Sunday, September 04, 2016

Mother T is now Saint T

**I heartily concur with Daniel Dennett's suggestion:

I've written here several times about various aspects of this fraud, but Hitchens said it best in The Missionary Position.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

The only afterlife worth living for


I suppose that one reason I have always detested religion is its sly tendency to insinuate the idea that the universe is designed with 'you' in mind or, even worse, that there is a divine plan into which one fits whether one knows it or not. This kind of modesty is too arrogant for me. ― Christopher Hitchens

**Discussing my exercise regimen with X, I was appalled at his insistence that maintaining his own health through careful monitoring of his meds, blood sugar (diabetes) and physical strength was a low priority because he knows that even if he should die from such neglect he’d continue living in the afterlife. He means he’ll be in "heaven," which would, he believes, assure his eternality and happiness. The priorities for such an outcome are to be generous and friendly, and to follow the rules and rituals for being the best kind of church member.

But this unselfishness is bent to the purpose of assuring his own eventual happiness in “the afterlife.” Which seems like a twisted form of egotism – going through the motions of unselfishness for the tightly focused selfishness of being happy forever. (See quote from St. Christopher above)

So taking care of your health in “this life” gets designated as selfishness because it’s all about your own well-being here, instead of delaying that satisfaction for a life after death.

In the meantime, his family already grieves for the damage he and his wife are doing to themselves by purposeful neglect, some even calling them religious fanatics and nuts. But this only seems to reinforce their pride in taking little care of themselves, gorging on biblical passages, theology and church activities, while growing obese and weak and needing more and more support systems.

This carelessness about health issues and a self-satisfied embrace of total inactivity leaves him happy, he claims, but as the best evidence shows, it's making him more vulnerable to an early demise.

What this kind of selfishness ignores is the pain inflicted on his family. To hell with you people, he seems to say, I’m bound for glory and that’s all that matters to me. I’m the hero in this drama and you are the chumps in the unvoiced script behind my sanctimonious disavowal of normal health care.

When I moved from California to Georgia, I had spent the previous year and a half recovering from a couple of cardiac procedures. In addition, the previous six months were stressful because of the great effort, physical and emotional, of this major move. When we settled into our present home about a year ago I was in terrible physical shape. My energy was low, I tired easily, I couldn’t walk two blocks without resting, and of course I was fatter than when I went into the hospital in 2013. After trying, and failing, several workout strategies on my own I concluded that I was just getting old and might as well get comfortable with my slide into old age and death. Just like X, but without the anesthetic delusion of an afterlife.

Yet I longed for the days when I worked out with a trainer. The careful supervision and guidance enabled me to become strong and flexible enough to get around easily, even working 15 hours a week on my feet in a retail store. One day, Joan alerted me to a fitness studio just a mile or so from our house. I joined in late March and have been working out three times a week with good trainers. My recovery is going very slowly, and I sometimes wonder if the high dollar cost is worth it. But I do find that I negotiate stairs much more easily, can walk faster and for longer distances without stopping to rest, and have been getting generally stronger. This still elicits laughs and sarcasm from X because exercise is against his religion.

Yes, religion. His particular brand, in the extreme and fundamentalist form he practices, encourages patience with pain and decrepitude in “this life” in exchange for a totally selfish longevity and happiness in the afterlife. I don’t mind the ridicule, considering the source, but I realize that I’m not doing all of this just to be able to climb stairs and hoist suitcases into overhead bins on planes, etc. 

At my age, I often contemplate the inevitable descent into death. The only pain I feel is, empathetically, the pain of my family, whose love for and interaction with me is a large part of their lives, and theirs with mine. Their lives are the only “after” that I care about. My efforts to remain healthy, though meager and too slow to show results, are my investment in their present lives, our mutual companionship and happiness. Not my own in an “afterlife,” that surely doesn’t exist, but even if it did, has no relationship to the only life I can do anything about: this one.


Monday, July 04, 2016

The Future



**Just finished Kevin Kelly's "The Inevitable" wherein he waxes ecstatic about the:

12 Technological Forces That Will Shape Our Future


He doesn't hesitate or hedge. He's fully in on the inexorable forces that he claims will determine our future. Determine them, not MAY determine them. Why is this important to me? If you believe in the actuarial tables I will most likely not see much of that glorious future. What a bummer! I want to live longer, not just to enjoy family and friends, which I do, but to be in the world that is coming faster and faster, sooner and sooner, more and more. I believe in the onward and upward expansion of evolution. Sure, there are naysayers with good reasons for pause, but I don't think they will prevail.  

Disasters can happen, but in the broad stretch of history they are usually just a blip. The vectors of the past point to a future that is an advance over the past, not a reversion to it. If there are any universal laws I think they can be summarized by the tendency of things that survive to become part of increasing complexification, wherein things connect and combine until a seemingly magic moment, when they flip irreversibly up into a whole new reality.

This coincides with a new project I'm working on with my friend DRJ where we are working to articulate a new vision of life that includes this inexorable development process. I'm finding that in order to appreciate the value of this change, I needs to break out of an egocentric view of the world and accept the fact that no individual is more important than the general sweep toward the complexification of the universe.

It all started with hot inanimate plasma, from which developed clumps of quarks, called protons, which cooled the overall plasma gas so that more protons could develop. From protons, through the same process, atoms developed then molecules and from molecules organisms and from organisms, homo sapiens, and from homo sapiens came artificial intelligence which morphed into the internet which continues to morph into a planetary mind and so on to unimaginable developments. I don't need religion to believe in this kind of future, I only need a sense of history, an appreciation for the developments of real science and a hope that I can see some of it.

In the meantime, I will try to appreciate my part in the overall development of life.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

My music allergy

“The problem is that the deeper you go into your own [music] writing, the harder it becomes to enter someone else’s. If pursued seriously, [music] writing demands a kind of obsessive concentration that came, at least for me, to preclude reading [listening].”
**The above is adapted from the New York Times Book Review “Bookends” section: “Is it harder to be transported by a book as you get older?” It’s by Benjamin Moser, one of the writers offering their perspective on the above topic. While the topic itself was only mildly interesting to me, those words sounded a responsive chord. 

It’s not about reading vs writing per se. But about listening to music vs writing it. While I was an avid listener in my youth, I also began writing music. As the years, and the songs, went by, I gradually developed an unexpected quirk: I found it almost impossible to simply listen to music for enjoyment, especially popular music in all its phases and forms though the years.  

Recently in an effort to get more fit I realized that fast music tends to rev up my cardio workouts. After a brief flirtation with Eminem (sparked by curiosity about that form for a project I’m working on), I fell back to Oldies. But in spite of the salutary effects of listening to music while I strained to raise my heart rate, I still found it more tolerable to listen to podcasts, especially long interviews.  (And my heart rate probably suffers)

Until Moser’s statement above, articulating the reason for my music phobia has been difficult. I’ve usually attributed it to guilt and shame that I hadn’t developed into a proper musician when young. There were seemingly good reasons at the time – family to support, relationships to maintain, available jobs that could be turned into careers, a long religious captivity and knowing the statistical odds against success. I still consider them valid reasons for drifting away from listening to music. But not my discomfort when listening.

Music is like a drug for me. I’m drawn to it like addicts to chemicals in their bloodstream. Background music is the worst. It feels like an assault. Distracts me, makes it hard to concentrate on people and tasks in front of me. I feel myself being drawn into a vortex where every detail – musical, lyrical, production – attempts to grab me by the brain and lead me away. The ensuing struggle to stay present tends to upset and confuse me until I wrest control. Sounds kind of psycho doesn’t it? But maybe not. Maybe I can be proud of it! Maybe it’s just an “occupational” hazard, a temperamental quirk that some creative people share.

For half of the time I lived in California I had the opportunity to work with a partner, Rick Martinez, to produce a few dozen of my earlier songs. We worked under the name of Ramona StGeorge (the names of our respective streets) and dragooned his musician friends into recording with us. Though I wasn’t always pleased with the way the vocals turned out, I’m grateful they’ve been preserved in some recorded form. And yet, even they stay outside my cone of musical silence.

The only musical exercise I get these days is banging on the piano or guitar while singing with my granddaughter, something I greatly enjoy. The songs are easy and my primitive playing abilities are adequate for us both to have a good time. If I ever finish writing the extended rap I’ve been working on for a while I may get back into music creation, although it may be just a simplistic building of “beats” behind a chattering vocalist. For the time being it's the likes of "Clementine" and podcasts that will substitute for music.





Friday, June 10, 2016

Why Trump is Scary

**Received this link with the subject: Scary

Middle classes around the world seem weary of free politics and are open to strongmen like Trump.

In my reply, I generally agreed. Good article, loaded with useful info. But a slightly different slant:

Yes, indeedy. I've been thinking all along that the problem isn't the candidate, it's the electorate. Although I don't know much about the Asian autocrats, I think Berlusconi is the closest we have to Trump. Where Trump has done him one better is that he got all his publicity for free while Berlusconi had to buy up a lot of media outlets to get his message across. 

I don't quite agree with the closeness of the Mussolini comparison. Hitler's rise seems more relevant. Shirer notes that after two failed coups, and prison, Hitler realized that the route to power was through a media-manipulated democratic process. The German electorate is also more comparable to today's Establishment weariness. The Weimar Republic formed after WW1 was an economic disaster made even worse by public humiliation because of harsh sanctions and reparations imposed by the victors. It became identified with democracy because the US was an important part of the settlement at Versailles. Hitler capitalized on this widespread discontent and made democracy (and minorities) the convenient scapegoat for his argument that the country needed a strong leader.

What Hillary needs to learn from Bernie is that the movement he represents is very close to the movement that Trump represents. Neither constituency cares much about a candidate's gender – nearly everyone expects that a female president will eventually happen. They also don't care about their age. Bernie's backers are mostly young, but they rally behind this grandfatherly figure because he seems to be a future version of what they could be. And because he addresses their deeply felt concerns. Hillary needs to find a way to address both camps with a message and a posture that promises real determination to steer the basic structure of the government toward their interests. 

But even if she doesn't, I think she needs to keep hammering away at Trump's mentality, the unstable condition he seems helpless to correct cosmetically. "Never Trump" should resonate with the same legitimacy as "Never Hitler."

Thursday, June 09, 2016

Bernie's continuing relevance

**Leaderless movements seldom get far. Occupy and BLM are examples. While they make important statements in the national conversation, their influence seems to be mostly on those who already like the kool-ade. The Bernie movement is – or can be – different. A grandfatherly, quirky politician might not become the leader of a political party, or a country, but he can still be a leader of an important movement that can and should survive the election. 

The mood of the country as a whole favors this moment. (It also favors DT but that’s a different story.) Bernie’s movement hasn't really been about him. It’s about the millions of mostly young people who see through the artifice of politics and government as it has been practiced in their lifetimes. They want it to change into something resembling the promise of democracy. Many, but not all, of them may not be able to articulate it to themselves or the general public but they feel the yearning deeply. Bernie’s role has been to articulate it for them on a world-wide stage. He has done so in a way that gains respect and attention from much of the country, especially millennials. It’s long been well known that this class of the populace (those born between around 1980 and 2000) is taking over as a principle force in the cultural and political life of the US. And yet, the cultural and political life of the previous generation (boomers) still has momentum and has become “the establishment.” Hillary best represents that momentum, which is why she will probably (and certainly must)  win the presidency. 
The Corner

And yet, the pendulum is swinging the millennial’s way. If there is going to be a real revolution, where the establishment is gradually replaced by the Bernie revolutionaries, the revolutionaries (millennials) will still need a spokesperson AND a leader. Bernie can take on that role, at least for a while. His prominence and energy will keep the gadfly function active and visible and part of the national conversation. Sure, someone else may come along and represent it better, but until then Bernie’s continuing role is to be the leader of an important emerging constituency
.