When I meditate, I focus on my heartbeat instead of my breath. To begin with, one can notice one's breath even in a disquieted state, so I find that focusing on it can lead to non-meditative meditation, whereas you have to be pretty quiet to hear your heart. Next, since I cannot consciously control the pace of my heart, I find that tuning into it connects me to a cycle beyond myself, to whatever my heart is synchronized with out there, if anything. Finally, as I tune in to my heart, I learn how to slow it down by effecting the things I can control - my thoughts, my breathing, etc. This is true in life as well. Whether it be habits or preparedness or courtesy or kindness, there are so many things that we can control which benefit the things we cannot control immensely. If you can influence the rhythm of your heart, you can influence the reason in your heart, and the reason in your heart can transform everything you do into pure joy.
Friday, February 22, 2019
Thursday, February 21, 2019
Two Stories
Two Stories. One apocryphal. One not. I will let you discern.
When African hunters want to capture a monkey, they carve a hole in a tree that has an opening just large enough for an average monkey's hand to fit through, and then they hollow it out by adding some additional width and depth. Then they create a trail of salt rocks - like sugar for monkeys - leading up to the tree, and then place a few in the hole as well. An unsuspecting monkey comes along, finds a salt rock and then follows the trail to the tree, eating along the way, whereupon they put their hand in the hole and grab the salt rocks within. The monkey's open hand fits through the hole on the way in, but it's closed fist does not fit through the hole on the way out. At this point, the hunters surprise the monkey, thereby causing him to clench his fist even further, thereby capturing himself.
We trap ourselves by our unwillingness to let go of what we have.
We subvert the whole for the part.
A famous Guru in India gave a Friday night talk at a local community center about finding inner peace and happiness. The talk went into the late hours of the evening. After it concluded, a man from the audience approached the Guru and asked if he could speak with him privately. The Guru replied, "It is very late, and I get up very early, so I don't have much time, but tell me what is on your mind." The man begins, "My life is meaningless. I have nothing in it that brings me joy. I have no reason to live. I suffer every day and have reached the point where I would rather be dead." The Guru reflects for a moment and replies, "I can help you, but our first conversation will be a long one, so I will clear my schedule for you. Come to my house at 5am tomorrow, and we will spend the entire day together." The man replies, "5am? That is too early. I like to sleep in on Saturdays."
We keep ourselves trapped by clinging to our habits and our identities.
Even in the face of urgency.
When African hunters want to capture a monkey, they carve a hole in a tree that has an opening just large enough for an average monkey's hand to fit through, and then they hollow it out by adding some additional width and depth. Then they create a trail of salt rocks - like sugar for monkeys - leading up to the tree, and then place a few in the hole as well. An unsuspecting monkey comes along, finds a salt rock and then follows the trail to the tree, eating along the way, whereupon they put their hand in the hole and grab the salt rocks within. The monkey's open hand fits through the hole on the way in, but it's closed fist does not fit through the hole on the way out. At this point, the hunters surprise the monkey, thereby causing him to clench his fist even further, thereby capturing himself.
We trap ourselves by our unwillingness to let go of what we have.
We subvert the whole for the part.
A famous Guru in India gave a Friday night talk at a local community center about finding inner peace and happiness. The talk went into the late hours of the evening. After it concluded, a man from the audience approached the Guru and asked if he could speak with him privately. The Guru replied, "It is very late, and I get up very early, so I don't have much time, but tell me what is on your mind." The man begins, "My life is meaningless. I have nothing in it that brings me joy. I have no reason to live. I suffer every day and have reached the point where I would rather be dead." The Guru reflects for a moment and replies, "I can help you, but our first conversation will be a long one, so I will clear my schedule for you. Come to my house at 5am tomorrow, and we will spend the entire day together." The man replies, "5am? That is too early. I like to sleep in on Saturdays."
We keep ourselves trapped by clinging to our habits and our identities.
Even in the face of urgency.
Saturday, February 16, 2019
Dogillusions
When I take Maggie for walks, I do it "hands free", as it were, with a very long leash that I attach to her harness and then let drag on the ground behind her. I give her freedom that is, in fact, merely an illusion of freedom, and I break this illusion in a shocking way when I step on the leash to prevent her from going astray. Eventually, we arrive at a field near my house where I unleash her completely, and where she, upon realizing that the leash is off, begins to run around but not run away. It is unclear if her continued proximity to me has to do with independent good behavior or if she still expects to be snapped back if she gets too far away. In effect, at this point, I am not sure who, between us, is perpetrating the illusion. Well, today I left her in the back yard when we got home, so that I could remove my muddy shoes and then retrieve her from the deck, so that I could wash my muddy dog. When I went out on to the deck, she was gone. I went back through the house to the front door to see if I could intercept her before she got too far, and she was sitting right in front of the door, patiently waiting for me to let her in. Maggie is a lot smarter than I give her credit for. Perhaps we need no illusions between us?
Saturday, February 2, 2019
Climate Change
I was recently engaged in a thread regarding climate change, wherein I encountered the following arguments to discount the science and impetus for action that underlies it:
I, personally, have no interest in whether or not someone believes that climate change is an issue, but, rather, am interested in whether or not we can embrace a more common sense way to live in better harmony with our environment.
This is tantamount to quitting smoking in the mid 20th century, when there was no hard evidence that smoking caused cancer. To the extent that even a moderately intelligent chimpanzee knows well enough not to pick up a burning stick and heartily breath in its smoke, I find it perplexing that the apex primate would purposefully do just about the same thing ;-)
Still, to take action, one has to be believe that there is a reason, so let's talk about that.
With regard to point number 1 (nefarious data interpretation), it is a non-starter, because the very premise would indicate that whether data is being interpreted in favor of climate change or against it, the interpreting party has some nefarious, ulterior motive. Therefore, it makes no sense to debate the issue, because I could just as well assume that the man on the street has an ulterior motive, just like NASA and the bulk of the scientific community.
With regard to point number 2 (weather vs climate), equating the weather to the climate is like equating one's neighborhood to the country, which can lead someone living in an upscale neighborhood to conclude that there is no opioid epidemic, or someone living in an impoverished inner city neighborhood to conclude that the entire country is ravaged by an opioid epidemic.
Local versus global points of reference can very easily lead one to miss the global trends, which is the key distinction in climatology. Of course, in order to see trends, one has to leverage data, and to the extent that point number 1 invalidates the interpretation of data, point number 2 seems irrelevant.
With regard to point number 3 (God), if we need not worry about climate change, or, perhaps, any other natural or man made phenomenon, because God will guide us through to a favorable conclusion, then why have vaccines or antibiotics or chemotherapy? Why have pollution controls in factories or catalytic converters on cars? Why have seat belts or smoke alarms or seismic wave detectors?
If there is a God, then he (I use the word loosely) bestowed us with faculties so that we can better take care of and navigate through the world he created for us. To abandon the reason he gave us as unnecessary because of some paternalistic notion is foolish. As you might guess, I am not a biblical scholar, but I have read quite a few quotations pertaining to personal responsibility.
With that, let us consider climate change in the vein of Pascal's Wager.
This proof, put forward by Blaise Pascal in the 1600s, postulates that, in the absence of clear evidence for the existence of God, or not, one would be better served believing than not believing, because the penalty for believing in error is very low, and the penalty for not believing in error is very high.
In our case, it is even more universal, because, in the case of Pascal's Wager, one member of a single-exclusive-deity religion can opt to believe but still not be inoculated from the perspective of a member of a different single-exclusive-deity religion, i.e. because the other fellow believes in the wrong God, as it were.
You can debate whether or not the penalty for investing in Green technology and divesting from Grey/Brown technology is too high, but to the extent that advances in technology continually make the cost of being green lower and lower, I think any such debate loses merit over time.
The fundamental question here, for me, is: Can we endeavor to foster better harmony with our environment without having to agree on the facts of climate change?
- Data is being interpreted in a nefarious manner to support ulterior economic and political motives
- Fluctuations in weather have always been at play, therefore trends in climate can be discounted
- Irrespective of point numbers 1 and 2 above, almighty God will ensure that, no matter what we do which might influence the climate, everything will work out fine
I, personally, have no interest in whether or not someone believes that climate change is an issue, but, rather, am interested in whether or not we can embrace a more common sense way to live in better harmony with our environment.
This is tantamount to quitting smoking in the mid 20th century, when there was no hard evidence that smoking caused cancer. To the extent that even a moderately intelligent chimpanzee knows well enough not to pick up a burning stick and heartily breath in its smoke, I find it perplexing that the apex primate would purposefully do just about the same thing ;-)
Still, to take action, one has to be believe that there is a reason, so let's talk about that.
With regard to point number 1 (nefarious data interpretation), it is a non-starter, because the very premise would indicate that whether data is being interpreted in favor of climate change or against it, the interpreting party has some nefarious, ulterior motive. Therefore, it makes no sense to debate the issue, because I could just as well assume that the man on the street has an ulterior motive, just like NASA and the bulk of the scientific community.
With regard to point number 2 (weather vs climate), equating the weather to the climate is like equating one's neighborhood to the country, which can lead someone living in an upscale neighborhood to conclude that there is no opioid epidemic, or someone living in an impoverished inner city neighborhood to conclude that the entire country is ravaged by an opioid epidemic.
Local versus global points of reference can very easily lead one to miss the global trends, which is the key distinction in climatology. Of course, in order to see trends, one has to leverage data, and to the extent that point number 1 invalidates the interpretation of data, point number 2 seems irrelevant.
With regard to point number 3 (God), if we need not worry about climate change, or, perhaps, any other natural or man made phenomenon, because God will guide us through to a favorable conclusion, then why have vaccines or antibiotics or chemotherapy? Why have pollution controls in factories or catalytic converters on cars? Why have seat belts or smoke alarms or seismic wave detectors?
If there is a God, then he (I use the word loosely) bestowed us with faculties so that we can better take care of and navigate through the world he created for us. To abandon the reason he gave us as unnecessary because of some paternalistic notion is foolish. As you might guess, I am not a biblical scholar, but I have read quite a few quotations pertaining to personal responsibility.
With that, let us consider climate change in the vein of Pascal's Wager.
This proof, put forward by Blaise Pascal in the 1600s, postulates that, in the absence of clear evidence for the existence of God, or not, one would be better served believing than not believing, because the penalty for believing in error is very low, and the penalty for not believing in error is very high.
In our case, it is even more universal, because, in the case of Pascal's Wager, one member of a single-exclusive-deity religion can opt to believe but still not be inoculated from the perspective of a member of a different single-exclusive-deity religion, i.e. because the other fellow believes in the wrong God, as it were.
You can debate whether or not the penalty for investing in Green technology and divesting from Grey/Brown technology is too high, but to the extent that advances in technology continually make the cost of being green lower and lower, I think any such debate loses merit over time.
The fundamental question here, for me, is: Can we endeavor to foster better harmony with our environment without having to agree on the facts of climate change?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)