable physical and mental cost which may require years of recovery.

We have defined chronic or enduring fear as an illness. We call it "anxiety" and we treat it as an illness, with medications and with various kinds of therapy. People become physically ill with the biological consequences of constant fear; they develop high-blood pressure, stress disorders of all kinds, heart problems, and so on. We have no difficulty in recognizing chronic fear as a disorder, but somehow we don't see its complement, chronic anger, as an equally damaging illness, yet we see and feel its effects constantly.

Anger and its expression are increasingly problematic in our world. In the paper we read daily of random murders, group killings, road rage, murderous and abusive relationships, and random violence. We have "Anger Management Groups" to remind people of what they learned (or should have learned) on the grade-school playground. When our anger is turned inward on ourselves in the form of self-blame, we call it depression, and we can treat it successfully. as well.

In the United States of today, we psychologists and psychiatrists diagnose many "emotional disorders", including anxiety disorders and depression. We don't define chronic anger as an illness, though it meets exactly the same criteria as the other emotional disorders do. The only related official diagnosis is "intermittent explosive disorder", which means one or more isolated instances of a temper tantrum. I want to be very clear about this: anger/frustration and fear are normal responses to situations and as such are healthy psychologically. Chronic fear and chronic anger are maladaptive responses and respond well to competent treatment, but we only recognize chronic fear as requiring treatment.

I think we don't see chronic anger as a disorder because our entire culture is permeated with anger. It's part of the air we breathe. Our television shows are about people getting angry, doing bad things, and getting punished by angry authorities. This is as true for the news on CNN as it is on the multitude of detective and police shows. Our heroes are people who have been mistreated and who then fight back, from Charles Bronson and Clint Eastwood onward. Our history began with us getting mad at the English, who mistreated us, and whom we got mad at and fought back against. We love our anger. It provides us with the energy to fight without fear, to stand up to mistreatment and refuse to cooperate with abusive people. It also results in abrasive and dangerous relationships, even to those we love, and to a large assortment of physical disorders.

Does our history and culture mean that we have to tolerate constant anger among ourselves, or to find others outside our culture to bear the brunt of our resentment? Perhaps we should consider how we would be able to function, both as individuals and as a culture, without constant anger in search of a "bad guy" to punish? Can we defend ourselves without anger? Can we stop using anger as a factor in our decision-making? In reality, we may be much more effective if our responses to frustration were rational, logical and not governed by fury.

I think we should consider chronic anger as a serious disorder and plan effective treatments.

Lunacy as a defense

I read recently about the young man accused of sexually abusing children in Kenya.  His defense includes some disorganized statements about "an evil spirit" (named "Dan", I think) who apparently "made him do it".  Among many psychologists.. well, maybe just me... this is known as "The Devil Made Me Do It"/  Clearly we should be highly skepticsl of such claims. In fact, the ONLY instances of such a claim being legitimately made are if the claimant is schizophrenic.  Schizophrenia is not a part-time disease that comes and goes.  The symptoms recede with medication most of the time, but without medication the schizophrenia is full time and in every aspect of the person's life.

Schizophrenia is a real disease, and in a small percentage of cases the schizophrenic may hear "command" hallucinations, ordering him/her to do certain things. But true schizophrenia is very difficult to fake unless the person attempting the fake is both very knowledgeable about schizophrenia and a hell of a good actor. It might be noted that schizophrenia is a disorder that almost invariably develops in the young person, roughly ages 15 to 30.  So the young man mentioned above is probably in the right age range.

A lot of the symptoms consist of what the schizophrenic does NOT do or show.  People deriving their knowledge of mental illness from movies or tv invariably get it as wrong as it can possibly be, so their attempt at faking it is detected in minutes or even seconds in an interview.  Many less well-educated people think that schizophrenia has to do with "multiple personality"; they apparently think if another part of the self does the bad deed, especially if they "don't remember" that it will not be their fault and they shouldn't be punished.  So we should just punish that part of them.  Of course, the rest of the person will go to jail too.

Schizophrenia is an illness that deserves and requires treatment, not punishment.

Lies of omission in relationships:Part 2

To understand the effects of lies, both overt and covert on relationships, it will  be helpful to review the communication rules that govern the experience of closeness and intimacy.  In Transactional Analysis it is proposed that closeness and intimacy are determined by some specific behavioral rules:  1)  When person A expresses an emotion accurately in  kind and degree, and 2) when person B acknowledges person A's statement in both kind and degree,  then 3) Person A will experience greater emotional closeness to  Person B.  It should  be noted that feelings of closeness are not necessarily (or even usually) symmetrical.  Person A may experience greater closeness or distance to Person B than B does to A.  The degree of closeness A experiences appears to be related to how important A's feelings are to A.  For instance, if A says he "really likes cheese sandwiches a lot", and B responds that she "understands exactly how much that liking is", the amount of increase in closeness A experiences is likely to be a tiny one.

This set of observationally-based rules are easily tested out.  Consider your reaction if you tell someone that you are very angry, and they look blankly at you or tell you they don't  believe you.  Another example: after an angry argument many couples report unusually satisfying sexual relationships.  The Stockholm syndrome is a good example of the development of intimacy between captor and prisoner when feelings are expressed clearly and acknowledged correctly, even when the feelings are  (at least initially) negative ones.

With this in mind consider the effects of directly lying (about emotions, specifically) on relationships.  If A tells B incorrectly about a feeling, no matter how B replies, no intimacy is gained.  In fact, an increase in psychological distance is likely to be noted.  If A tells B correctly about a feeling, and B replies inappropriately, no increase in intimacy is experienced. Again, an increase in experienced distance will occur.

When A lies by omission about feelings, A will feel more distant.  A's behavior may change and be noted by B, who will not likely understand what is happening.  To the extent that the emotions are "important" ones to A, A's distance will increase in proportion to their importance.  As an example, consider the following:  A is angry with B but doesn't want to admit it.  B may or may not notice, but in any case A experiences more distance.

It's clear, I hope, that dishonest, unexpressed, denied or concealed feelings can have a profound effect on a relationship, especially if over time the same behaviors are repeated.  Frequently the lies of omission are an attempt to maintain stability in the relationship although at the cost of loss of intimacy.  Intimacy.distance is never static nor symmetrical, and people negotiate for an optimal level of closeness and distance in a never-ending dance.

The Hiding Place of the Soul

Several years ago I posted a blog questioning the possibility of the continuity of the sense of personal identity.  The idea started with Star Trek (as so many good ideas do).  Spock used the "transporter" to go someplace instantaneously.  Setting aside the notion of  "instant" anything, since time is not an absolute, the notion involved the disassembly of Spock into his constituent atoms and re-assembling them in another location.  Since the re-assembly was specified as an identical reassembly, i.e. every atom and molecule duplicated, the "new" Spock had the same memories, functionality and awareness that the "old" Spock did.  For the purposes of the show, this was simply instantaneous transportation.

Clearly the "new" Spock (or Spock 2) would have the sensation/illusion that he was Spock 1 and had simply moved from one location to another.  However, it's interesting to look a little more closely at Spock 1.  He went into a box of some sort and was methodically destroyed, atom by atom.  What might he experience?  Nothing.  His experience and existence came to an end with his destruction. While Spock 2 was created, Spock 1 was destroyed.  Spock 2 has the illusion that he has been alive as long as Spock 1, but this is an illusion.  Of course Spock 1 can't object:  he's dead.  His awareness ended.

The assumption that his personal awareness was transferred to Spock 2 is based on Spock 2's illusion of continuity.  Watching the show we make the same illogical conclusion, i.e. that Spock 1's "self" has been transported to a new place.  Again, Spock 1 died.  Spock 2 was created to be identical.  The atoms were not transported from Spock 1 to Spock 2.  Only the organization of those atoms was transmitted.

Suppose that Spock 2 had not been reassembled at that time, but had been in some kind of hold.  Where would Spock 1 be?  Suppose further that Spock 2 had not been assembled at all.  Where then is Spock 1?  Suppose even further that Spock 1 was reassembled wrongly, or in a different form.  Or suppose that 7 different Spock 2s had been created in different locations.  The same question is answered the same way.  Spock 1 is dead. Spock 2 is a different being with the illusion of being identical with Spock 1. 

Our illusion that Spock is transferred from one place to another is based on our belief in the existence of some unifying sense of self that somehow is not dependent on how it is constructed or located.  This unifying sense of self that we all have as a common illusion has been called the "soul" for centuries.  We believe there is something unique about us.  In fact, every single one of us has that same illusion.  The ubiquity of the illusion does not make it true.  One hundred (or one-hundred-million) dogs barking up the wrong tree doesn't make it the right  tree.

We find it hard to give up the fantasy of having a unique identity, a soul, that somehow is separate from our physical existence and/or does not depend on that physical existence.  At the same time, common sense (which is not at all common, by the way) is forced to recognize the absurdity of the idea. We believe that Spock 2 is Spock 1, because we want to believe it and we have been taught to believe it.  And Spock 1 certainly can't object:  he no longer exists. Since the rransporter transports physical objects and the "soul" is non-physical, it cannot be transported, and poor Spock 2 can't  have a soul, assuming he had one in the first place.

So watch out for transporters.  You will undoubtedly lose your soul, assuming you have one.

Whatever happened to the social contract?

Reading about the reluctance of otherwise intelligent (or at least educated) people to have their children vaccinated for measles and the like brought into highlight a major and increasing shift in our civilization.  Less and less do people recognize that the goodies we get are paid for by our willingness to carry out our part of the social contract.  These people act as if they were entitled to the benefits of civilization and owed nothing in return.

This is the exact equivalent of expecting running water and electricity without paying taxes.   But such benefits as roads and running water are only part of the social contract.  We owe each other certain considerations, even though they are not as specific and clear as city services.  Living in a group requires that we consider the rights of others and can expect them to consider ours. We make some laws to exact consequences when  basic rights are not respected.  We try not to step on someone's toes or touch strangers unnecessarily.  We try to keep our voices down in public space, such as theaters and busses. We understand that an article in a bag in someone's lap "belongs" to them and we expect not to touch it or take it.

Living together demands that we give up some freedoms in order to live with some comfort and consistent expectations.  In a word, we all owe each other.  Without that social contract life in close contact with others would be unbearable. that is, "nasty, brutish and short".

It seems clear that the social contract is weakening.  People live more and more as if there were no other people on the planet.  They talk loudly on their smart-phones about intensely personal things and they do so in public places.  They spit on the sidewalk, they pick their noses while driving their cars and talking on their phones, as if they were exempt from the requirements of the social contract.  They apparently do not realize how dependent they themselves are on that contract for any kind of  survival.  They apparently do not care about our mutual obligations, though they are quick enough (and loud enough) when people do not respect theirs.

The examples are, unfortunately, endless and apparently increasing in quantity and volume.  The refusal to allow their children to be vaccinated is an excellent example.  Younger people who have grown up without worries about infectious diseases don't seem to recognize that the reason they have not seen them is vaccination.  So they think of these illnesses as unimportant.  When somebody raises the question that it might be possible for vaccinations to cause an illness, they see that risk, no matter how small the data indicate that risk is, as easy to avoid.  No vaccination to their children.

They don't recognize that our protection from infectious illnesses is a group protection, depending on the vast majority of the members of the group being immune and thereby not carriers of an illness.  The non-vaccinators benefit from this protection without recognizing any corresponding obligation to the others in their groups.  Once the number of non-vaccinated  individuals reaches a certain percentage, the disease can and will spread.  Not recognizing the social contract and relying on the universe to continue to treat them as special will have its cost.

The same idea applies to the social contract.  As the number of "entitled people" who consider themselves excused from  obligations to others reaches a certain percentage, society will collapse rapidly as the percentage of entitled grows.  No obligations  to others?  Just look out for what I want and the hell with the rest of you? Civilization is  not unlike a herd immunity which protects against savagery and other uncivilized behavior.  When enough members are no longer immune to savagery, the herd loses its protection and civilization (like health) will fail.

Legal executions

Firstly let me say that  I am opposed to capital punishment, on the grounds that it is  basically inhumane and because our justice system is imperfecr enough to allow an occasional innocent person to be executed. 

However, that being said, I don't understand the conflicts about using various combinations of drugs to kill a prisoner.  Why such a complicated and tedious system?  I have heard that an overdose of heroin kills almost instantly.  People who overdose are found dead with the needle still in their arm, which argues a certain instantaneous quality to the effect.  Why do we not use that method?   I'm sure there must be a reason that this is not done, but I (not being a drug user) do not understand.  Any readers out there have an answer to that question?

Social Security Numbers and Identity Theft

When the original Social Security law was passed in 1933, it was solely and entirely for the purpose of providing a system by means of which individuals could be taxed and the money used solely for retirement benefits.   When Medicare became law much later, the same number was used as the funds for Medicare were also fixed and earmarked for the benefit of individual taxpayers.  There was much opposition to the use of this number as some sort of national identification number, and as a result, up until 1975 each Social Security card carried the words "Not for identification".  The card had no biometric information or photograph since it was not to be used for identification.

The following quote spells out what the government did with their own regulation:
"In the United States, a Social Security number (SSN) is a nine-digit number issued to U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and temporary (working) residents under section 205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2). The number is issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration, an independent agency of the United States government. Although its primary purpose is to track individuals for Social Security purposes,^[1] the Social Security number has become a de facto national identification number for taxation and other purposes.^[2] "  (The above quote is from Wikipedia).

With the increasing use of electronic storage and communication, the SSN has become more and more vulnerable to identity theft.  We have to begin assuming that if data is online, it is ultimately available to anyone willing to expend the time and effort.  Note that whatever encryption is used, it is breakable.  Therefore, by its misuse of the SSN for identification purposes, the federal government  has exposed us to the ever-increasing risks of identity theft.

It seems absolutely clear that a different system of identification must be used, and developed for use NOW.  If it's encoded, it's breakable.  The only unbreakable code system (at least for the present) would be a biometric system.  We need to replace SSNs with fingerprints and/or retinal scans and/or facial recognition.  Fingerprint scanners are cheap and can be placed on every computerc, ATM, and terminal in the world.  Every bank (who of course now use SSNs for identification) should require such biometric data.

Organizations, whether private or governmental, should be held liable for any damage caused by their use of encoding/breakable systems.  There is no reason to continue a system basically flawed and vulnerable, when it can easily be replaced.  Perhaps we should be thinking about what remedies could be taken to improve the system immediately, especially if the government is reluctant to act.

Privacy

I find myself puzzled (more than usually) over the issue of telephone privacy, specifically the monitoring by NSA of telephone calls and emails.  Why would anybody care if NSA has monitored such communications?  The real issue is: who has access to this information?  I don't really care if the NSA knows my phone and email messages.  There's nothing there of any real importance to the government.

I guess the NSA cares about the violation of their own privacy by Edward Snowden.  In my opinion he did the right thing.  I'm in favor of more transparency in government, generally.  In this case letting terrorist groups know we were listening for them might prompt them  to take more precautions, and that's not a good thing tactically.  But  the issue that has been raised is our so-called right to privacy. Few have objected to the exposure of our intelligence-gathering techniques and how that might in the long run endanger us. 

To me the privacy issue is absurd.  I might object if non-governmental groups or individuals had access to bank information or business conferences.  If I had a girlfriend I would probably not want my wife to know.  Actually, I would certainly not want her to know.  But why would the government give a damn?  Who cares what they know about me?  The IRS already knows a lot more about me than I want them to, so closing that door is more than a little late. What could the NSA possibly find out from my emails and phone calls that would be remotely harmful to me?  I'm missing something here.

Clearly if I were doing something illegal like money-laundering or drug sales I would object to anybody knowing anything.  But I certainly don't care if NSA stops criminal activity. More power to them.  If I were President (see  6/9 blog) I would encourage them to listen more.  There's nothing in the Constitution about privacy, other than a rather distant interpretation of the section on search-and-seizure.  Clearly we don't want governmental authorities going through our closets.  And certainly we object to the authorities using information they have gained to harass and intimidate US citizens without due cause.

But limited search, such as the NSA looking specifically for evidence about terrorist activities, seems unobjectionable.  They're not looking for "everything/anything"\, they are looking for something specific. How are innocent individuals being harmed by this activity?

I don't object. I have nothing to hide (evidence of a relatively uninteresting life).  What am I missing here?

Libertarian Party Invites Me To Run

True, they didn't say for what, nor  even  how fast.  And they added that they would appreciate a contribution, and I have this hunch that my running for something, say President or even World Emperor, would be contingent on the contribution amount.  President would be enough for me.  I'm a simple man.

Well, I'm not interested in politics, really.  The company you have to keep is pretty distasteful.  But I am interested in total, nearly unbridled power.  I am confident that I could use such power wisely and remain uncorrupted, or at least uncorrupted for, say, six months. After that I should be watched closely. At my age, how much longer could I last, anyway?

So I've given some thought to my platform, and I will welcome comments, which for the most part I intend to ignore.  Still,  crowd-sourcing sometimes is surprisingly effective.  The first 5 items have to do with Congress:

One:  All Congressmen (and Congresswomen) will have their current ridiculous life-time pensions reduced and the term on their pensions will be limited to the number of years they were in Congress.  Four years in office, four years pension.  That's a better deal than they deserve.

Two:  All Congresspeople will have Medicare ONLY.  They don't get a special deal.  If they want more insurance they can pay for it, same as we do.

Three:  Congress is not allowed to set their own salaries and benefits.  It seems unreasonable to allow the pigs to vote on how much goes into their trough.  A Citizen's Committee, appointed by me, will make recommendations for any salary or benefit changes, and I will put the recommendations on the internet and allow all American citizens to vote for them.

Four:  Amendments to bills will be limited to amendments that relate to the content of the bill.  No more adding the costs of their driveways to the National Parks budget.  This will cause  some major changes in the way Congress does business; it will specifically affect pork-barrel legislation.  Each bill will have to be voted on based entirely on its specific merits.  This alone should cut down the budget and the time to decide on it.

Five:  If campaign promises are broken, the Congressperson may be expelled by vote of his district.

But enough about Congress, though I would consider a movement to make corruption and graft in office a capital offense, to be  carried out publically by firing squad or beheading.  And don't give me any crap about "cruel and unusual punishment".  The jihadists do it, so it must be ok.  The remaining items are about general policy.

Six:  I will have line-item veto on any bills.  This is probably the single most important item in my program.  Congress has used its ability to tie personal crap to otherwise good bills we MUST pass, so that they can bribe each other with public funds.  In particular this will apply to the Budget.

Seven:  Budget items that I regard as superfluous, excessive, or ill-advised will be vetoed by me.  However, I may call a national internet vote on certain less-necessary but valuable issues, such as NPR.  We can only afford what we can afford.  Some good things will have to be put off until later. And bear in mind that much of our military costs are actually spent  IN the US, which keeps a lot of people employed, able to afford marijuana and stay quietly off the streets.

Eight:  I will consider re-establishing a tariff on goods produced outside the US and brought in.  The intention is to keep more money inside the US and stop sending it to other countries.  I will demand a revocation of NAFTA. It's nice to help Nike find cheap labor that helps the abysmally poor people in other countries, but I would rather help our own poor, at least to the extent they are willing to work.

Nine.  No more sending our forces overseas except to defend us.  The exception might be that if the UN votes for military sanctions, AND if all the other countries in the UN agree to send their own troops, I could be persuaded.  But I'm tired of us being the playground guard for the rest of the world.  All they have to do to be fine with me is to stop trying to kill us.  I really don't care if they want to kill each other in the name of whatever primitive religious beliefs they have, as long as they don't try it with us.

Personal pledges by me:  I will be absolutely honest.  I will say what I mean and mean what I say. (This has already limited my social desirability).   At my age I am immune to personal bribes or seductions by interns.  I already have more than I need, so I am not corruptible. I haven't done anything that could be used to blackmail me. I will ask for popular vote of confidence via internet on a regular basis concerning issues affecting the general welfare.  I have no intentions of going to church or praying to or for  anything and I have no intentions of stopping others from such forms of activity. So if you want to be religious, you won't get a problem from me.  Unless you give me one.

Since I am pretty much immune to the usual political influences (see above),  a number of  people will want me dead.  You can easily guess which group or combination of houses would be behind an assassination, although they will probably hire a middle-Easterner so it will look like a terrorist plot. 

After six months I think my term should be renewable by popular vote (internet style).  We could call for a vote of confidence/no confidence every 3 months thereafter.  I'm a honest and honorable sort of person, but who knows how that much power might affect me?  It's never safe to allow that kind of power to remain in one person's hands without time/term limits. Except for me.

Also a qualification:  while sitting on my porch and drinking my coffee, I was accidentally sprayed with a shrubbery-spray intended to kill fungus and insects.  At this point, I should be fungus and bug-free for the near future, which not only is a plus but puts me ahead of the other candidates.

So I'm open to suggestions.  Any thoughts or additions?

Heaven and Hell: Seating preferences

While driving to work I accidentally tuned in to a radio evangelist, extolling the beauties and general  wonderfulness of heaven.  It was beautiful beyond imagining, he said.  Streets were of gold, he said.  Didn't say anything about park benches, I noted, or bowling alleys or fishing or libraries. 

Then he went on to  list the activities available  on the Heaven cruise.  A lot of singing was involved,  and some playing of justly obscure musical instruments.  He described this singing with such gusto that you would think he loved it all, and spent all his spare time practicing hymns and lyre-playing.  I am willing to bet as much money as you wish that he never in his life laid a hand (or anything else) on a lyre. And I don't care how many hymns they have:  over an infinite period of time they are bound to get monotonous.

My first thought was, I don't want to go there.  If I weren't already dead at that time, the boredom would surely kill  me, but not nearly as quickly as one might wish.  I would guess that the number of people who actually want to go to that Heaven for.... wait for it.... eternity, might be a smaller  number than you think.  As Mark Twain said (and I paraphrase) we have populated and decorated Heaven with all the things we least like. And it goes on, the evangelist said, without end. 

I had a lot of trouble believing that he could feel as enthusiastic as he wanted to feel.

I found myself thinking that there must be an alternative, and so  there is. Hell!  Now, I grant you there is a lot of talk about sulfur and blazes and lakes of fire and the like, but I ask you, and try to be honest, would you not prefer that to an eternity of harp-accompanied hymn-singing?

I think I would apply for the Hell cruise, if I could also request being assigned to some useful duties.  I don't mind starting with  a broom.  Somebody's got to pick up the trash and stoke the fiery furnaces.  And there are a lot of troubled people down there, not only your every-day villains but a lot of folk who have no idea where they are, much less why they are there.

Well, you might see where this is going.  Being a psychologist/psychotherapist (not one of those psychologists that make people fill out forms and stare at obscene ink-blots) it occurred to me that I might be able to help some of those people.  We'll have  plenty of time on our hands, and we'll need something to do to take our minds off of the eternal unbearable torment assigned to us by God.  Incidentally, doesn't the amount of misery and torment seem a little excessive for having doubts or saying bad words about ... you know who?

Anyway, maybe I could work with some seriously disturbed people, a lot like I do already, only famous.  I can imagine using cognitive-behavioral therapy techniques on Hitler or even Vlad The Impaler.  Assuming they are there, of course.  Maybe I could hold some evening courses in how to come to terms with and accept one's lot with grace.  In the rest of my time, which should be pretty much infinite, I could clean up with a broom and a dustpan.  Or maybe a pickup truck, and they're bound to have those in Hell.

I wonder if  there is a union for cleaners down there?  I bet I could get some people to join up.   Once we have a union going, we can do as much for Hell as the unions have done for America.  And once we get  some political power, who knows where that might take us.  But I think it best to stop with that line of thought.  God knows who's reading over my shoulder.

Gay marriages

The currently absurd and confusing disagreements about the validity and desirability of “gay” marriages is an excellent example of the reasons we try to keep religions OUT of our civil and legal life.

First of all, we need to be clear that marriages are a mixture of religious observance and civil contract.  We need to separate these two elements, which in this case are clearly incompatible.

The civil contract aspect of a marriage is relatively clear as to content and purpose.   It amounts to have a legally binding contract between two people which ensures that their common interests (such as in property and legal obligations) are spelled out and recognized in the law.  The civil contract is important and is recognized by the state as legal and binding.  The rights of each partner are spelled out and are enforceable under the law, as anyone who has been through a divorce can tell you.  The rights of the partnership itself are equally spelled out and recognized under the law.  This includes the right to raise children, to incur binding legal obligations (such as a mortgage), to own property as a couple, to have health care, and to determine the disposition of common property in the event of the death of one of them.  The couple agrees to share their income.  The rights of a surviving member of the civil union are protected as well.

This is purely and simply a business partnership, as far as the State is concerned, and is recorded and regulated as any other partnership is.  The advantages of this partnership are obvious.  The State has some limited rights to exclude some partnerships as being against the interests of the State, such as prohibiting marital relationships between members of a family, or that are otherwise considered exploitive.  There should be no more restrictions on this kind of partnership than on any other kind.  For the  State to impose religious restrictions on partnership contracts is a violation of constitutional rights.

The religious aspect of a marriage is quite separate.   Some religions have their own regulations and rules as to what is allowed of their membership.    The church (or churches) to which the marital parners belong has no rights, financial or otherwise, nor obligations to the partnership, beyond what their particular beliefs require.  Religions do not have a right to regulate partnership contracts in any way, since such contracts are legal and protected by the State.  They do have a right to disapprove and even to exclude partnerships that do not fit with their beliefs.

There are several solutions to this problem, which are obvious when religion and civil law are separated.  It should be possible for a couple to be “married” without the approval of a religion.  It should not be possible for a church/religion to limit the rights of citizens to have a contractual partnership, as long as the partnership is made within the requirements of civil law.  Private businesses can exclude anyone they want to exclude on whatever basis.   Public service agencies should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of any religious or other arbitrary rules.  So we would have (as we have now) two forms of marriage:  one civil and the other religious.  The religious option is ... well, optional.

If I own a grocery store I can choose not to sell to red-headed people.  If I am an administrator of an adoption agency, I should not be allowed to discriminate against any group.  This seems to me to be fairly simple and in fact is a primary basis for our Constitutional form of government.  We get into serious problems whenever we allow religious or other personal beliefs to be enforced as a matter of law.  Remember separation of church and state?  NOT an accident. Look for comparison at other countries in which the political powers are allowed to make political decisions on the basis of religious beliefs.  Hasn't worked out ever.  Never will.

One further thought:  The government has been denied the  power to dictate what we believe and how we show that belief.  The government may not and should not tell me that I as an individual have to treat everyone equally.  As a functionary of a government or public agency, however, I do.  To prohibit hateful speech would be a denial of our first-amendment rights.  Just because you think my speech is hateful does not give you OR the government rhe right to prohibit it.  The First Amendment was specifically purposed to allow  unpopular and even hateful beliefs on the ground that truth most  easily arises from the conflict of ideas openly expressed. In that regard, note the exact IP address of this blog.

How to stop being angry

I have written before about chronic anger and its consequences. Our readiness to fight, both as individuals and as a country, has cost us dearly, both financially and in terms of personal unhappiness and loss.

In this brief note I would like to consider how and under what circumstances we might be willing to stop being chronically angry. We should also give some thought to the real-life consequences in our personal lives of simply stopping being angry as a response to every situation.

Anger is always a response to frustration. On the most primitive level it is a way of giving notice to our caretakers that something is wrong that we ourselves cannot correct. The hungry or wet baby demanding attention is the simplest example. We learn at the very earliest stages of our lives that rage can bring resolution, comfort and relief at the hands of something or someone outside ourselves.

That same mechanism endures through life. Exactly how we express our rage and frustration varies in its sophistication, but never departs from its basic nature: a demand that the external world arrange our relief or satisfaction. It is also an acknowledgement of our own experienced helplessness. We demand that others/the universe relieve our pain and grant our needs, and in the act we acknowledge that we ourselves are unable to provide that relief.

Sometimes the very expression of our frustration, intended to bring us relief, itself stands in the way of our getting what we want. Screaming at your mother when you are hungry works fairly well when you are one, but much less so at age 16. It is the expression, however, that requires modification; the underlying need remains the same as it always did.

I recall stubbing my toe on a rock as a child, and the anger I felt, which led me to first kick the rock, which hurt worse, and then to throw the rock as far as I could. My anger was at an uncaring universe which I could not control. My powerlessness increased my anger, and I reasserted my power by first kicking and then throwing the rock. I doubt if all of that prevented my toe from hurting, however.

We get angry when people and things don't do what we want. In the primitive parts of our brains we expect that anger itself to result in changes to meet our needs. Rarely does that work. But how do we drop the anger reaction and find more effective ways to get what we want? Sometimes the anger is at situations or people who no longer exist. In my work,  being angry at an abusive parent or ex-partner who no longer is alive is a distressingly frequent example. We cannot turn a dead abusive parent into a loving one.

One of the key elements in dealing with chronic anger is that it contains hidden at its core an element of hope. Anger is our earliest form of magic, and we never quite believe that it will simply not work. Hidden inside us we believe that the anger will cause the other person (or thing) to change, especially when we don't have a clue as to how to make it happen ourselves.

A friend once confessed to me that he was often (or chronically) angry at his girlfriend because she was unaffectionate and unromantic. However, when he expressed his frustration and anger things did not get better, but rather worse: she kept her distance and avoided his company for a while. On the one hand he understood that his anger and sulking did not make him more attractive or desirable. It certainly didn't spark any romantic feelings on her part. At the same time, he felt that not letting her know how he felt meant that she wouldn't know he wanted her to change. He felt helpless to get what he wanted. He recognized that her feelings about him were not in his control, and to some degree not even in hers. But the element of  hope he felt encouraged him to keep trying, in spite of its futility.

We know when someone important to us is showing anger or resentment toward us it is because they want something from us. It's easy to feel defensively angry in response. We can get caught in our helplessness. What's the alternative?

Sometimes we have to give up hope that we can get what we need. That's not an easy decision to make, but without it we cannot grieve for what we are missing or have lost and begin to move on. Our anger can be an avoidance of grief. Indeed anger is considered one of the early stages of grief, even though it is clear that it is a separate emotional response. We don't want to accept our loss.

But perhaps some losses should not be accepted. Accepting loss and grieving for what we don't have is not always a good answer. Grief involves a acceptance of an unchangeable circumstance, but passivity is not always useful. Sometimes we need to be assertive and even angry to fight for what we want, nor just accept the situation. America would still belong to the British Empire if we had not done so.

It's hard sometimes to accept that there are important things in our lives that we cannot change. It's hard to know which things should be fought for and which should be let go. This latter is a discrimination that can only be made cognitively, not emotionally. "Moving on" always requires grieving.

IMAGINARY DIALOGUES: WHY RELIGIOUS LEADERS NEVER MARRIED

It occurred to me recently that in at least two of the major religious groups in the world the founders of them were unmarried.  I wondered how their lives might have gone if they had had family responsibilities.  Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) was married briefly, but left his wife and children to become enlightened.  Jesus (as far as we know) was never married, although we don't know much about him from his early adolescence to age 30 other than his worker as carpenter when he  took teaching.  So the below is a set of imaginary dialogues.

Mrs. Gautama:   Sid, did you remember to take out the trash?
Siddhartha: No, sorry.  I was busy thinking.
Mrs. G:  You’re always busy thinking, but the trash won’t take itself out.
Siddhartha:   I know, I know.  You’re right.  (Gets up from under the bo tree and gets the trash)
Mrs. G:  And while you’re out there, see what the kids are doing.
Siddhartha: OK, OK. (leaves and returns)
Mrs. G:  When are you going with me to the market?  I can’t carry all the food myself.
Siddhartha:  Whenever you want.
Mrs. G:  “Want?”  I don’t “want” to go, but we all want to eat.  Not that we can buy much with the money people give you.
Siddhartha:  I’m a teacher, I take what they give me.
Mrs. G:   You need to be more assertive, Sid.  It’s all very well for you to be so… so peaceful and all, but we have to live on what you make.
Siddhartha:  Maybe you should try just.. letting things go more.  Peaceful is a good thing.
Mrs. G:  It's a good thing for YOU.  "Peaceful" don't feed the kids or do the laundry.
Siddhartha:  What do you want me to do, for God’s sake?
Mrs. G:  Like I get a vote.  You’re the man, make a damn decision.
Siddhartha:  I made a decision.  You just don't like it.  (goes out and slams the door)

Jesus: I’ve got to go, honey.  The guys are waiting for me.
Mrs. Jesus:  That’s right, leave me with the kids to manage.  Just go on.  Be with your buddies.
Jesus:  It’s what I have to do.
Mrs. Jesus:  Don’t give me that crap.  You do what you want to do, you always do.  I get tired being stuck in this house with the kids, you know.  You get to get away with your buddies.  I don’t see what’s so important about hanging out.
J:  God wants me to do this.
Mrs. Jesus: So you say.  He never told me.  I got your word that God talks to you.  When’s he gonna tell you that you need to be a mensch and take care of your family?
J:  My family is the whole world.
Mrs. Jesus:  Bullshit.  THIS is your family.  The rest is just a bunch of people who like to sit around with you and talk politics and religion.  They wouldn’t know the real world if it bit them in the ass.
J:  (comes back in the house).  You’re right.  Sometimes I lose perspective.  I tell the people to give to Caesar the things that belong to Caesar, sometimes I forget that some things belong to the world and some to the family.
Mrs. J:  Damn straight.  (turns, opens the door to another room, looks in) Junior, you stop teasing your little sister!  How many times I got to tell you?
J:  You listen to your mother!  God wants you to be nice and love everybody.
Junior:  I gotta love my yucky sister?  Not gonna happen, Dad.
Maybelline:  Daddy, make him stop!  (she cries loudly)
Mrs. Jesus:  I swear, I don’t know what to do.  You handle this.  I’m fed up.
J:  (Sits down next to the children).   I’m gonna tell you a story, OK?
Junior:  A good story?
J:  Sure.  It’s about a Good Samaritan.
Junior:  Has it got any talking animals or crooks and people with weapons?
J:  No, no, it’s about a man from another country who’s a good guy.
Maybelline:  I don’t want to hear a story like that.  They’re BORING!
Junior:  It’s OK, dad, I’ll just go work in the shop.
Mrs. Jesus:  Jesus, don’t you let him go out there with all those tools!
J:  Stay in here, Junior.
Mrs. Jesus:  (to Jesus) And when are you going to make some furniture to sell?  We can’t live much longer on what people give you.  You got a trade, you’re a good carpenter.  So make something, for God’s sake, and maybe I could sell it in the market and we get something good to eat!  Jesus, I’m tired of pottage and gruel
J:  OK, OK, just lay off me.  I got things to think about.
Mrs. Jesus:  Think all you want.  Just get off your butt and do something!

Manipulating our own emotions

The two disorders most commonly treated in the field of mental health are anxiety and depression.  Depression is always a disorder;  there is no degree of depression that is healthy or beneficial in any way.  Anxiety is different in that respect.  High levels of anxiety, especially in the absence of any real threat, is clearly dysfunctional.  Very low levels of anxiety, however, are not healthy either.

For instance, walking down a dark alley at 2 am jingling your keys and whistling blithely is probably not in the service of survival.  We need some anxiety to make us wary and watchful. In the absence of any anxiety at all, it would be easy to forget to make sure your doors are locked at night, or that you have changed the batteries in your smoke-detector.  A small amount of anxiety can "motivate" you, or at the least trigger your attention to potentially difficult situations.

We use anxiety to push ourselves (in the absence of cognitive motivation) to take precautions against over-spending on unnecessary items or not paying our income taxes.  We make ourselves mildly uncomfortable to get ourselves out of our comfort zone and take action when it is useful.  We do this by imagining potential problems in the near future, which triggers an anxious reaction.  For instance, we tell ourselves that if we spend too much, we won't be able to make the car payment and that the dealer will repossess it.  That thought arouses our anxiety, and we then make a plan to do something about it, and as a result our anxiety decreases. Or we might tell ourselves that having too much to drink at the office party might result in behaving badly enough to affect our employment, so we decide to limit ourselves to one drink.

Recently a patient told me that when she hasn't had any fun or excitement for a while, she begins to get restless, and thinks about "going  shopping", which is always fun for her.  Her income is extremely limited, and she is aware that if she spends much money she could have a serious problem in meeting her bills and rent.  So she tells herself something like the following:  "It doesn't matter if I spend too much, I can always work it out somehow.  It will be fine! Stop worrying!  Nothing bad will happen!".   As a result her anxiety drops.  Since she has always used her anxiety to control herself (instead of cognitive decision-making) there is now nothing to stop her, and she spends recklessly.  

Most of us use our anxiety to limit and control our behavior, so when we drive our anxiety down through denial and rationalization, we lose our limits and our willingness to control our behavior.  The more we rely on emotion and "motivation" to control ourselves, the more unsafe and unwise our behavior can become when our anxiety is too low.  Of course there are other ways to lower anxiety below the useful point:  we can drink too much or use drugs.  Even under these latter conditions (drugs and/or drink) we have used self-talk to deny the negative possibilities resulting from drinking or using drugs, so our anxiety-provoked defenses become non-operative.

An alternative is to make cognitively-based decisions.  These are decisions reached through rational and non-emotional thought.  They require data-based information and accurate appraisals of possible outcomes.  When we need to make a decision, we can set our emotions aside and consider the real issues and potential outcomes, not just what we want to imagine. We can take  a longer view of possible outcomes and consider them as well.

I remember telling my children when they were in the early years of adolescence that the time to make a decision about sexual behavior was at home in the afternoon and sitting in the living room, not in the back seat of a car after kissing and fondling for an hour or when under the influence of alcohol.  Emotion-based decisions are always remarkably short-sighted. That's fine when you're choosing a movie to watch or a flavor of icecream.

Group Prejudice

I believe that much "racial" prejudice is not racial at all.  It seems much more likely to me that there is developing an increasing conflict between socio-economic classes, specifically the middle- and working class people and the "gangsta/rebel" groups.  I say groups because they are belong to all "ethnic" groups in all kinds of neighborhoods.

The gangsta-rebel groups function like all groups.  They emphasize differences between those within their groups and everyone else.  These differences are deliberately exaggerated and are intended to antagonize those in other groups.  Their language, dress and behavior are deliberately well outside the bounds of what the middle-class groups would find acceptable.  Even their music flaunts vulgar language and concepts which are alienating to those outside their groups.  Consider "rap" music, droopy pants, caps worn at a specific angle, public language in songs and on stage, and public behavior:  all designed to antagonize and alienate, thus emphasizing their refusal to belong.  They feel that they refuse to belong rather than that they are denied admission.

In general all groups tend to emphasize their differences from other groups.  The "gang" mentality existed long before gangsta garb and behavior was so public.  If you can't belong to a desirable group, you can refuse to belong, and in that way take more control of your life.  "I don't want to belong to your group" is better than "I'm mad because I can't get it".

There are larger and larger segments of our population that are excluded from middle-class socioeconomic culture because of the economy and the difficulties the impoverished have in obtaining a decent education and well-paying jobs  Yet they like all of us need to belong.  The less they have, the more they "need" each other.  The more different and antagonistic they are, the more the middle-class have reasons to exclude them. The more they are excluded, the more difficult it is for them to get the education and jobs they need.

The system becomes self-sustaining.  I need to be different because I can't belong;  I can't belong because I am different.  The middle-classes exclude them because they are rebellious and "different. And so the alienation and antagonism grows.

The police are seen as the enforcers and hirelings of the middle classes.  They are more the "enemy" than the protectors.  The lower classes become more excluded and powerless, and the groups within them become more important and stronger.

The saddest part is that we attribute this group rivalry to ethnic issues rather than seeing the rebellious and resentful issues that group rivalry itself causes.  The gangsta groups tend to be associated with the ethnic groups to which a majority of them belong.  We mistake consequence for cause. We lose sight of individuals for the suit they are wearing, which is at least in part what they wish.

Trust and infidelity

Many times couples come to see a therapist after one of them has had an extra-marital affair.  The question asked (usually by the wronged partner) is "how can we rebuild our relationship" which usually resolves into a different question:  "How can I rebuild my trust in my partner again?"  Of course, the answer is that you can't. The wronged partner will always have the knowledge that their  partner broke their word and obviously is capable of breaking it again.

The reason they struggle so hard with this question is that it is the wrong question.  As asked, it  is unanswerable.  There is no way to undo what someone has done.  No amount of apology or explanation or resolves to "do better" can change the past.  An important contract between the two people has been broken.  It cannot be repaired, but a new contract can be forged.  "Forgiveness" is not the issue, because you can't stop knowing what you now know.  However, grieving is painful, and resentment and anger are "easier", so sometimes the question is:  Is the wronged partner willing to let their anger go, grieve the lost "trusting relationship" and build a new one?  That's not a simple or easy question.  What's important is to recognize that there is nothing the unfaithful partner can do about it.  Trusting is ALWAYS up to the truster.

It is important in ANY contract to know what are the conditions in which the contract is broken, and what are the consequences?  When this issue is addressed AFTER  the contract is broken, the genuine issues as to consequences are heavily overladen with emotion:  anger, grief, fright and sadness.  It is much more healthy to make such decisions about the contract at the start of the serious part of the relationship.  One should ask (and be asked) what are the "deal-breakers?"  Finding out what the consequences of a broken contract after the contract is broken is very difficult.  Boundaries are best defined before they are broken.

But be that as it may, answering the "right question" is difficult in a different way.  The right question (or questions) for the wronged partner are something like:  Do I want to continue this relationship, even though it has been damaged?  If so, under what conditions do I want to do this?  And what will be the boundaries?  For the unfaithful partner the question is more on the order of:  What kind of contract can I keep?

It must be recognized that trust is a gift given to the other person, not something that must be earned by them.  The trust you give to someone is your gift to them.  Once broken, there is nothing they can do to repair it or get it  back.  Trust is up to the truster, not the trustee.  The truster must make their own decision, knowing their partner, whether the relationship is worth trying to salvage.  The old relationship is forever changed.

Trust, once broken, is no longer salvageable by promises or even good behavior.  One can, however, be clear about the conditions under which the relationship will be continued, if it is to be continued.  The power in the relationship is now in the hands of the person who was wronged.  The old relationship is dead and must be grieved.  A new contract must be written, and a new relationship built with eyes wide open.

Of course this is possible, though difficult.  The key to the success of such a project is at least partially dependent on whether the parties know clearly what the conditions of termination are.  The partners both have to recognize that they are helpless to protect themselves against the possibility of dishonesty, and there is no assurance that it will not happen again.  They are starting again, but this time knowing a little more about each other, and hopefully knowing what and where the boundaries are.

Bearing Witness

As I look backward over a long life-time, I can see what seem to me  important changes that have lowered the quality of life.  I want to discuss one of these with you with the hope that you might have the ideas that could lead to change or perhaps just to help me understand this issue better.

One of the changes that I  notice, probably because I'm a  psychotherapist, is that with the increased splintering of family structures and the increasing distance in relationships, we are each more alone than in the past.  Many people in my age bracket (antique) grew up in families where at least one parent did not work but remained in the  home.  Children had more supervision and attention and also had more opportunities to learn.  In addition, they had someone to whom they could turn when they were troubled.  Now they turn to each other, with frequently disastrous results, especially if they learn to medicate their pain with drugs.

I think that we seem to be losing the sense of having someone in our lives who understands us and our problems, who is kind and sympathetic but who does not direct or chastise.  I think of my grandmother, for example.  She did not offer to solve my problems, but she knew many of the things that troubled me and understood them.  It seemed to me important that this occurred, and even now, so many years later, it still seems important.  What she did is what I call "bearing witness".

I recall while away from home going through an especially troubling conflict which left me anxious and grieving.  I was sitting in the lobby of a hotel, trying to gather my thoughts.  A good friend who was staying in the same hotel was passing by, stopped and looked at me closely, and said "You look troubled."  I agreed that this was the case.  He sat down and said "I don't know what troubles you, but I think I will just sit here for awhile with you."  And he did so.  I experienced this as both very kind and also helpful in ways that are hard to quantify or explain. Yet the experience remains vividly with me over 40 years later.

The experience is similar to "sitting with" someone who is grieving.  They don't need problem-solving skills or "reassuring" comments.  What they (and we) need is someone who is willing to bear witness to our pain and to treat it with respect and tolerance.  I believe this is a very important thing that humans can do for one another.

It is this "bearing witness" that I believe we are losing.  More and  more often I find myself as a therapist simply bearing witness to the pain of another.  The issues are not "therapeutic".  They are simply the need for someone in pain to have that pain recognized and respected.  Since they are unable to find a grandmother or good friend, they hire me to be their witness.  The most important thing I can do for them is to be quiet and wait with them, not to attempt to comfort or problem-solve in a vain attempt to minimize our own discomfort with their pain.  Distancing ourselves from those in such pain is not helpful.

What a shame that we are reduced to hiring friendship or a quasi-uncle to provide for such a simple and basic need!  We shouldn't have to hire a psychotherapist just for simple human contact.  Nor should we think all our sorrows should be managed by changing our attitude or taking a pill.  Unhappiness is not an illness or a neurosis. It's just part of the human condition.

A Mother Answers a Five-Year-Old's Questions About God (Part One)

I have a number of grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and the conversations I hear and imagine between mother and child are fascinating and frequently take an unanticipated turn.  The following conversations took place on a road trip, which is often a place where extended conversations can take place.  It's clear that parents who have not anticipated and prepared for these questionings can find themselves getting in deeper and deeper.  (I made a note of a couple of spots that proved problematic). So here is the first of several installments.7

Does God have a peepee?
Yes, honey.  We know that because God is a man, and men have peepees.

Does God have to pee?
I don't know.  I guess so. (This is  where she went wrong, I think)

Does he have a toilet?
No.  He pees into the clouds so that makes rain!.

Does it get on us when it rains?
No!  He pees over the oceans so it doesn't get on anybody.

Does he drink water?
He can drink anything He wants.

Where does he get stuff to drink?
He probably sends his angels to get some for him. I think there is milk in the Milky Way.

Do they go to the store like we do?
No.  I think they get it from the sky.

Can we see them get it from the sky?
Sometimes you can.  They look like a streak of light, because they go so fast.  Some stupid people call them 'shooting stars'. But they're angels getting milk for God.

God is real big, isn't He?
Yes, of course.

So his peepee would be real real real big too.
I suppose so.

Would it be bigger than Daddy's?
Oh yes. Definitely. A lot.

At this point snickering and outright giggles from other passengers brought this particular interchange to a halt. A brief halt for beverages and gasoling intervened.  After the break the same two people  are involved in the subsequemt conversation.  I think it should be clear by now that making things up as you go along can be a lot trickier than you might have thought, and the conversations take you to very peculiar places when they are not planned.

Does God wear clothes?
I think so.

Where does He get them.
From the God Sky Store, I think.

Does He have to give them money?
No. It's His store.  It's the God Sky Store.

Can we go to that store, the God Sky Store?
Maybe when we get old and die.

Dead people go to the God Sky Store?
Um, yes, I guess they do.   (This turned out to be a mistake, I think)

What do they do there, the dead people?
I think they put things on the shelves so God can find them.

Where do they get stuff big enough to make clothes for God?
Way, way out in the sky past the stars is the Big Stuff Place.  That's where they get it.

Does it grow there?
Yes.  They grow Big Stuff and they sew it together on Big Machines for God.

So when we die do we have to go to the God Sky Store and work?
I suppose so.  Either there or the Big Stuff Place.

I don't think I want to go there..
Well, you have to.  We all have to.  It's just the way things are.

How do you know?
They told me at church.

How do they know at church?
I think God or one of the angels told them.

Have you ever seen one?
No. But they told me they did.

Do God and angels talk to some people and tell them things?
Yes.  That's how we know these things.

Did God ever talk to you?
No.  Not really.

Did an angel talk to you?
No.

Just to other people?
Yes.

Why not to you?
I don't know.  I suppose you have to be very special for God or an angel to talk to you.

I wish I was special.
You are to me.

But not to God?
No, I guess not. But everybody is special to God.  Just some people are more special than others.

Does God only speak to the Special People?
Yes.  It's always been that way.  And the Special People write it down and they tell us.

How does God know which people are Special People?
I don't know.  I think the Special People must be very very good people.

I've been very very good.
Yes, you're a very good child.

But I peed in my bed once.
Yes, but all children do that.  That doesn't make them bad.

Even Baby Jesus? 
Yes, even Baby Jesus.

I wish God thought I was special so He would talk to me.

This discussion definitely took an unforeseen turn.  I plan to listen carefully in the future and make better notes.