Chimps Exhibit “Innate sense” of Right and Wrong? I Don’t Think So..

I have been pondering this for quite some time. What does it mean that if you put two chimps--or capuchin monkeys-- in cages and play the" task reward" game with them, then start changing game, by giving a desired reward to only ONE chimp—visible to the other—giving a grape instead of the previous (and previously acceptable) cucumber? See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J-QksPnyWI and also this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo

The videos show the grape deprived capuchin quickly starts throwing the cucumber back at the researcher. People I respect seem to be convinced this shows that these monkeys have an “innate sense of fairness.” (In fact that is the title of one f the videos.)

This has been used to comment on how we may need to change in divorce proceedings-- a subject I have a strong opinion about and enormous experience about. (I agree w do need to change them-- alas the humans do seem to act like these monkeys in adversarial family fights--but to use this as a bases for "fairness"?  Heaven help us!)

The conclusion that this video proves humans have "an innate sense of fairness"  has felt wrong to me from the first moment. It seemed to me what this (very limited) experiment showed was that chimps, like children, were given to temper tantrums. After all, the cucumber and the grape were both gifts or rewards—no one had any “right” to get either one. This is a sort of game, and by throwing the cucumber away the chimp made sure s/he got NOTHING. Unless, of course, as has been posited by some, the chimps are training the researchers as much as the researchers are training the chimps.

If that is the case, rejecting the undesired reward is quite logical. Show the researcher what reward is desired and you will get the desired reward. If this is not the motive we have a real quandary: we have a dogma that says all sentient beings (and unsentient ones)  seek survival. To reject food is in  no way a contribution to survival. How odd that no one has sought  to understand the basis of such a peculiar act!

To know the limits of this choice—and narrow the possibilities of  what explanations  fit the data—we would have to do many more experiments. How hungry will the chimps need to be to keep whichever piece of food they get, sweet or not sweet? An hour? A day?  Two days?

If the chimps refused the less desired treat to the point of death, we’d have a very large conundrum indeed—although humans seem willing to do so. (We have always called that “ego”. So do we assume chimps have “ego”? Maybe they do.)

As to the sociological implications of these “grapes or nothing” experiments, we need to decide do we assume childish behavior, because it can be found in non human primates, is the basis of all human behavior? I say no. Yes, children have temper tantrums when they don’t get what they want. (Yes, divorcing adults often do too.) But there are many bases, aside from “unfairness”,  that mandate that not every child, chimp or adult can get her desired food, toy, court decision...etc.

What of a child (such as I was) who has food allergies? What if my  sister had had a tantrum when she  wanted what I ate? Or more likely, what if I had had a tantrum when I could not have ice  cream, and she could? No one would argue that such tantrums were a behavior to be permitted or encouraged-- nor one which demonstrates a moral foundation of temper tantrums.

It is also critical to note that some cultures consider everything they have to be in the nature of a gift—not a “right”. In such cultures different results take place in studies where when one gift must be divided. The second recipient—who gets only as much as the original receiver/divider of the gift decides to give—will gladly accept it. In “rights” based cultures, the second person will often reject the windfall if they feels is isn’t “fair. Like the chimp, the recipient takes NOTHING—rather than a less desired result.

I  have trouble with basing morality on that thinking, personally. In fact all spiritual teachings have sought to bring out the second way of living in the world—accepting all we get as a gift,  rather  than a right, and being thankful. Both theist and non theist teachings have taught this.

So I vote not to make the chimps our teachers. I vote to make a higher state of gratitude the resource of choice—not  temper tantrums.

HSPs, family... and Truth

Dear J_________:

I had a very amazing, dream, illustrative of my enormous growth, just this morning (Thursday)  so I decided to write this. Now I have decided to blog it, as I know (OK suspect) I overwhelm you with words, and you may not even read it. So here it is on line. It’s too bad our family dynamics are so entrenched, but I cannot change that.

All my life I always wanted to help everyone. I did, and I do-- quite a lot. No one knows most of these stories—but I do. I wish I had a witness  (that was you. I thought.)

Until very recently I thought this was a symptom of my messedupness. I have “always” known I was messed up. Until the last few months SOME part of me was messed up.

I tried so long and so hard to get my mother and sister to love me, so very unsuccessfully, and child self was always and forever trying to get them to love me. (Maybe this is a sort of “Stockholm syndrome.)  I appeased them so much, so unsuccessfully that I just unconsciously assumed that my helping, doing things for all and sundry, WANTING to kiss every booboo and make it better, was all part of the appeasement/needy/kick me syndrome. Still... I kept doing it, and felt... well, more messed up--but at the same time it felt RIGHT to be me, and I knew "me" was made that way. This was VERY confusing.

Now that I really understand the HSP condition (and have interacted with many many HSPs) I am clear it is part of that package. It’s a good thing… but can be dangerous. It was for me. Still, it was who I was. I it who I am. Did I mention this was confusing? All I wanted was to give, and to be loved, and to be seen—but it just didn’t work. (Notice I said GIVE.  I could not ask for help or love, or_____--and worse yet, I kept it away… Just as Marge did, but somewhat less so, I think. Except for David. David loved me. Loves me, now and forever.)

Still, even as I began to grasp what I was up against with the family—with help from a terrific therapist—I could not stop trying to appease Noël—and (I now see... you.)  Back in the 90s I had begun to see that there was a problem and I had begun to try to be seen through Noël’s projections. I didn’t know what any of it  was then—I just sensed she never saw me or spoke to me—that something was “off”. I described it this way: I said “My experience of our communications is that something is phony.” It made her go ballistic, of course. I emailed her—she snail mailed me a letter where she said a she was not a string of things I had never thought—let alone said. Even then I knew this was her ‘stuff”—nothing to do with me. (Please note I addressed actions—not her qualities or her value as a person. But clearly she felt attacked—but in ways she herself believed secretly were true.)

This is a lot like you just did—although you never admit to feeling anything and you are less invested in it than Noël. But, “I am not a hairy women”? Where on  earth did that come from? Not me. I have some ideas what that equates to in terms of shadow and anima… but I will mostly keep my mouth shut,as I always have with Noël. (I don’t just up and tell people things they don’t want to know, unless they are paying me to. Unless they have ASKED for my professional opinion. Or... misstated the truth...that will do it. I confess.)

The point is I was struggling to understand me and get out of the pit of being and feeling “bad and wrong.” But as hard as I worked on it, as hard as I worked on me, I still felt defective for so many reasons. And what I secretly thought... "they" said. Ouch. Funny how that works. Now tghat I don't think this stuff... no one says it.

Anyway, off and on I gave up on Noël. (I have cut many people out of my life when they turned on me. It's an HSP thing.)   Even at Summit they seemed to be telling me to give it up with Noël… but I didn’t. Not really. Not from 1984 when I started at Summit, and not until 2007.  But because I had never heard of HSP, I felt there was something wrong with me—or why would this keep happening?  So much evidence that I truly was defective. (What I was --I NOW KNOW-- was a) HSP, b) traumatized and c) full of shame.

Anyway, in 2007, when I felt the best I had for a long time—ever, really  (this was before he economy started to go south and my law practice with it) I said to her “can’t we just bury the hatchet?” She said no, she “doesn’t trust me.”  (Hatchet murderer that I am.) So I gave up again for 3 more years. Her old boyfriend sort of gave me permission, bless him.

Then in 2010 she “wanted a sister”—I was at your house—so she reached out. Wrote to me. Of course, although I have always suspected she wanted something from me she would not ask for,  this was OPENLY and  purely for her own benefit, for her own ends. With trepidation and your encouragement, I tried it. I tiptoed, I walked on eggs…I APPEASED. Of course it didn't go far. Of COURSE every detail had to be on her terms.  Soon enough, she did one of the things I am not OK with, so I ended that "phony conversation.” Since then, recently, she got snarky with me on the genealogy web site, so  we had one more brief interchange—same tune, same outcome. Her terms--her accusations. Not OK with me.

She swears I  did terrible unspecified things to her in our childhood. (or some other time?  I did ask what I needed to know about that I had done wrong, in 2010... she declined to answer.)  I apologized her, but she has never apologized to me--ever.

In my mind, from here in, she an I are not  related except by blood. By accident. Our shared history never connected us as wee have two different recollections of every bit of it. Now the same is happening with you. Apology from me, attempts to be seen and heard by you... No dice. You see what you want to see--and what you see isthe problem is always......... me. NEVER you, or anything you did.

Last week you started a conversation,  on YOUR terms…  Alas fr you, I am different then I was when you saw me last--  am not needy. I an not willing to appease or please you. So, you have decreed...no conversation shall continue. Your decision-- I get no say. A decision that 100% DISEMPOWERS ME. No, you don’t accuse me of the things Noël accuses me of—just (suddenly) of being manipulative and emasculating.  But I reponded, I am sure to your displeasure, that you are the one manipulating me. "EMASCULATING" ME. (!)  BY THE WAY--this accusation by you that I was (for the first time in the 40 some years we have known each other,  "being manipulative and emasculating" did not trigger, bother or upset me in the least ,as a there is zero truth to it. It hits no nerve. It just one of those "Where on  earth did that come from?" things.

During my visit to Vermont, I first became aware YOU were projecting onto me. I didn’t dare stand up to you,then, except a few token efforts--but those were a lot for me in the state I was in.  Now... this. You gotta see this is a pretty amazing (dare I say shitty) way to “resolve”, understand, love or... well, do anything that would heal the family curse. The family wounds. To heal ANYTHING in relationship terms. 

As they say these days... "Seriously?"

Now that I am recovered from all the trauma, and now that I have had that huge breakthrough and lived with it for a year,  now I can see how much I was always appeasing you and how much I HAD BEEN appeasing you for years. I confess this is a form of manipulation-- a covert attempt to get something. I needed to feel there was someone who loved me, who was there for me, so I appeased. 

Manipulation is when you want something from someone and won't just ask for it outright. We both grew up with mothers whom did this, so it is  very hard to be otherwise. So, yes, I did it—instead of asking for love I tried to get it by kissing up to you. I did. I almost never spoke up when you were all wet or of base. (I won't go into detail as it will just piss you off. In fact, I am pretty sure that lack of appeasement is 99% of what is causing you to be angry and project that anger onto me now.)  So, OK-- in a sense that I can be said to have engaged in manipulation. 

But at long last, I can just ask for what I want. (God this feels good! That is why--or how-- I just flat out asked for an apology—which started this whole mishegas of you calling me manipulative and  emasculating.) I don't expect to GET it-- I just need to ask straight out--NOT be manipulating.

That huge breakthrough, during my year in the hotel in San Juan Capistrano? I stood up to a sociopath who was trying mightily to manipulate me…(while I was driving. Winging it. Don’t worry; I was on surface streets, in an intersection going VERY slow.) I did it!!!!!!!!! I stood firm. NO guilt, no doubt, no fear—I told him what MY terms were. I did not give an inch.

When I got back to the hotel I said OUT LOUD—“Carroll—I think you now have on board SSS—Sociopath Survival System.” The final clue that I did have SSS was that that that night I had ghastly,violent and disturbing nightmares. None like them before and none since. SOMETHING in me thought if I stood up to this type of behavior I would die. I broke through that barrier, and part of me—that protective part—was violently alarmed. But it seems all the years of work I had done was enough to allow the old, false protector (and false identity) to die, overnight, and it did. it dies. It's gone.

It has been over a year now and I have not had any more sociopaths. One guy tried some ugly stuff (Him:"Are you gullible?”  Me: “No". Him: "Blah blah blah  (translation "yes you are”.  Me: “Keep this up and we’re done”. Him: " Blah blah..." Me--end of conversion, end of date.

Later, my friend Ai-Ling pointed out several clues that he was a controlling type.  Multiple calls on my cell in one hour, the strange way he drove me back to Sedona when I had clammed up... Clues. Thanks Ai-Ling! Anyway, he was outta MY life real quick. Now when my inner witch-–my "don’t you mess with me thank you very much”--comes out it is ON PURPOSE. MY CHOICE. This feels WONDERFUL.

One more thing about HSPs—we “cut people out of our lives” when they hurt us. I have done this for years. As usual, I thought it was just me being messed up—until I read about the HSP “world”. I read so much more about HSP. I see now I am JUST an HSP—and I see how this applies to our relationship. BUT FOR our long history and but for our BEING FAMILY—(and my really  having no family)-that I would have just cut you out of my life already. I have been so close.

But I see it is now time. We cannot communicate—and there is no way resolve this mess. When you began this recent conversation, my first observation was that you had, for some reason, chosen to frame it as not having to do with our family. For whatever reason you chose to frame it as “man woman stuff.” I knew  that was not the issue,   but if it facilitated discussion I was fine with it—until you wrote and accused me of “venting” when I not only was not angry but had said not one thing that could be described as venting.  (If you look at when I WAS angry with you I ALWAYS signed off “your angry cousin.)

Oh, yes, I said things you didn’t like, but that’s a whole ‘nother animal. That’s calling you out—maybe even fighting. Fighting fair is HEALTHY, just as some anger is healthy. You said plenty of things to me you knew I didn’t like. Mean things. That was OK according to you—so—when  you did it. Now finally I am able to do it. Only I am not being mean—I am not kicking you when you are down--I am just telling it like it is.

I see the problem. Problems.

1. Like Noël, you decree the conversation has to be on YOUR terms—or else.

2. By doing that, by ending the conversation you started by saying you would  not talk to me because I was “angry” and “venting”, you were “cutting me off at the knees”. (Especially as I can't stop doing what I didn’t do. Oops—that’s emasculation… for wo/men. Can you see the irony here?)

3. You were probably angry, because God knows I wasn’t. (I am happier than I have ever been; happy people don’t do angry.) I wrote what I did to you earlier, when I WAS angry, because I needed to speak my truth—but that was lifetimes ago. It was a very important part of me TAKING BACK MY POWER. (And signing it "your angry cousin.) That worked. Then seeing the addict part was the end of the anger, and a HUGE part of my healing.  So no—as asinine as you are being, I am still not angry. In fact, I feel sorry for you. Sorry—I do.

I almost was angry when I realized what you had done—and yes, what you are doing IS manipulation, and yes emasculation and PROJECTING—but then I realized it was just time to give it up. Cut you out of my life. You are my closest kin, as Noël is a truly lost cause, so that’s still hard to do. But I can do no more. I can’t change you—but I can say goodbye to you.I see no hope of actual communication.

This is not to say you did not help me in some--many-- ways. You absolutely did. And I did my part in the dysfunction—I did stay mum when you were wrong-over and over and over. I was (As I have mentioned too many times by now) appeasing you. In a certain sense that IS manipulation. Nothing meant to hurt or disempower you—but plenty unconsciously meant to KEEP you from abandoning me. This too may be part HSP stuff.

I needed you.  I didn’t know any other way to be or act with someone I needed love from. With family. I still don’t. (Nicky and I don’t interact this way—I think he was the “designated patient” in your family and he never projects. But I imagine I will lose him now, too. Just like with Noël and the kids. I hope I am wrong.)

There is no hope for us. I thought there might be—I dared hope you would take what I had written about the maiden to one of your men and talk. Look inside.  Do your shadow work—as you felt free to tell me I should do, back in our disastrous Fall of 2010. It is our only hope. (I have done mine, for years,  and will do continue to do mine. I can’t do yours.) Us HSPS have an advantage here--for good or ill.

Yes, I HOPED you would really own the facts I pointed out to you--CALLED YOU OUT ON—like that you “can’t be wrong”...  but you are wrong.(As we all are, by the way!)

Facts like… what you think is me is  your stuff in your shadow. Facts like that I never demanded anything from you, or manipulated you or emasculated you—that that is your stuff. Facts like that I have in fact grown more than you. Facts like am not the mental picture of me that you have in your head.

I HOPED. Because YOU started that conversation I really thought maybe we could deal in truth—that stuff that sets us all free—and then be real friends. But then you cut off the conversation because it made you (angry and) uncomfortable, so… No dice. Not possible. That is never going to happen. Ergo, I have reached the sad conclusion that we cannot be in any relationship as it is hurtful in the extreme to be treated thus—USED-by you as a screen for your stuff. It’s wrong. And it’s unproductive.

I HATE that in MY life family is a source ONLY of pain… but it is. So--- unless you can own your stuff—this is “so long.”  Any time you find it in yourself to say (even ONLY to yourself) “I could be wrong”—you know where I am.

Archetypes And Individuals—Confuse Them At Your Peril!

The New Yorker Magazine dated September 10, 2012, has an article about the latest thrilling development in “feminism”— a book which mythologizes the vagina. ”Vagina: A New Biography “ by Naomi Wolf. (Page 96) reviewed by Ariel Levy. Levy does not buy Wolf’s theory, for reasons that don’t match mine in the least.(She says if  someone said  “Goddess to her vagina it, would say—and I quote: “Get us out of here, now.” Emphasis in original.)

There are many problems with mythologizing a body part, which I will address from a Jungian perspective—but the first thought I had reading this article is that the actual  biological function of the vagina (and its related structures--such as the uterus) were completely ignored. One would think this alone would be the answer to the question “is this an accurate assessment?"  But this quirk seems to have been unnoticed by the publisher and the reviewer. I can't speak for the readers. If any.

In the same edition of the New Yorker, mere pages away, (page 101 to be precise)  is an irony—a note, a brief review,  which acknowledges the archetypal. This note reviews the book “Orpheus”-- “The captivating "history" of the figure of Orpheus, his enduring legacy as the force and muse of creation itself.” The book and the  review are fully premised on  the persistence of archetypes. Why then, does the Wolf book review seem oblivious? You may well wonder… I know I do.

The problem with the book (based on the review—I have not read the book) and it’s rather exaggerated adulation of the vagina as “part of the female soul… and.. gate way to knowledge…”  is that the book (and the review) overlook utterly the critical distinction between the individual and literal and the archetypal and collective. The essence of the feminine can be embodied in the “vagina”—many of the earth-based religions left representations of the vulva (a gateway to the vagina) which remain to this day. But the vagina is only part of the female (soul or body) and it has a very real, very specific biological function.  (This function  is, you might say, intimately related to the uterus. Without the uterus, the vagina is quite literally deformed. And not useful except as a receptacle for sexual actions. Which is--again--but a truncated part of its purpose, and a creepy thought to boot.) “Wolf refers to a ‘profound brain-vagina connection’ but sometimes suggests that the vagina is, or ought to be, the rightful site of mission control.” (Sic.) If your brain goes "tilt" at this point, you are not alone.

The difference between the vagina and the "female soul"  is similar to the distinction between the “uterus” (a biological structure) and the “womb”—a word almost always used to allude to  or incorporate a symbol—a trope. (“The place in which anything is formed or produced: the womb of time. 3. The interior of anything.”) No one says “the uterus of time.”

Symbols are very like archetypes. They say more than can be expressed with a single word—they contain universes-and universality. A single body part is...a body part.(Give me a hand” can be a trope, meaning “help me”,  but it will usually require a literal hand.) . Again-- the uterus is not so referred to. EVER. Nor is the vagina. “She is such a vagina.” No. “Uterus to grave”? No. 

Sorry folks—the vagina does not represent a whole woman, let alone an archetype.

The blindness to existence of archetypes, and the confusion of  the literal and the symbolic  seem central to the issues discussed under the heading of “feminism.” For instance,  the distinction between pornography and erotica—discussed in the book, and the review..

Pornography” is almost always  about male wishes—the wish to have orgasms, to be precise. (The orgasm is always shown—it is called the “money shot.” I have always wondered why. I guess someday I shall have to ask a man!)

“Eros” is the life force, and erotica is about the life force as well. That same life force  which Wolf (oddly) ascribes to the vagina “Eros appears in ancient Greek sources under several different guises. In the earliest sources (the cosmogonies, the earliest philosophers, and the mysteries), he is one of the primordial gods involved in the coming into being of the cosmos.” The origin of the cosmos-could there be anything more fundamental—or engrossing? No “money shot”  here. No “finale either. This is process, circular and ongoing. (Maybe this pisses men off?)

Note there is no god “pornos”—rather,  the word derives from the Greek to “to sell: “Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornē prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey”.

Selling vs. life. Money shot vs. cosmic origination. A quantum of difference, wouldn’t you say?

And yet… none of these is necessarily in need of a “vagina.” (If you don’t believe me watch gay porn, anal sex or even fellatio and cunnilingus. )

What gives here? Why is “vagina” suddenly, in  isolation, an object of obsession?

I truly don't have a clue. But it clearly is.

Comments welcome!

What you Resist Persists: the Evidence is Persuasive.

 

Most people read this statement: “What you resist not only persists, but will grow in size” by Carl Gustav Jung and go “huh? We commonly resist the things we don’t like. We fight wars on cancer, on drugs, on obesity. We deal harshly with allegations of “domestic violence”—about which more later.

Most people think that to fail to resist these things is to condone, to them permit them or to advocate them.

It’s not. It is simply true that what we focus ,we picture,  we give emphasis to , we give energy and form to. It is a relative of the well known “self fulfilling prophecy.” Some of this is pure brain science—some of it is the mushier science of psychology. What it is NOT is “woo-woo”-- although the purveyors of woo-woo have annexed it and given it a bad name. It is found in wisdom writings, many of which are “religious”. “I say do not resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also” (Matt 5:39). Forgot that one, didn't you? That's OK-- most people do.

But I promised science.  So what is the “science”? Well, let’s start with what we notice. We are bombarded every day with stimuli—if we attended to all of them we’d be overwhelmed. (Some say this is what happens in the brains of those with the brain anomaly called”autism.”) “Giftedness is a neurological difference just as is autism in its many flavors.” Brain differences are key in  what comes in and how much control we have over that--and our reactions.

So how does our brain assist us to attend only to what is worth attending to? It has a system called the Reticular Activating System. “Attention is the mental process in which a person concentrates awareness on a specific object, issue, or activity and excludes other potential stimuli ^* from the environment. While the human brain has amazing capabilities for processing information, it also has limited capacity. A person cannot attend to all the information being received through the five senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch) at any one time.” See” What Parts of the Brain are involved in Paying Attention?”

So what we tell it to attend to it lets in—and what we focus in is thus attended to. Buying a new car? Do you see that model on every commute? Thank your RAS. Far from home and missing that special someone--and "seeing” them in strangers? Probably also the RAS. We see what we look for. We have no choice. If we look for, say,  Domestic Violence (or “satanic rituals”)  we will see them. For example, the Salem witch trials—or more recently, the infamous McMartin Preschool case. “After six years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990. When the trial ended in 1990 it had been the longest and most expensive criminal trial in American history.^[1] The case was part of day care sex abuse hysteria, a moral panic over satanic ritual abuse in the 1980s and early 1990s.” Psychologists looked for memories in suggestible children—and viola! They fond them. None was real. Not one.

Also, our minds run on pictures. Try to picture a “not carrot.” It can’t be done. When you read the word “carrot” there is an instantaneous mental picture.(Dare I say if you verbalize  disease, a picture also forms??? or "being fat"?) This has consequences. (Bear with me here.)

Athletes who train by visualizing their performance often do better then those who practice the activity physically. Their visualization is key to performance on the field as well. “Mental imagery involves the athlete imagining themselves in an environment performing a specific activity using all of their senses (sight, hear, feel and smell). The images should have the athlete performing successfully and feeling satisfied with their performance.” Is this starting to make sense?

As you can easily intuit here, visualizing the poor performance would be highly counterproductive. The picture is an instruction to the body. If the athlete kept playing the error over and over, the body would obey. What he resisted would persist. What he gives focus and attention to is the DESIRED outcome. It works. it has been PROVEN to work.

Thus is also true--that not resisting WORKS-- in Aikido, a martial art based on not resisting an attack. Yes—NOT resisting it— (and not ignoring it) but redirecting it. Using these principles one can –if one is skilled enough—win against any attacker who uses force against you physically.

(The abov eauthor wrote: “Author’s Note: Within days after writing this essay, the United States retaliated against terrorist attacks on its embassies. To some, this surgical use of force seemed appropriate and justified. To others, more specifically the opponents of the United States, it seemed to be a provocation, a challenge, and the second shot fired in a potentially escalating conflict. As of this writing, security throughout the United States is being tightened. Airports are being carefully watched. Tourists abroad are warned to be cautious. Right now, we don’t know what will happen next. I believe that the next step for Aikido students everywhere is to find a way to apply Aikido’s philosophy to global conflicts.”  (Emphasis mine.)

Ironic note—that was BEFORE “9-11” and for all we know that catastrophic attack was in part a result of these earlier “resisting” actions. We resisted. The terrorists redoubled their efforts. We feared—now fear is our daily lot. What we resisted… persisted. Persists… to this day.

A brief look at history will show the fact that the “treaty of Versailles” (which was enormously punitive to the Germans) seems to have led to WW II. “The total reparations demanded was 132 billion gold marks, which was far more than the total German gold or foreign exchange. The economic problems that the payments brought, and German resentment at their imposition, are usually cited as one of the more significant factors that led to the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.”

What is enormously resisted causes enormous opposition. An enormous investment of energy. It results in... more of what was resisted.

This works with dieting as well. What we resist—food we want—becomes an obsession; weight lost though will power dieting is regained—and usually more as well. The 1972 Andean ordeal of the Uruguayan soccer team is also an illustration. Deprived of food, these people became obsessed with food. They dreamed of food. I became obsessed with thirst, wanting water to drink, as a child, after a hurricane be cause—the electricity for our well was out. I focused  on thirst. The mind can be very perverse.

It’s human nature---but it is not helpful. And yet,  it is real. What we resist persists, what we picture or obsess over because more real and more difficult to live with. And yet we persist in dong this.Many if you are already arguing with me as you read this.Perhaps most.
 
Another example, which I discovered when a college friend told me he had it, is “paruresis”—the inability to urinate when watched. (Only a problem for men as far as I know.) It is 100% ”body/mind”  based and anxiety driven: “A person can be anxious in situations because he perceives a threat even when there is none. His emotions are aroused because of his perception of the condition or situation that he feels traps him.” (Emphasis mine.)  If the fear were not causing more fear.. there would be no problem.

Does this mean you are “to blame” if you have this sort of experience?  No. As I say it is “human nature,” but I think we know a lot of “human nature”  is far from ideal. We teach our kids not to hit each other,  or anyone. (We teach them  not to urinate when they feel like it!)  We teach virtues which are not “human nature”--truthfulness, compassion, forgiveness.. all that “higher” nature stuff.

So what you will be if you can master the art of non resisting is… able to respond-- to respond  differently  to the stimulus you cannot control. Responsible. But not “blameworthy.” Just more skilled.

Is this easy? No. Is it worth it? I happen to think so. Have I mastered it 100%? HA!

But I see how many ways people and society would  be served if the concept were better  understood….  Society needs to learn to focus on HEALTH—picture  HEALTH—not send out messages which are about this or that disease. Every mental picture  sends commands TO THE BODY. The body obeys. This is called epigenetics, and it, too, is real.

Men are now hit with TROs based on mere allegations of "DV" (domestic violence)  when an angry ex files. (These really are usually women.) This TRO stays in their records for a LONG time even if they did nothing "violent". (I have seen allegations of "staring.")  Or if they did NOTHING AT ALL. The TRO can be dismissed-- but it stays there in the CLETS database and can be seen--will be seen-- by employers..The results of false allegations are a form of violence to these men-- emotionally--and can hurt their ability to obtain work. This does not reduce "violence" --it increases it. it is.. violence increasing by focusing on it. (Yes-- I  know this is "heresy" to those who advocate this system. Truth often is!)

So as they say in math --quod est demonstradum, Thus is is proved.

This is why I have pulled together a lot of stuff I know, here. It is  an effort  to make sense--LOGIC-- of the “non intuitive” concept—"what you resists persists.”

Resist away! (Or not.)

Family… Friend or Foe?

I suppose that sounds like a strange question. But I really want to know.

My family is small. When I was very young there was a “nuclear” family of four--Mom, Dad and 2 girls. My father's parents lived about 25 miles away but that was a long way and we didn’t see them much.  My grandmother was born in 1885, and Grandpa Price in 1876 so when I was say 6 or 7 they’d have been well into their 80s. They were born before electricity and cars. They lived in a world I cannot recreate. All I remember of them was that we were not allowed to run in the house and they didn’t say much. Oh—and they served me tapioca—a strange food I was VERY suspicious of. (What WERE those strange lumps??) And the rule was “you eat what’s set before you.” The only other thing I remember was my grandfathers’ shirt boxes. I think there must have been something in there for kid to play with. Alas,  the internet yields no clues. All I know is his shirts came laundered and folded in these boxes.

In any case, as you can tell we were not close. These were very religious people, Christian, Southerners, of a long gone era—and it probably didn’t help that daddy had married not only a Northerner… but a Jew.

My mother was eccentric and somewhat exotic—and as far as I can tell carried much baggage from her parents, and probably all the horrors their  family had endured in Russia, from whence they had emigrated prior to their arranged marriage. She had no clue what a good marriage was—and my father was eccentric in his own way by the standard of his very conventional family. He had been married and divorced when I was born--and did the same things again before hus third and happy marriage. (NO ONE else in that family had ever divorced. I know--I am the family genealogist.)

So, I remember very little about time spent with that side of the family. An occasional Thanksgiving get together at out place in the boonies. Barely knowing my cousins, Deanie and Becky. Then the divorce, and no more contact with Daddy's people.

My mother's family all lived in New York and Connecticut but spent winter in Florida so I met them. Not warm, fuzzy folks. No kids.

My mother did not get along with her sister and in any case she lived in Holland. My mother did get along with her mother either so I met her maybe twice. She lived in Majorca, Spain.

Are you getting a picture? As to me and my sister.. I remember playing outdoors with her. But I don’t remember any love. I remember pain. I remember confusion.

Now I occasionally talk to and write to my aunt—Daddy’s sister who’s still alive and well, and I saw Deanie once years ago. I  get along really well with one cousin on the Bonime side, but talk to him seldom--he's just like that-- and am pretty well unwilling to talk to my sister or other cousin.  My father's side of the family devout Christians all, are always kind to me and NEVER criticize. My sister (and the cousin that  used to talk to a lot(  can't stop criticizing me. (Which is why we no longer talk.)

I‘m not married because I seem to be too messed up to manage it, although I have been loved. Once, probably twice, really-- but the first time I was too young to get” it. I have friends who  seem to think highly of me-- think I am loved. My family does not seem to like me OR love me.

Is this what all families are like? I don't think so—but what do I know? I watch TV show "Brothers and Sisters" and people describe this as  a “dysfunctional family” but to me they seem pretty functional. They may fight, but they know it is always family first, no matter what. Looks like love to me!

My mother is dead ages now, and we made peace before she died. I re-found my dad in 1985 and we were close for the 5 years we had before he died. My half sister (Daddy’s side) calls sometimes and sometimes we talk for hours and hours.  She never criticizes me. In fact NO ONE on Daddy’s side ever criticized me. And no one at all seems to have the God awful opinion of me my family does, on my mother’s side.

Is this normal?

I truly have no clue.

A Different set of thoughts

My mother died very slowly. I can’t remember what year she was diagnosed: I don’t even know how they diagnose emphysema (or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as they call it now.) Looking back, the signs were there—increasing use of the inhaler she had for”asthma” and the bronchitis. The signs may have been hidden by her frequent of steroids for ”bursitis.” (She spoke of these things—I have no idea who diagnosed what.)

She smoked. A  lot. Sadly, she stopped once (cold turkey) when I was a kid because the routine chest X-rays (required for teachers) had shown a spot on her lungs and she had nasty surgery. I swear I remember the fact that the doctor  told her (she said) “it wasn't caused by the smoking Marge”. And so she started again.

No, she was not addicted. No one knew nicotine was addictive, back then, and we seem to have been genetically resistant to addiction, as a family. How do  know this? Well, when she was finally diagnosed with COPD she again stopped cold turnkey. I remember she was royally pissed that it didn't help in the least—but there was no difficulty just stopping. We have strong genes in my family.

I was in California by the time this diagnosis was made, so this would have been the 80s’.  She was probably terminal by the time the diagnosis was finally given to her, and she retired from teaching. There was  no hope--she was dying. There is no cure for COPD, and few treatments. We were told of none.

Finally, it got bad enough that she could not live alone--way out in the boonies--so my sister and her husband arranged to buy the house next door to them in Evanston and move her from Florida to Illinois. Not a choice she was on board with, but she was helpless.

She had lived over 40 years in that eccentric house built by my father, tucked away in the piney woods outside Tampa. Decades of books and probably precious 45 LPs of Woody, Leadbelly  and who knows who else. I remember editions of “Gargantua and Pantagruel.”  A.A.  Milne books, “The Wind in the Willows”—classics, 40-50 or more years old. Who knows what those books might have been worth…?  I know things of value were just ditched. (I spirited away a Federalist mirror which was later said to be pre Civil War. I had a little help from my friends.)

I was supposed to drop everything and come help move her, but there was no internet then--you can’t just leave a law practice for an unknown period of time.  Years later,  when I went to help with Aunt Gertrude, late in the 90s,  I stayed in touch  via the Internet and even took on a new divorce mediation. But not in the 80s. She was not understanding…. And I was not able to do much, or rescue much.

All I can say for sure is that at some point after the move was somehow completed, we were told that “any insult” would kill her. That means any cold, any injury—any upheaval to her system. If my sister knew this—which is how I knew--I am sure Marge did too.

Imagine what that must have been like—a death sentence… but at a time no one could predict. No one. No help for the slow suffocation except an oxygen tank—life became  a day by day decline in brain function due to lack of oxygen; a  slow deterioration of lung function until every breath was a fight. Every single breath. And every day there was nothing to do but think about it. Reading became impossible—all she had left was the television and the visits from the grandkids. And… her thoughts.

Now that I am old enough to know certain things will never happen in my life, I can see this better than I could then. Then, I still had so many possibilities--I looked forward, and I did not think back on my life. Now I do.

She must have. She must have pondered her marriage and how it ended. How we two girls turned out. The things that had brought her to be dying slowly, cell  by cell, and dependent on others—a cruel irony, as she had always wanted to be taken care of… but not like this. No dignity and my sister resenting, more and more every day, the added burden. Of course none of this was said. But I can imagine.

She never did get a single cold. I can’t tell you the exact number of years--but a lot. Long enough for me to come to realize there was no pain she had caused me that was not because that same pain had been visited on her. It was an epiphany I was able to arrive at thanks to the human potential movement. (They scoffed at me for doing  so much come to grips with her death when it had  not happened yet, but that turned out to be an enormous blessing.)

I never said a word to her about this shift inside me—but she knew. I could tell. I DO remember that it  happened after my divorce and after Daddy died, so I know it was 1990 or early 1991. There was a  phone call I remember (after the workshop where the epiphany happened) when I was living in the magical house. I was sitting in my home office, so full of light,  looking out at the wonderful yard.  I could feel that she knew-- the knot of tension that I had had at my core was gone--that hurt and probably rage I had  had… was gone.  That is a memory I will have forever.

Not long after, I had to  take an job at a law firm – with  no husband, I  needed more income—and thus I moved back to Orange County to start the new job.  Out of the magical house into a condo of maybe 500 square feet. I left my beloved kitty to roam free in Tujunga—I could not coop her up and leave her all alone for 10—12 hours a day. It was November 1991.

When my brother-in-law called we both knew time was short. She had  had a stroke,  a very small one. I already knew I was not going to let her die alone. I think she lived alone. For all she was so tight with my sister, I know there was a lot of rage. (Maybe both ways--but my sister felt free to vent. She was furious. At me, at my mother, at the care giving.)  So I got on the next flight out and flew out to O’Hare to do what I knew was needed.

I arrived over the weekend—and called the firm Monday morning to say where I was. By then she had died (time had indeed been short) so I knew I would not be gone long. They had no criticism, no beef… but I had, somehow, known that, too.

The day after I got there, maybe Sunday, I awoke in the wee hours to check in and I saw the end was near. I lay down beside her, and was there when she passed. (I wrote about that in the late 90s  and it was published in “Soul Moments”  by Phil Cousineau.) I noted the time of death and called next door. It was over.

Yes, she knew... It was to my sister that she turned to tell her story, to make sure someone  knew who she was, and that someone saw her in the waning days… but she knew my sister was angry and she knew I was not. So it was I who had the honor of being a witness to her passing and I who received the gifts that came from being with her as she transitioned to that place where there is Peace. (I felt that peace.)

Even Noël knows, on some level, that I had managed what she had not. She said so when I drew a picture which was part of the small ceremony we had after – there was no body, per my mother’s wishes. She said “I’m not there yet.” She had not forgiven. I can’t ask if she ever did. We can't discuss such things. We can’t discuss most things.

I may never have anyone to tell my story to before I die. Maybe my witness will be the internet. But she knows. She knows.

SCOTUS SHMOTUS!!!

I was gob-smacked when I read that Chief Justice (whatever is wrong with him anyway) Roberts had provided the swing vote and written the plurality onion UPHOLDING the ACA. (I refuse to call it Obamacare” as that is meant to be a sneer and a smear.)

So I downloaded the decision--all 193 pages of it. Now I have read Supreme Court decisions before. My law school had us do that. Not hornbook excerpts—entire decisions. So I should have been able to manage it.

Ha!

It is byzantine. Some of it MIGHT have made sense but for a few minor details....like the fact that it gave a whole new meaning to the phrase “tortured reasoning.” A distinction between being in commerce by an action and supposedly NOT being “in commerce” by not having health care "insurance".(A rant for another day.)  Now, that is specious on so many grounds.

Ground 1: NO one stays out of the “health care (really “illness care”) market by choice. They are out of the market because they—we --DON’T HAVE A JOB!!! We are unemployed,  underemployed or self employed.

Ground 2. Most folks have to get some form of heath  care, even if only by going to an ER or a nearby clinic—as I used to do. Like when my cat got attacked and I (in rescuing her) got badly scratched--and badly infected. I paid out of my pocket—but I was “in commerce” as to health care. ALTHOUGH I DID NOT HAVE “INSURANCE”. This man--Justice Roberts--edited Harvard Law Review. Am I to believe he does not see this distinction? Did he glue his eyes shut? I kind of of of hope so, because looking at himslef in the mirror may be dicey.

Anyone with kids knows they get sick. They need  vaccinations. Women need annual exams, pregnant women need health care. Menopausal women need HRT, mammograms, bone scans, the whole megillah. All this is part of everyday life—not some discretionary “shopping” activity. So we are "in commerce"in health care insurance or no. How-someone tell he HOW-- is this a legal decision we are supposed to respect? From the HEAD HONCHO???  [I]individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product” indeed. UNWANTED. What planet does this eedjit live on???

Then there are facts he made up. “ And for most of those targeted by the mandate, significant health care needs will be years, or even decades, away.”  Roberts opinion page 33. (No amicus brief cited—no research no data—just “fiat facts”. Boggled yet? I am.)

 
Let’s parse that, shall we? Who are these great unwashed---er, uninsured--that will be "mandated"  but not need any “health care”. Would that be seniors like me without full time jobs? (I suspect we are legion--but he cited NO sources, no data.) Blue collar workers with kids who have crappy-ass hourly wage jobs without “benefits”?  I am pretty sure THEY re legion. (Again, no source...)

The currently unemployed....? MILLIONS. Tens of millions.

All us self employed folks? Or veterans (thank God for the VA) with no service connected disability who can't get eye care or dental care? (but pay for it?)  US folks who don't need the access to health facilities or services?US who don't "want" this "product?” Are not "in commmerce?"

So none of us needs any health care??? Not for decades? (To be fair he is correct that people who are younger and healthier are necessary to subsidize those who are not. But let's say that, for the love of God.)

This opinion is a travesty. And I have not waded though the maze of concurring and dissenting opinions yet, although I have made it part way through the Ginsberg dissent, which DOES cite actual facts.

God help us all.

Feast your eyes on a small sample…

 "The individ­ual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activi­ty. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.

Construing the Commerce Clause

ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts III–A, III–B, and III–D. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV. SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. [Confused yet?]

Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. “Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demon­strated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). [Yay. End of bearable part. Be warned.]

Given its expansive scope, it is no surprise that Con­gress has employed the commerce power in a wide variety of ways to address the pressing needs of the time. But Congress has never attempted to rely on that power to compel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product. Page 24. “ FAIL! see above.]

I give up.