"Where ever you are, be there!"

 The title is good advice for living in the moment and experiencing all your life, fully.  It is a great goal for those that worry about the past or the future constantly to the exclusion of current sensory input.  The image of the vacationer sitting on the beach with his or her work computer tapping away with a grimace of concentration while the rest of the family is laughing and running and having a good time is the perfect example.

I do think we might  be at a period of total breakdown as far as "living in the moment" is concerned.  It is becoming a time where parties only need enough space for everyone to sit and talk or text or surf the internet.   Family dinners, funerals, weddings, church---everywhere that we previously considered "being there" to include physical, mental, emotional and spiritual interaction with the others attending are already being disconnected by texts/phone calls, sudden photos, and don't forget those people so self-absorbed that when they aren't talking, they are surfing the web for their next thing to say.

Does it matter if we only interact electronically? Maybe--maybe not.  I don't enjoy a lot of chitchat, find most conversation gossipy and boring, am too opinionated to tolerate a nod-session with someone determined to change my religious, political, or latest news item beliefs.  It ends with me sharing my opinion back.  I figure if you are going to take my time I'm going to get some of yours back.

Some experiences are worthy of total immersion, though.  Texting for other people's feedback on a painting in a museum instead of looking at the painting, searching for birds on the net while out for a nature walk or talking to the bff while  attending a school lecture are all examples of times to be in only ONE place for best enjoyment of the experience.

We have all heard about the multi-tasker, "I can do six things simultaneously without a problem", "one thing at a time bores me"  "I'm just being efficient".

OK, (this is the person that can't just listen and nod, i'm showing up for the dance)
1.  It is not possible to do six things simultaneously.  Our brains will start one thing, then another, then another, but attention is not going to stay on 6 things at once, its serial not parallel.  Those six things are getting 1/6th of your attention each, and if they are simple and you are very familiar with them, you may be able to juggle them successfully.

2. If you are bored with one of the things you are doing, quit pretending.  If you don't want to be there, leave.  Don't volunteer to go with the family to the museum when you want to go to a game or a club or whatever it is you think would be less boring.  Believe it or not, some people like the museum or the zoo or the family dinner and don't need to watch you not being there.  Be honest--"I have other plans" is fine.

3.  Most people doing six things simultaneously are doing a bad job at all of them.  Some people may only be doing a bad job at a couple of them and an average job at the others.  No one is doing a great job at all of them. 

If you are the mother of 4 with a sick parent and a job, I am sorry for your situation.  If you are the mother of one with a job and a tablet and a smart phone,set some priorities.  Who is most important, what is most important and do I need to be on the phone and the web twice at the same time while the 3 year old wanders into the street and the boss calls to see why I'm late and the husband yells for clean socks (you may notice that I hadn't mentioned him before,--men find your own socks, your wife is not your servant)

The point is.  If you are paying half attention to everything, all the people in your life know you aren't there with them.  You become an absent parent, an uninvolved employee and a MIA spouse.  And when you are old, alone, wondering where the years went--are those memories of texting and surfing really going to help you through the years?

We all love the net.  But when it is more important than everything else, when it is consuming, when your hand is constantly reaching, well that sounds a lot like addiction.

Think about it.

on not being me

When working chemical dependency units, I always heard talk about the reason moving doesn't help.  You can't leave your problems behind because "where ever you go, there you are".  Twelve step programs have a bunch of those little homilies.  I liked some of them because of that off-guard, "sound of one-hand-clapping" zen thing.

And it is true, if you are the problem, all the moving in the world won't fix it.

But I would like to take a little trip from being me, and don't require a change of geography.  Not just go somewhere no one knows me, by myself, no expectations about who I am or how I am or what I should do and usually do and never do.  That does sound nice, though.

What I really mean is a break from my reality.  A totally new perspective in which I don't have to consciously push aside the wisdom and prejudice of my ancestors, teachers, preachers, past reading, past movie watching, past relationships---you know, everything that came before and created who I am right now?

I'm not at all sure that wouldn't leave me more brain damaged than free.  Who am I without any of that?  a newborn?  an amnesiac?  no one?  I don't know, but I can never truly understand another person through my own life filter.  I can never just do something that I have never done before without all the stuff that kept me from doing it before, weighing on my mind.  If we are talking about a horrible crime, that is good, but what about going to a supper club alone in the evening, never have, my parents never did, and truly didn't think females should go anywhere alone after dark. I have worked many night jobs and made many emergency trips in the dark alone, but never just for entertainment.  It wasn't that I didn't feel safe so much as it seemed "not me".

I have ignored a lot of the prejudices and tried to find the wisdom that was truly worth keeping, but how do any of us ever know for sure that we are basing our lives on current thinking and not just memory loops.  I here the crap I heard as a child, about "the wrong part of town" and the "wrong kind of people", how scary people of other races or cultures or with mental illness, how strange the practices of some people are--eating grubs or pig intestines or monkey brains, while they nibble on their lunch of tamales or lasagne or curry--foods my own father called the foods of "those people".

None of that is real.  People eat--they have to, and people have a religion-or at least beliefs about why they are here--and I think as humans we also have to have that, and we wear clothes, and have rules made to protect the status quo, rules to control the behavior of those not in power.  Rules.  We all have rules.  And they may be good or stupid  or evil or archaic, but they are there, and by being there, we all incorporate them into who we are in some manner.

I knew people that even as small children fight every rule.  Their first word is still dada or mama, the second year it is "no" and then they go straight to "why" and never stop.  As children, they are annoying, but perhaps we all need to keep a little of that.  Why is a good question for just about everything.

So every time I want a break from myself, I try to get a little alone time, and ask myself why until I'm OK with just being me again.  If I do it right, I'm an improved me, with less garbage and more answers than before. And if I'm not truly free of being me, I don't need a neurologist and diapers, either.

Guess I'll save not being me for the next life.

king of the mountain

When i was a kid and a group congregated near a mound--usually sand, but dirt, gravel and even hay counted, we would play "King of the Mountain".  The rules were loose, frequently shouted out as whoever was losing tried to make it a fairer game or give a winning struggler an advantage.  The dynamics of the game changed with the group composition.  If it was just those of us from the very close houses that played together every day, it was pretty low key.  we would try to gain the top, but would also help the littlest or most unathletic up there with us.  We also were prone to grabbing the arm of a friend that lost their balance and started to slide or tumble back down.

When the group was bigger, more unknowns, more diverse, then the game was more serious.  At that point, those children most likely to get hurt were frequently relegated to cheerleeding or moping on the sidelines.  The bigger, stronger children pushed and shoved to reach the top and hold it, friends only helped good friends and only if it also benefited them. 

See?  Children do understand politics.

The stranger part was actually what was happening on the sidelines.  While the biggest bullies, the most likely to try to cause injury, or cheat, or otherwise "not play fair" were always contenders, the smallest, weakest, least likely to ever even make it into those tougher games, almost always aligned themselves with the very people most likely to call them names and give them pink bellies and exclude them from everything.  Only rarely would a sidelined child root for the kid that was playing hard but fair and struggling to win using the friends only rules.

So why do we we powerless folks chose to follow those people we see as having power?  Why do we turn them into stars, heroes, leaders?  Do we not know what they are?  Or do we somehow believe that by being on the winning side, instead of on the loving side or the righteous side or the nice side, that we will get that helping hand, that friend pull-up, the advantages of the meanest, toughest, bullyingest person that is winning.   Or is it just an attempt to feel powerful by association?

 We see it today, in "grown-up politics" and the reward is usually money and power and a bunch of followers that are following, apparently thinking that because they are voting for them, they are part of the winning team.  It doesn't matter that their own family is struggling under that harness just like those that are not on that team.  Loyalty to the home team always beats out smart and right. 

I never really understood loyalty.  I understand love: unconditional love, blind love, but loyalty  based on love, isn't it just----love?

Loyalty is supposed to be both unconditional and blind, unchanging and unjudging?  And for a group or a cause or a party or a team.  If that group, cause, party or team stops meeting my ideals, why would I continue to be loyal?  I realize that is called "turncoat" in times of war, but I believe our revolution was full of people that changed from loyal to the King to fighting for the freedom of the colonies.  If loyalty to something was a true life committment, we would still be a part of the UK.

Loyalty seems to be more about group identification than love and understanding that is tough.  Our first group is our family, our families tend to identify with some larger family/extended/cultural/economic/religious that has rules, dogma, "Us vs Them" identifiers.  I think we are currently calling people that are holding tight to that mentality, "haters".  I can see why that blind loyalty and exclusionary focus could be seen as hate--it is definitely not love.

But just because we can identify the "haters" doesn't mean we aren't participating in it.  People that have been excluded from the ruling power structure  have their own power structure.  The ruling group tends to criminalize their structures and condemn their loyalty to their own groups, frequently playing on the idea that if they aren't loyal to those criminalized groups, they can become a part of the mainstream ruling group.  That is a carrot that many have tried to get but few have found to be fully as tasty and nutritious as they had been led to believe.  (wondering? drug cartels, gangs, criminal syndicates, etc, etc, etc, power structures that make money, employee large numbers of people that are not considered employable by the shakers and movers of the ruling class, they protect their own, defend against those that threaten them and are very loyal)

I don't know how we stop people from blindly following those they see as strong.  I we get people to see that all those little arbitrarily drawn lines around the various group affiliations are just that, lines.  Not walls, not cages, no more than those lines we drew in the sand when we were children daring someone to step over it and see what they got.  (I always crossed that line, I thought it was funny. An ant could cross that line, and what did it prove---apparently I was off from birth)

But truly, how are any of us different?  We all love.  We all believe that what we believe is the truth .  We all believe that our way is best.(who ever did something because we thought it was the 2nd or third best way to do something---ridiculous) and we all look sidewise at people that call our beliefs into questions.

Perhaps, instead of always searching for our differences, we would be better off finding our similarities.  (My granddaughter is working on compare and contrast--more compare, less contrast)  We all have needs, the basic needs of food, water, shelter, safety, the opportunity to continue our genetic line, the opportunity to participate in a social life and find companionship, the need to feel good about ourselves, the need for cognitive stimulation/aesthetic surroundings, and the need to accomplish something with our lives. (yes Maslow, I stole you stuff)

The point of that list, is that a person without food or water or shelter doesn't try to fix anything about the world except those three things, acquiring food, water and shelter, and a person who is being shot at is not going to paint a beautiful painting.  A person that is stuck thinking they are a worthless piece of garbage will never be able to accomplish anything with that life. 

Globally, there are sooooooo many people that can't get past the bottom of that mountain.  Maybe it would be better if we chose people to lead that were at the top of this pyramid instead of the bullies on the dirt hills.

Think.
Empathize.
Question.

Activists, Idealists and Fools

There are a lot of causes right now, not just the standard "give to your favorite illness research team or college foundation, but the kind of causes that want more than just money; they want time, they want heart; they want a commitment to come out and march through riot gear and volunteer in countries under police action--frequently from more than one set of policers (?is that word?) and they want people willing to die for their causes.

That sounds amazing, but the activists on the opposing side are frequently called terrorists or criminals or rebels or fools.

Activism has occurred at different times in our nation's history and usually in clumps, with long stretches of time with almost no activity and other times when there are so many activist level causes being heard from,that keeping them straight is tough.

Globally, there has been little time with no activism.  There is a war, a rebellion, a call to action, a call to return to our roots or reclaim our heritage or get fundamental about our religion, somewhere about all the time.  By country, though, I think everyone gets about the same, a period of activism with a calm lull (some places have longer or quieter lulls than others).  Amazingly, we are currently having a lot of countries on the same biorhythmic wave right now.  Maybe that is because the internet is making us all more in-sync, sort of like the dorm where all the women start to share a similar menstrual calender.

While activism is rather cyclic, Idealism is a steadier and more subtle thing.  There are always idealists, and they don't all share the same ideals, but they do tend to share the same heart, a heart in which right and good and better and what it means to be human and what it means to be alive are both definable and hard to actually find in the real world. Idealists are usually thought of as pie-in-the-sky, building sand castles in the air, non-productive, and useless.  But while the Miss America candidate speeches about creating world peace by buying every little girl a barbie is always seen as an idealist, the Ayn Rands, Adolph Hitlers, and Dalai Lamas are also idealists.  They have a view of the ideal world and they were (are) all three pretty effective at working toward their ideals, or getting others on board to work toward their ideals.  Reality is, most of those big religious leaders, and political changers were idealists.  They believed they saw what the world should be like and shared their ideals--whether to the improvement or detriment of the world.

Not everyone is an idealist, though most people can develop an ideal of how the world should be.  Frequently it hits like a little bolt of lightning or the iconic lightbulb over the head.  My own father, a man none to found of reading (he limited himself to books on car repair and animal first aid and the occasional tool use guide, once woke up and decided he had to write a book.  He knew the whole story, got a steno pad from my mother and some pencils, and started writing.  He worked on that for a number of days, made it through most of that pad, then the writing stopped.  He never told us the story.   I have no idea of the story involved an ideal world, but Gestalt is "for real".  Brains and ideas are funny.  Activists don't have to develop the ideal, they are just as likely to work toward someone else's original ideal as their own, but they do need to believe the ideal is, well---ideal.
So, where do the fools come in?  Well, I am an idealist, and have woken up with many ideas about how to improve the world, but I am no activist.  I am more of a nester, or perhaps a hibernator, although certainly not a hoarder---though I take the 3-R's seriously (not those 3 r's, and its A-rithmetic, not rithmetic).  I'm only as active as I have to be; a turtle not a bunny. 

Perhaps I'm one of the fools.