A Simulation Inside a Simulation Inside a....

Don't worry, I am not going to just tell you about a tv show....this will go somewhere.

On an episode of the Adult Swim cartoon, Rick and Morty, the grandfather-grandson team are kidnapped and manipulated by aliens seeking the recipe for dark matter. Rick, being the genius he is, immediately knows that the aliens have created a rich simulation to try to trick Rick into revealing the recipe. Morty, initially confused, goes along with the simulation until Rick shows him the tell-tale signs simulated environments over actual, physical ones. The aliens pull the old "simulation-inside-a-simulation" trick on Rick, not only making him give up the recipe, but it is also revealed that Morty has been a simulation all along. Rick, always one step ahead, actually provided the aliens with a recipe for an explosive reaction, and well, the only aspect he didn't seem to see coming was that Morty would be part of the simulation as well. That evening, Rick, never the sentimental one, gets drunk and enters Morty's room. He hugs him, then pulls a knife, seemingly to test whether his Earth Morty is real or a simulation. Poor Morty is left shaking once Rick leaves.

The other character drawn up into the simulator somehow is Morty's loser father, Jerry. The aliens provide bare-bones simulation for Jerry's storyline, as not to have him interfere with their plans of tapping into Rick's mind. Jerry, his own worst enemy, has a personal breakthrough despite being in the most unoriginal and tell-tale simulation ever. When it is revealed that he's not actually experiencing any successes in his real life, he has a breakdown, cradling a simulated award until, that too, disappears.

The show is completely ridiculous and hysterical, but this episode made me pause. After viewing it, I couldn't help but think about it's reflection on modern society. The "realness" of the virtual experience is great while it lasts - Rick and Jerry both think they're in total control until they realize that the entire situation is predicated on falsehood. They both "break down" in different ways - with Rick's violent outburst and Jerry's self-loathing whimpering rounding out the possible spectrum of human responses to such a setback. We see this in real life too - from the loser, lone gunmen type who shoot up movie theaters and college campuses when they "don't get respect," to the dudes who reject women for not being porn star-esque, to the 33-year-old single women who constantly beat themselves up when scrolling through the profiles of their Facebook "friends" who post pictures of their weddings and babies. But, unlike a full-fledged simulation, which is designed to trick us into accepting it as reality, how do we become so invested in online virtual realities that we know we can walk away from to pursue different paths? What draws us into staying trapped within these patterns?
I don't know - but I am trying to understand why we do this to ourselves. Is the internet a new form of religion? Will we ever be able to break away from it controlling our lives? Is there a technological Reformation in our future? Will there be a Martin Luther of the internet? 

This week, during a discussion on globalization, my students asked me how I survive without a smartphone. I laughed, but they were serious. And I think part of the reason is that I am OK with having to reflect and be alone with my thoughts. I don't need to have constant distraction. Due to my line of work, I am granted the opportunity to see thinking in action. I watch students' faces when I ask a question. For many, they just avert their eyes so that I do not call on them. They are clearly afraid to be left to thinking about something. This is nothing new. However, there is a change in that this look comes across their faces even when they are not posed with a problem to solve. Being left alone without stimulation has become the problem.

In the study hall period, when students can do homework, chat, draw, eat, knit, what have you, many, even if they do sit and talk, whip out their phones and scroll through Snapchat stories, Vine, Twitter, Instagram and/or Facebook while they do. They're partially in a conversation with their neighbor, partially engaged with their virtual world. Why? Well, no more awkward pauses that are noticeable to everyone, because they're all multitasking. The entire scene, to the observer, is one long awkward pause, because they don't even realize how often they're not paying attention to what's going on in front of them. This happens in my office with adults as well - there are some points during the lunch period where 3 out of 6 people at  the table are all of a sudden dead to the environment in front of them because they are so engaged with the device in their hand. It's kind of creepy, actually. I feel like I am just  left as an observer of an alien race. And maybe if I had a smartphone I would be just like that, but I don't, so I am left to just witness it happening instead of partaking in the phenomenon. Let me tell you though - to be in this position is to experience a totally new kind of loneliness. One that makes me want to tweet at the world so that all of my thoughts and observations can be validated by all of my friends and online acquaintances? Not quite yet, but I can understand why that sounds appealing.

And I feel like I've seen all this before, in history, in some form or another, which leads me to ask is there Life on Mars? Check the lyrics and meaning.

A Nation of Wimps

Rant!! Strong language ahead. I do have a point though. 

I recently had a small epiphany about the benefits of taking a gradualist's approach. And as much as it pains me to admit it, the "slow and steady" approach may be the only way to actually effect real change over time. While making pancakes this morning, I was thinking about this and realized my problem with gradualism in the recent past* was that I was conflating it with, to put it bluntly, being a pussy. There is a difference - the gradualist, while critical of the revolutionary spirit, shares many of the same goals as the revolutionary, while the pussy is totally hell-bent on self-preservation. Many times this cowardly individual thinks their inaction is the right course - they're pacifistic, stoic, unflappable -yet, these adjectives are euphemisms for what they really are - a pussy.

Pussies come in all ages, shapes, and sizes. They are not always outwardly meek and unassuming. Bullies fall into this category - fearful of something in their own personalities or lives that they cannot control or change, they seek out a scapegoat over which to exert control, often rallying others around their cry. Historically, there are many, many examples of this type of behavior. Hitler would be the ultimate example - culling favor among the downtrodden, encouraging them to do his bidding, and then taking the easy way out before he could answer for his activities.

Within our own, modern society, the cowardly have gathered the reins, steering everyone toward self-interested activities, breeding fear and mistrust, and discouraging critical thought. A quick look at the top headlines on Yahoo! News or CNN.COM is enough to make even the most vapid among us wonder how selfies, Dancing with the Stars and celeb marriages constitute news in any sane universe. And so we slog on, with these ridiculous headlines and more and more personal uploads of our friends' children, pets and dinners clogging up every moment of quiet reflection we may have. A friend recently said to me, "these are the times we live in now," referring to cell phone culture. I can accept that - to a degree. Why do I have to buy into a culture I have no interest in? If I weren't into BDSM and that suddenly rose to the forefront of popular culture, I wouldn't accept it completely either. I can live with people being on their phones all the time or updating everyone on their every move - different strokes for different folks - but that doesn't mean I have to adopt something just because it's popular and because my refusal to ultimately makes them question their own actions and beliefs. It's similar to the religious right's claim that Christianity is under attack in a country where nearly 85% of the population identifies as Christian. How much more do you want? Apparently 100%. One of us-one of us.

We see the pussification of the next generation starting at an early age. There are a lot of conservative circles that have jumped on this topic - decrying the wussification of America and the loss of the strong, virile men of the past. For the FoxNews crew, their focus tends to be on women (and evil feminists) somehow making everyone sensitive by leaving the house (their natural habitat) and boldly demanding that they be allowed equal footing. Yet, this Psychology Today article explains more of what I am talking about. There's obviously some overlap with the conservative movement mentioned, but the Nation of Wimps argument documents the current focus on shielding every individual from the gaze of the world around them, from judgment even in the slightest degree because it might lead to hurt feelings. For sure there should be accommodations for students with learning disabilities and processing issues. Accommodations for students who climbing the academic ladder, are TigerMom-ed out but cannot psychologically handle it should not exist. It's like finding a loophole in the tax code. My kid gets extra time on the PSAT because she has trouble with gestalt thinking (see Psych Today article). What?? Yes, most children have a hard time with that until they develop beyond a certain age and have shed the myopic, insular tendencies of adolescent thought (Everyone is looking at my pimple! Someone will make fun of the way I read out loud in class! My thigh gap is shrinking!).  By accommodating that behavior, we're continuing to cultivate that tendency. We're infantalizing instead of raising children. Parents hovering over their children, and subsequently anyone who comes in contact with their child (principals, teachers, coaches, friends, parents of their children's friends) has become all too common. The helicopter parent has also started to follow their child to college and into the workforce. Your boss reprimanded you because you were late? Have your mom call and complain. When will the child learn to advocate for themselves? There is a massive disservice being done to this child for life in the name of love (and surely in the name of control).

These trends also occur within the classroom. Modern education reforms (from promotion of STEM careers, to new forms of testing, to ending teachers' unions) smack of the same values. The underlying principles of streamlining and standardizing the student experience from K - 12 ensures that they're ready for the post-high school lifestyle of being a good, productive worker bee in a standardized, consumer-driven market. Their parents can rest assured knowing exactly where there child will be and what they will be doing at all times of the day. I am sure someone is working on closed-circuit cameras in classrooms so that parents can watch from afar at any time (less cute than the puppy cam or panda cam by a long shot).

Children also learn to compete against each other at an early age -for grades, attention from their teachers and for friends. And in the wired, media-heavy culture we have created today, they're also learning how to compare their own accomplishments and qualities with endless streams of photoshopped pictures and unrealistic expectations for beauty, love, friendship, success....(you name it). Some teachers that I work with ration out grades - only so many students can receive an A, B, C, etc - forcing students into a fabricated bell curve. Some even post their students' averages (up to and including decimal points - a 93.3 for Marcus versus a 93.4 for Johnny) in the front of the room so that the children know exactly where they stand, breeding competition through public examination. There's no community in a classroom like that. How could there be? Teachers like that are not guides toward personal enlightenment  and achievement. Their transactional approach of filling students with information, only to have it repeated back to them exactly as it was given, is egoistic and poor practice in the end. The end product of years of being taught in such a manner are people that  are incapable of shrugging off these societal-set standards for their own intuitive values. Over and over again have they been forced to compete and be judged by external forces that you're left with a populace that's afraid, and really unable, to think for themselves. And for what? Check out this Alan Watts wisdom, set to animation by Matt Stone and Trey Parker and ask yourself what we, as a society, are doing to ourselves and our children by continuing to promote these trends.

*P.S.: Confession: My distaste for gradualism was so strong for so long has a similar story to the reason why ex-smokers are the most annoying types of non-smokers: I used to be a gradualist. So here's the story -my high school was not highly competitive academically. Being intelligent was an afterthought for the administration at the time. However, within the honors and AP classes, there was competition driven by some of the students, and more likely, their parents. For 4 years, I excelled, studied to get the top grades in every course, and then when it came to that end point, my classmate whose mom was on the Board of Education ended up having a higher weighting to his lower numerical GPA for taking a computer literacy course over the mechanical drafting course that I had taken. For a long time, this pissed me off. I had done everything right, played by all of the rules, taken challenging classes, worked hard, and for what? To have someone with "political" connections come out ahead in the end. Not very shocking honestly, but it taught me that even if you follow every direction to a T, the predicted outcome may be thrown off course by some virtual wrench at the last minute. This obviously didn't throw me into a revolutionary spirit but it did affect my outlook on the efficacy of gradualism. And when you come back to the revolutionaries, versus the gradualists, I guess that would be my greatest criticism of the gradualist approach. It's more controlled, and can surely adapt to conditions down the pike, but there's a naïveté to that. The virtual wrench can be thrown in at any moment, derailing years of planning and progress. Not to say that the revolutionaries aren't naive about their approach either - throwing in all the chips when you're pretty sure the other side has every advantage is risky, and oftentimes, stupid and nihilistic. 

America the Sick

Schadenfreude - n- the feeling of joy or pleasure when one sees another fail or suffer misfortune. from German - literally translates as "harm-joy"

The concept of schadenfreude is not unique to the society that coined the term, German. In fact, I'd argue that modern American society's mood is strongly grounded in this concept of seeing others fail and reveling in it. Sure, we've all had a good laugh at that woman who was stomping grapes until she fell through the platform. But I am talking about topics that aren't so absurd as this. In fact, more mundane things like - 24 hour news coverage, endless new incarnations of reality television, the explosion of personal recording devices - have bred within us a desire to witness the failures of others. For all the hubris American politicians bring to the table - endless talking points about the uniqueness and exceptionalism of this country - an outsider to this culture would probably expect more from us. Instead, we not only gossip about those that we know - our family members, friends and coworkers- but also about those we don't. And there is an abundance of source material that allows that to be the case. We can discuss, in detail, the lives of politicians, celebrities of the lasting or 5 minute fame types, and even random Joes that happen to make it to the headlines.

Sure, engaging in a little gossip here or there is fun and probably healthy, or at least, doesn't really hurt anyone, but when every news broadcast is a form of escapism in which the viewer is thanking God their neighborhood isn't going to shit like Ferguson, or their child hasn't killed their classmates, or their wife hasn't driven into a lake with their two young children strapped into their carseats, you have to wonder what is really going on. Furthermore, the validity of all of these news stories is confirmed for many viewers when degrees-for-hire (tv psychologists, sociologists, medical doctors, economic analysts, et al) nod their heads in time with the tsk-tsking of the news anchors. A panel of experts is ready to speculate on the character and motives of any perpetrator of any crime, and if you notice, what seems to always come across is how not-ordinary these "criminals" are in the end. They're diseased, they're troubled, they had a seedy past that no one really was aware of until now, they listened to Black Sabbath backwards, they did WEIRD things that the rest of us just don't do. And yet, when you hear a coworker go on and on about Casey Anthony's guilt, you can't help but wonder if we're all as fucked up as those that we watch crash and burn.

None of us are immune to the power of the "vicarious" - how we can impartially view terrible conditions away from our own lives without any real reflection or consideration as to what constant harping on such distractions might say about our own culture and our own lives. What sort of items are we missing out on that are being buried under hours of footage of OJ Simpson driving a Ford Bronco on the California freeway system? And is there an ulterior motive of instilling fear into the general population by constantly reporting the worst of the worst instead of anything positive? Does this fear let us, the viewers, be OK with more surveillance? More restrictions on our own lives in the name of safety? Less real choice?

When I was a sophomore in college, I was eating oatmeal and watching the news on a lovely Tuesday morning when a plane crashed into one of the two World Trade Center towers. As the news anchors were reporting on this terrible event, another jet crashed into the other tower ON. LIVE. TV. Everyone in my apartment was speechless. We had never seen anything so tragic as this on television ever. Maybe if I had grown up in the 1960s, the footage of Civil Rights clashes and the Vietnam War might have prepared me for this, but even those events were not shocking in the same way. We knew about those struggles. This event was a surprise for most Americans.

Since then, I've really hated watching the news - not because I fear I will see other iconic buildings struck by tragedy, but because since then, the news has become a cesspool of hate and fear.  honestly don't think that America has ever recovered from that day. We're almost 15 years out from 9/11/01. What has changed is a lot. If America lost its innocence in Vietnam, it lost its hold on itself after 9/11. Our worldview was irreparably shattered by that day and the aftermath. Instead of being able to pick up the pieces and move on, as many affected have been able to, the collective consciousness (represented by the media) of this country has doubled down on tragedy. Furthermore, the political course of action since that day has carried through 4 presidential terms and marks an outdated, heavy-handed response to the problems that led to that fateful day in September. There has been no reflection on America's faults in order to learn and change, instead, whether led by a semi-literate goofball or a Harvard-educated professional, we're still coming to the table with Cold War era tactics of throwing our weigh around and expecting to get results. The world hasn't worked that way in some times. Having the most money, the most guns, the most technology didn't work in Vietnam, nor did it work in Iraq, and seems to be entirely hopeless in Afghanistan as well, but we're still sticking to it. I guess you really can't change a horse in mid-stream. Or so it seems. Our culture and our selves need to change or we're headed for an even bigger disaster than 9/11 -the collapse of this entire system.

Nietzsche's concept of "ressentiment" fits perfectly in with what we're experiencing as a culture. His idea here is that the weak-willed, the inactive, the petty, what have yous, are unable to move beyond themselves. "Things done to them" become their only focus. We've seen this historically in places like France after their embarrassing loss in the Franco-Prussian War, in Serbia after the annexation of "their" land by the Austro-Hungarian empire, in fascist Italy, Japan and Germany during the 1930s, in Rwanda after the Belgians left the Hutus in charge after years of repression. All of those situations ended poorly for everyone involved. Ressentiment keeps us tied to the past, never moving forward. Listen to the rhetoric supported by many American politicians as well as media outlets - are the problems in this country ever collective? Are people homeless or unemployed because there are real systemic issues that need to be changed or are they that way because they're not trying hard enough? Or because immigrants took their jobs? Or because they're so fixated on the "other" being the problem that they haven't been willing to move on and try something different within themselves? Imagine an America that went back to actual (Nietzschean? Pirsig-ian?) values of individualism and self-determination. To making something of yourself without hoping to get something out of it beyond satisfaction? To succeed on one's merits instead of playing political games and kissing ass? That could happen if 1. there was equity, not equality for all (which might mean that some get MORE now to make MORE of themselves in the long run), 2. people actually took time to reflect on how their own thoughts, attitudes and actions might be at fault.


Two quotes to consider:
“To be incapable of taking one's enemies, one's accidents, even one's misdeeds seriously for very long—that is the sign of strong, full natures in whom there is an excess of the power to form, to mold, to recuperate and to forget. Such a man shakes off with a single shrug many vermin that eat deep into others; here alone genuine 'love of one's enemies' is possible—supposing it to be possible at all on earth. How much reverence has a noble man for his enemies!—and such reverence is a bridge to love.—For he desires his enemy for himself, as his mark of distinction; he can endure no other enemy than one in whom there is nothing to despise and very much to honor! In contrast to this, picture 'the enemy' as the man of ressentiment conceives him—and here precisely is his deed, his creation: he has conceived 'the evil enemy,' 'the Evil One,' and this in fact is his basic concept, from which he then evolves, as an afterthought and pendant, a 'good one'—himself!” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals/Ecce Homo

“Peace of mind produces right values, right values produce right thoughts. Right thoughts produce right actions and right actions produce work which will be a material reflection for others to see of the serenity at the center of it all.” 
― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values

A Higher (Moral) Standard...

As you know, I am a teacher. A public high school teacher, to be exact. As teachers and coaches, we are said to be held to a, "higher standard." What kind of standard? Legal? Moral? And if so, according to whose moral standard? In the past few years, due to various scandals and media frenzies over teacher behavior, schools have started to implement "HIB" training for all staff. HIB stands for harassment, intimidation and bullying. The main thrust of these types of trainings should be to help teachers identify HIB incidents in their classrooms, locker rooms and in the hallways to help maintain both physical and emotional safety for students and staff, but the presenters often make sure that teachers leave paranoid enough about everything in their lives to never even consider acting inappropriately in any way, shape or form (think about the worst kinds of sex ed classes where students are just shown pictures of diseased body parts and told to stay away from sex #noteffective). Why? Because these trainings are designed for more than the purpose of ensuring that students are safe in their learning and playing environments. These informational sessions are also inculcating teachers into self-censorship. The alternate interpretation of, "higher standard," can really be, "if you do anything wrong, you will be judged more harshly and personally for doing so," but that doesn't have as nice of a ring to it, so they went with the former. There is a level of anxiety provoked by HIB trainings and morality scares that keeps teacherss on their toes, looking out over their shoulder to see who is watching, and to potentially even report their coworkers to an authority figure. It also encourages teachers to report students to a "higher" authority for multifarious infractions instead of ever dealing with issues on their own. Obviously there are serious offenses that should be handled on a centralized basis, however, many of the teachers I know that actually have a good handle on discipline work through issues on their own. [aside: In the school in which I work, office detentions seem to do little to deter students from doing wrong. The same students end up on the detention roster over and over, as with the in-school suspension room. Repeat offenders end up in the "penalty box" month after month.]

So, I am held to a higher standard in both my "in" school and "out of" school behavior, but I should also defer to the central authority when it comes to making decisions on what is good, moral behavior (even though I am a supposed paragon of said behavior)? Confusing. And so when I start thinking about this title of the moral apex of society that has been bestowed upon me, I get a little miffed. Because I think it's hypocritical and a power move by those already in power. I am supposed to be a great teacher and live a clean life, but I am also not trusted with wielding power beyond the threshold of my classroom. If what I think would be an appropriate way of handling a situation is how I act, then am I not already fulfilling the duty of the higher standard? If, by nature, I am the higher standard over some regular Joe, than my opinion should be worth more, no? Shouldn't I be able to handle the issues within my room and in the school without deferring to a higher power? If I am held to a higher standard, is my boss held to an even higher one? What about the governor and politicians passing these laws?

What gives? It's all about obedience. It's not about safety and security or about positive role models, it's about maintaining a system for the system's sake. My compliance will help to prop up the hierarchy for another generation. The veiled attempt at making me think I will be helping children is a good one, and one that most people would not want to question. But, I'm that guy, so I am questioning it.

And while I was thinking about this entire scenario, I happened to read an excerpt in Confessions of  a Buddhist Atheist in which Stephen Batchelor explicated his research on Buddha's life. He found that there were no real details on the formative years, and in fact, conflicting information about the Buddha's personal history. However, once Buddha became a teacher and gathered a following, everything he ever did was recorded, which reminded me of Jesus' life. Just like Buddha, the details on Jesus prior to his thirties is fuzzy. What were these guys doing in their twenties? Praying? Working? YOLO-ing? Well, I came to the conclusion that it probably matters very little as to what they were doing in that time and that their lives would be interchangeable with yours or mine up until they were fed up enough with the world to let it be known. So what led to their transformative experiences and subsequent perspective shifts? For one thing, it was the questioning of their current, static social order and their disobedience to it. Both Buddha and Jesus give up their attachments to this world. They don't tell their followers to completely mimic their lives and ways, but instead provide a model for behavior and thought. There is no list of commandments nor contracts that have to be signed to live like either of them - those institutionalized aspects come later through their more zealous followers, like Jesus' disciple, Paul.

I'm not suffering from a messianic delusion here, nor am I looking for martyrdom, but I do think that if I did happen to stand up for myself and people in the same situation, I would probably be reviled and not revered, because WE LIKE BEING OPPRESSED. It's easier to stay in a shitty situation than to stand alone or to risk losing security of a job, relationships, etc.

How do we challenge the existing order in a more meaningful way than writing angry Facebook statuses and standing around the water cooler bitching about how much our boss sucks? For one, that change has to come with considering what is actually in the realm of possibility for changing. Hoping that everyone will suddenly be on board when you make a moving speech is not going to pan out in the end. The continued weaving of connections and the slow formation of communities (pro tip: start with the few people who are the choir you've been preaching to for all those years) will ultimately pay off in the end because people within that community will likely be loyal not only to the ideas you share, but to each other as well. And although it PAINS me to admit this, there is a positive side to this gradualist approach. It's just annoying that when you already see the hidden message in the Magic Eye drawing that is life, you have to wait for everyone else to get their eyes unfocused enough to see it too.

PS: The ironic thing about this analogy is that I can't actually see those pictures in the Magic Eye drawings... 

The Most Beautifully Written Piece on Humanity Ever Created

An illuminated manuscript
Made of vellum dyed purple
With real brass hinges.
Entire pages carpeted
In infinite layers of color.
Resonant only in the muted glory
Of the setting sun through stained glass.
Hues that enrobe the room in lovely, temporal tapestries
Only to fade into the dusky embrace
Of a cold, moonlight shroud.

This most beautifully crafted,
Finely detailed and designed,
Painstakingly edited
Piece that was written on humanity
Had been wrought some time ago.

Deemed "unreadable,"
Ignored,
Leafed through,
Thrown aside,
Poured over,
Shelved -
It remains the same.

Being and Nothing

One evening at dusk, as I was returning to my room along a narrow path through the pine forest, carrying a blue plastic bucket slopping with water that I had just collected from a nearby source, I was abruptly brought to a halt by the upsurge of an overpowering sense of the sheer strangeness of everything.

It was as though I had been lifted onto the crest of a great wave that rose from the ocean of life itself, allowing me for the first time to be struck by how mysterious it was that anything existed at all rather than nothing.

"How," I asked myself, can a person be unaware of this? How can anyone pass their life without responding to this? Why have I not noticed this until now?" I remember standing still, trembling and dumb, with tears in my eyes. Then I continued on my way before night fell.

This experience made me uncomfortably aware of a chasm between what I was studying and something that had happened to me in my own life that struck me as vitally important. The Buddhist texts with which I was familiar did not seem to speak about, let alone value, such experiences as the one that had just shuddered through me.- Stephen Batchelor, Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

I have been reading voraciously for the past two weeks. i went through 2 novels, a bunch of magazines I had been putting off and then I started the book from which the above quote is excerpted. This passage gave me pause when I read it. How many times have I been overcome by the same feeling of doubt about the world? What is the point of it all? And why does this thought come to me at the most random of times? Batchelor was a Buddhist monk, studied under various famous leaders and still rejected it all in the end. Why? What was lacking from his teachings? There was enough certainty, that's for sure. All of the beliefs he rejected had an air-tight response to his doubts, yet never actually addressed his doubts. 

Think about a great "teacher" (parent, religious leader, classroom teacher, professor. etc) you had, that you looked up to because they seemed to know everything. When you asked them about something that wasn't their forte, instead of telling you they didn't know, they instead brushed off your question as inconsequential. And perhaps, if you were younger, or less experienced, you might have believed them, and beat yourself up for being "stupid" in front of their great presence, but as it turns out, this teacher was just more like you than you thought. They were fallible. They did NOT know everything there was to know. But that's OK. Unfortunately, they were just not OK with it. 

I went to a teacher workshop and the instructor was talking about this exact situation. How, we, as teachers, need to accept that we do not know everything. How the students can see that it's OK to be continually learning and shaping the mind throughout life. The teacher is not an authority, but a guide. This is something that I take pride in doing. I did not need a workshop to tell me that, though, I think it is important that others hear and embrace the uncertainty of everything, especially in regards to knowledge. When a teacher sets themselves up as an omniscient authority, s/he's not only setting themselves up for confrontation and failure, but their students as well. 

Spiritually, the beauty of Jesus and Buddha as teachers were that they were open to experiences. They personally did not adhere any rigid dogma that their followers constructed in their wake. Their experiences and guidance, not commandments, are valuable tools. Similarly, one of the reasons that I am drawn to Zen Buddhism in particular is that there is an air of mystery to teachings like the koans. These logic puzzles leave breathing space for interpretation. What they ultimately mean to you is important. 

Another meaning that I think Batchelor also gets at in this quote, is what I find to be one of the great mysteries of the modern world. Do people really stop and think about their existence and why they're here? Is there a larger group of people out there than the few I have disclosed the uneasiness of being aware of my mortality to? How many people suppress that uncanny feeling he's describing? By time one gets to adulthood, I would say there is a good chance that people are more and more unwilling to talk about these feelings because....well, they're set in their ways, one step closer to the inevitable end, thinking about it would get in the way of their "plans" and their "life." But that feeling IS life. All of the other stuff we create is wonderful, but it's what Buddhists call Maya (illusion), and it distracts us from the realities of our finitude. 

The finite space of an art form like the haiku also works to help us get in touch with something deeper than the distractions of television, consumer products, relationship drama, etc. The master Japanese poets of yore so often encapsulated deep sentiments and experiences in carefully chosen, and placed. words. The one below appeared in one of those two novels I recently read. The narrator was discussing mono no aware, the Japanese aesthetic value of the transience of all living things - how we're filled with feelings of great awe and sadness as we view the world around us. Mono no aware is essentialized by the cherry blossom festivals in Japan. The beauty of the flowers is ephemeral, yet, to be enjoyed nonetheless. 

Thinking of the morning dew, it will pass away into the dry high noon of the summer, and yet we revel in those few minutes anyway. Life is a lot like that -when we revel in being alive, we can pay no mind to the fact that we will pass beyond this world in due time.

This dewdrop world

Is a dewdrop world –

And yet — and yet 

-Kobayashi Issa

"Mysteries" of the Universe?

"For both the rich and the poor, life is dominated by an ever growing current of problems, most of which seem to have no real and lasting solution. Clearly we have not touched the deeper causes of our troubles...the ultimate source of all these problems is in thought itself, the very thing of which our civilization is most proud, and therefore the one thing that is "hidden" because of our failure seriously to engage with its actual working in our own individual lives and in the life of society." - David Bohm, physicist and philosopher

After reading a synopsis of the writings of David Bohm, a physicist and philosopher, I started to regard the idea of atomized human players as completely misguided and actually detrimental to our species' survival on the whole. I suppose this was something that I had already been considering, but the extra boost from this most recent excerpt really piqued my interest. Bohm was interested in Eastern Thought as well, being close friends with Jiddu Krishnamurti, an Indian philosopher. Although Krishnamurti was a contemporary of Bohm's, his philosophy spans from a long tradition of Hindu spirituality and mysticism. The Hindu scriptures like the Vedas and Upanishads were composed and written down well before the advent of major civilizations in the west; well before any sort of the real "modern" technological advancements we hold dear today. Yet these ancient philosophers and holy seers were on to something. Their insights reveal an understanding of the universe that is so exact as to be now proved by advanced forays into physics. How could the philosophers of yore have possibly reached conclusions uncannily similar to those of astro- and quantum physicists of the 20th and 21st centuries?

One of the ways in which they were able to achieve such visions or insights into the nature of the universe was through just "being." By observing and experiencing the flow of life, the moment-to-moment, hour-to-hour, day-to-day patterns, these early Hindus noted that everything is Brahman, and yet everything is also it's own thing. Our atman or "self" or "soul" is Brahman. The objects and people we interact with are also Brahman. Which means we're all the same thing. But we're different incarnations of that same thing. Huh? It's common for people to sum up the basic Hindu principle as, "We're all god with different faces." That is much different from many of the prevailing Christian doctrines: that the righteous will live beside God and his son, Jesus, in heaven for all eternity (*Catholicism*) or that the truly pious will be exalted to God-status once they pass over into the spiritual realm (*Mormonism*) or that God has already predetermined who will be saved and who will be cast off into an eternity of torture (*Calvinism*). It's hard to boil down Hinduism into any one distilled form, as with a religion as old and as regularly practiced as it is, there are obviously many different offshoots, and "cults" associated with certain deities.

We have an illusion of complete free will. Within a small window, we do indeed have choices we can make, but even our choices are predicated on a particular chain of events that led up to those being our choices. Calvinist predestination is a doctrine that also claims humans do not have free will, but the claim here is that God had already chosen or predetermined who will be saved upon death and who has been damned to hell. For just being a Calvinist, one's chances of being a "saved" seems to be higher because you're following the chosen religion, but then again, any thoughts an individual may have about sex, violence, et. al. would obviously show that they were not one of the saved. It is easy to understand how internal conflicts may have become outward (literal) witch hunts, as those who acted differently on the outside were marginalized and killed for the sins of everyone in the community. Imagine experiencing the degree of "free will" that we are familiar with in 17th century Salem, Massachusetts. The mere thought of illicit sex might send a thinker reeling - Am I not saved? Why would I think about these things that surely go against God's word otherwise? Obviously, it would be much easier to blame it on a spell cast by a witch than any sort of admission that perhaps you personally were having those thoughts and especially that God did not choose the saved at the outset of human creation, which would shake up the worldview of an entire community.

Our ability to choose lies within the web of connectedness that all humanity and all life and matter on Earth experience. It is not independent of this, nor is it completely determined by our surroundings. I've read Sam Harris' argument on the illusion of free will and I think it might be too severe. Yet, he meditates and talks about achieving a place of no "thoughts." I guess this doesn't really go against his argument. Meditation helps to center the mind, to alleviate the flow of thoughts that are constantly whizzing through - the very same ones that weave together the narrative of who we "think" we are. And if you're a pro at meditation, you start to see that many of those thoughts going on in that little brain of yours are random and they're also unrelated until you connect them together through analysis.

If we revisit the quote that began this post, Bohm is expounding this same idea. We laud ourselves for the amount of "thinking" we do. We're patting ourselves on the back for a job well done - the modern, Western world with its wonderfully rich legacy of rational, Enlightenment thought. But even the Enlightenment was nothing new. The value placed on Reason and logical order is also seen in the great classical philosophers as well. Aristotle was the first mansplainer that gained recognition!

It surely would be wonderful if everything was categorizable and we could fit every interaction and thought into neat boxes. But not everyone thinks in the same way, nor do they have to (I run up against this in the field of education all of the time - differentiate your instruction for the kids, but face being droned at through every staff meeting ever). Logic is essentially a language that can be employed for practical reasons. It is not the be-all, end-all of human capacity. It represents ONE FACET of our abilities. In fact, if we use it as a tool and not as a hegemonic directive that rules our entire way of life, we'd probably find that we'd be less stressed out about the world we encounter. Bohm has identified the elephant in the room - it's our ability to intake, process and analyze. Which are all good skills! We just get so tied up in them that we forget to actually experience the world as a whole.

From the Rig-Veda:

Then was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.

All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?

The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.
Mandala 10, Hymn 129 : Creation, as translated by Ralph T. H. Griffith (1896).