9/28/15 There was an article on the front page of @wsj, talking about an alliance between Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria to fight the Islamic State militants.
The POV for the article was that somehow this was reducing USA influence in the Middle East and therefore hurting us.
Hello?
Why aren't we cheering? Don't we want the Islamic State militants eliminated? Aren't they the wicked terrorists? Isn't it great that this diverse group is assembling to accomplish just exactly what we're hoping for?
Why do we have to make everything be about us -- about our giant egos getting bent out of shape?
Why does every article about China or Russia in the mainstream USA media have to be with the "see no good, hear no good, speak no good" framework? Can't we stop this negative knee jerk reaction and notice when these people are doing something good? Are we so simple minded that we can see no nuance, no complexity, no evolution?
@wsj should be ashamed of itself for arousing people into fear and hostility over this.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Monday, September 14, 2015
Equal Rights Amendment
I see that NOW is going for the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) again.
This was the text of the failed ERA:
This amendment floundered before for 2 main reasons
1. People did not want co-ed restrooms
2. People did not want to see women drafted or put in combat -- and did not want to compel the military to do that.
Also there were concerns about maternity leave and special protections for moms.
Let's fix this amendment before re-presenting it. Let's add some things
Section 1 Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of [sex] gender, provided however that this provisions shall not be interpreted to
a) prohibit gender segregation of sleeping, bathing, or toilet facilities;
b) require conscription of females;
c) require the military services to put females in combat or in combat units with males; or
d) relate to provision of beneficial health or work accommodations or services, where those are necessarily biologically gender specific.
You'll notice that the American language has changed. The word "sex" now commonly refers to sexual acts, rather than the gender of individuals. The word "sex" is no longer appropriate to this amendment.
Sometimes issues are complex and need more consideration.
I do foresee difficulties because of the gender reassignment trend that is currently so much in the public eye. It may be that additional language will have to be considered to cover this situation.
This was the text of the failed ERA:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification
This amendment floundered before for 2 main reasons
1. People did not want co-ed restrooms
2. People did not want to see women drafted or put in combat -- and did not want to compel the military to do that.
Also there were concerns about maternity leave and special protections for moms.
Let's fix this amendment before re-presenting it. Let's add some things
Section 1 Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of [sex] gender, provided however that this provisions shall not be interpreted to
a) prohibit gender segregation of sleeping, bathing, or toilet facilities;
b) require conscription of females;
c) require the military services to put females in combat or in combat units with males; or
d) relate to provision of beneficial health or work accommodations or services, where those are necessarily biologically gender specific.
You'll notice that the American language has changed. The word "sex" now commonly refers to sexual acts, rather than the gender of individuals. The word "sex" is no longer appropriate to this amendment.
Sometimes issues are complex and need more consideration.
I do foresee difficulties because of the gender reassignment trend that is currently so much in the public eye. It may be that additional language will have to be considered to cover this situation.
Monday, August 10, 2015
Iran: The Bitter Harvest
[this essay was written in support of an agreement that Barack Obama reached with Iran in August of 2015, but many of the points continue to be applicable after that issue has passed from the public consciousness]
We, in the USA, find ourselves reaping the bitter fruits of a long period of misguided foreign policy, policy that has been as evil as it has been stupid. We have supported brutal, unpopular regimes around the world to advance short term interests, ignoring the ill will we were sowing in the people affected. We have repeatedly abused our super power status.
First, there was the anti-communist period.
We, in the USA, find ourselves reaping the bitter fruits of a long period of misguided foreign policy, policy that has been as evil as it has been stupid. We have supported brutal, unpopular regimes around the world to advance short term interests, ignoring the ill will we were sowing in the people affected. We have repeatedly abused our super power status.
First, there was the anti-communist period.
Iran is only one country that has been the object of such
treatment. Our CIA helped overthrow a popular government in Iran in favor of
a shah, whose policies were more palatable to us.
This action totally ignored the future. Most Iranians were
furious about our actions. Eventually they wrested control back to an elected
government. This government, being a reaction to anger over our actions, was
angry at the USA and unpleasantly conservative, more so than it might have been if
we had not intervened.
We did something worse in Chile, where we conspired to destroy an
84 year old democracy, because the elected president was a communist. The resulting brutal dictatorship was known for "disappearing" large numbers of people. This became the topic of a popular song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESSbVYHHS0o
Worse still was our intervention in Viet Nam, where we fought for
years to prevent a popular election, because we feared that communists would
be elected. The result was untold carnage. Fortunately those people are Buddhists
and seem to have forgiven us.
With the passage of time, we have come to see that our domino
theory ideas, which led us into many of these actions, did not come to fruition. Politics is much more complex than black
and white dotted toys. We also did not recognize that a communist government,
popularly elected through a constitutional democracy, might be a very different
thing from the Soviet Union or Maoist China.
I don't really understand the history of Korea, but whatever we
did there has at least contributed to the survival of the fiendish lunacy that
they call a government there.
More recently there has been the period of attacking Muslim regions.
More recently there has been the period of attacking Muslim regions.
The evil folly of our intervention in Iraq is fresher in our
memory. First, we took the side of Kuwait in an oil dispute, ignoring the fact
that Kuwait was one of those countries where women were held as slaves, while Iraq
was a country where women had relatively better status. Women's rights have
never taken a sufficiently important role in our considerations of foreign
policy.
Then Bush II, and Cheney, conspired to deceive the American
people into participating in a second war in Iraq that benefited Cheney's company at
horrendous expense, both in money and in human lives. They overthrew a stable
government that kept terror under control, in favor of violent anarchy. They
violated the Geneva convention, relating to war criminals, a treaty our country
self-righteously imposed on others, by authorizing torture and refusing
international inspection. They are war criminals, yet they walk free.
Afghanistan is a strange story. Our fear of the Soviet Union was
so great that we backed and trained the mujahideen, an insurgent group that
opposed Soviet influence in the region. We didn't look too closely at who we
were training, because we trained the likes of Osama bin Laden.
I remember reading an interview with a mujahideen member in Time magazine back in the early eighties. The fighter was asked why he opposed the USSR. He replied that they wanted to educate women and girls, which he opposed. It immediately occurred to me that, in our blind fear of the Soviets, we had rushed to help the bad guys. We saw that later, when the Taliban arose, saw too late the folly of our actions.
I remember reading an interview with a mujahideen member in Time magazine back in the early eighties. The fighter was asked why he opposed the USSR. He replied that they wanted to educate women and girls, which he opposed. It immediately occurred to me that, in our blind fear of the Soviets, we had rushed to help the bad guys. We saw that later, when the Taliban arose, saw too late the folly of our actions.
Then we rushed to install Karzai in Afghanistan, one of Bush II's
oil industry cronies, becoming involved on the pretext that Osama bin Laden was
hiding in Afghanistan, when it now appears that he was in Pakistan. While this action seemed temporarily successful, we see the Taliban coming back now -- those same women haters who we helped back in the 70's and 80's.
Ever since WWII, our military adventurism has been mostly evil
and stupid, earning us much enmity all over the world.
People in the Middle East, in particular, remember military
adventurism from other countries as well, notably European countries, not only
in modern times, but also in ancient times, especially during the crusades –
which is still a topic frequently mentioned by terrorists, and which provokes a
lot of negative emotions in the minds of Middle Easterners.
I remember being in seventh grade social studies and having Mrs.
Raymond, at Cherokee Junior High School, teaching us about the Monroe
Doctrine. For those of you who don’t
remember, this was a policy instituted during the early history of the
USA. We undertook to protect other
Western Hemisphere countries against European military incursions.
I asked her, “Who is going to protect them from us?”
She said “No one needs to be protected from us.”
Really, Mrs. Raymond?
Really? Why are we studying in a school called "Cherokee?" What did we do to the native peoples?
So now we find, "Gee whiz! Iran is actually a fairly
powerful, wealthy country. They're developing nuclear capability, and they hate
us."
As I stood on 8/10/15 in front of the Manhattan building where Schumer has
an office, protesting Schumer's stance on Obama's agreement with Iran, I heard a counter protestor shouting, “do you trust Iran?”
He was talking to someone else. I didn’t say anything,
Afterwards, I thought “No, I don’t. Do you trust the government of the USA? If
you do, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.”
Still, my sense is that Iran is not part of the “axis
of evil,”
the way Bush II characterized it. They
have a democracy – granted not perfect, but still a democracy of sorts. The people there do have a deep concern about
morality – maybe not our sense, but still a sense. They’re not at all like North Korea, where
the people are held in slavery to a mythical king.
One question is whether Iran is less to be trusted with nuclear
weapons than countries that already have
them, such as Russia, China, Pakistan, India, France, the UK, Israel, and North
Korea. I would personally rate them as
more trustworthy than North Korea and Pakistan – possibly on a level with China and
India, in terms of the quality of people who are in government.
We should note that, as afraid as we were of Russia using nuclear
weapons against us, it has never happened.
Please note my prior blog about Russia Russia v Ukraine a Dissenting View
What is the only country that has used nuclear weapons in
war? The USA!
What moral authority do we have to say that we should have
nuclear weapons – and other weapons of mass destruction –
while others cannot? My view is none – no moral authority whatsoever. Our history is shameful -- as I've listed above. We're just international bullies.
The real problem here is that Israel is afraid that Iran is
going to attack them. It’s
not the nuclear weapons exactly – after all Israel is widely believed
to have nuclear weapons itself, though I don’t think that’s been officially
confirmed. The problem is that Iran has
committed to wiping Israel out.
It’s a unfortunate that we’re arguing about nuclear weapons
rather than the real issue.
It would be more cool if Iran were committing not to invade/bomb
Israel, much more cool, but what we have is this proposed agreement. It’s remarkable, given that we have had
this ignominious history of perfidy with respect to Iran, and so many others, that they’re
willing to talk to us at all. That’s
to be celebrated. That we got any kind
of concessions out of them at all is a miracle.
Can we trust them?
No. Can they trust us? No.
Will they abide by the agreement? Who
knows? Will we? Who knows?
Still it’s progress. It’s a commitment not to go into nuclear
weapons. That’s cool. It should be supported.
The alternative seems to me to be war – short-sighted,
evil, misguided war – a reflection of the short-sighted, evil pattern that we’ve
been exhibiting for so very long. Let's stop this pattern. Let's stop trying to control the world.
*******
Addendum 8/26/15 Here is a link to the FCNL flyer on the topic of the Iran deal FCNL FLYER
*******
I was at a protest demonstration in front of Chuck Schumer's office and an obnoxious person came up and started making outrageous statements which I later realized were sardonic critiques of Obama's Iran Deal. She claimed he would do well as Hitler, and wanted to wipe out Jews.
I found this offensive. My father was a refugee from the Holocaust, because his ancestry was Jewish.
I do not want to wipe out Jews.
I think that we have a better chance of negotiating with Iran about Iran's position on Israel if we have good relations with them. This deal is a good step in that direction.
Also she implied that Iran is like North Korea. NO. I don't think so, not at all.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Thoughts about how to process resentments under step 4 of the AABB
The resentment form has 3 main parts.
1. The first part is a description of the resentment. This requires a detailed acknowledgement of what you are feeling. (see AABB p. 65)
This has 3 sub-parts.
a) the name of the resentment
b) a description of the resentment -- why you have this resentment
c) a list of what is affected.
It is very important to acknowledge your feelings and write them down. Stuffing down feelings is part of the disease
2. The second part of the form is the prayer (AABB top of
p. 67). This is VERY important.
"God
please help me show ________ [person, place, thing resented] the same
tolerance, pity, and patience I would cheerfully grant a sick friend.
He/she/it is a sick person/place/thing. How can I be helpful to
him/her/it? God save me from being angry. Thy will be done."
This
is a spiritual form of recovery. This prayer is supposed to lift the
resentment and help you see the person, place or thing resented as
sick. Visualize them with a band-aid on their forehead.
You cannot see your own character defects. HP has to help you. This is a spiritual method of recovery.You especially cannot see your character defects until the resentment is lifted.
If this prayer does not work to lift the resentment, try the two week resentment prayer AABB (4th ed) p. 551-2
3.
The third part of the resentment form is the "turnarounds." Where was a
selfish, dishonest, self-seeking, and afraid? (AABB p. 67)
These are the "character
defects," maladaptive thinking that gives rise to resentments. Resentments are fatal. Any thinking that gives rise to resentment is also fatal.
I am attaching:
an
example of the resentment form (in the style of oabigbook.info, made up the way I think it should be
made up, as applied to the story of Jim (the man who drank the whisky
with the milk) in the AABB pp 35-36. You may want to click on this image to see it larger.
When I do a BB style inventory, I list the things I want under "selfish." I do not understand "selfish" to be an insult the way it is used outside program. Instead, it is just the things that I want.
It is normal to want things. What is bad is if I want things so much that I get sick if I don't get those things. Also, when I want things I cannot have, I am not surrendered.
Before program I did not allow myself to say or even know many of the things I wanted. I spoke indirectly, all around what I meant or felt. The things I said were not honestly related to what was going on inside me. I blew up a lot, because I had so much bottled up, but my blowups were mysterious and sudden, without people having the opportunity to understand what they might have done to offend me – and without me even understanding what was bothering me.
Through repetition in program, by doing this inventory process, I have learned to identify what I want and list those things calmly. This means that I know myself better than I used to. I am not stuffing down. I am being honest. Since I list things calmly and rationally, I am more likely to get what I want than if I isolate or get sullen & resentful as I used to. I have become a better negotiator, because of the Big Book process.
Also, because I know and am comfortable with myself, I find it easier to listen to and understand other people. Their concerns are less likely to destabilize me than before.
Understanding selfishness has helped me feel saner and more integrated with the human race.
For me, dishonesty includes: not accepting how much can be accomplished in a day, how much can be accomplished in a lifetime, how much sleep I need, how much time for self care. I make myself crazy over these things.
Some other categories of dishonest that I had trouble seeing were:
I heard 3 explanations of this
1. It is the same as selfish and is just listed as "elegant variation," a writing style thing, in the list.
2. It is "seeking yourself in others," i.e. people pleasing. I personally put this category under "dishonest."
3. How I acted out. That's the one I prefer. What did I do as a result of being selfish, dishonest, and afraid? There are a lot of things that could be put in here.
The most common for female compulsive overeaters is constantly putting out a cloud of negative emotions, which makes everyone miserable. As with everything in program, there is a spectrum here. We want to find a happy medium between: being constantly negative and being falsely cheerful, which is emotionally dishonest. The truth is somewhere in between. Black & white thinking is not good.
Another way of acting out is somatizing. I learned more about this when I did ACA. If I have psychosomatic symtoms, e.g. nervous stomach, blushing, rapid heartbeat, (or in my case also eczema and back spasms can also result from stress) that can often be my first warning that I need to do some stepwork. My body is warning me. I put that under here because it's important to be aware of body warning signals.
More about "selfish"
When I do a BB style inventory, I list the things I want under "selfish." I do not understand "selfish" to be an insult the way it is used outside program. Instead, it is just the things that I want.
It is normal to want things. What is bad is if I want things so much that I get sick if I don't get those things. Also, when I want things I cannot have, I am not surrendered.
Before program I did not allow myself to say or even know many of the things I wanted. I spoke indirectly, all around what I meant or felt. The things I said were not honestly related to what was going on inside me. I blew up a lot, because I had so much bottled up, but my blowups were mysterious and sudden, without people having the opportunity to understand what they might have done to offend me – and without me even understanding what was bothering me.
Through repetition in program, by doing this inventory process, I have learned to identify what I want and list those things calmly. This means that I know myself better than I used to. I am not stuffing down. I am being honest. Since I list things calmly and rationally, I am more likely to get what I want than if I isolate or get sullen & resentful as I used to. I have become a better negotiator, because of the Big Book process.
Also, because I know and am comfortable with myself, I find it easier to listen to and understand other people. Their concerns are less likely to destabilize me than before.
Understanding selfishness has helped me feel saner and more integrated with the human race.
I had a friend in program who had been severely abused by his father. He wanted his father to love him. He had never felt that his father loved him. Of course, it is natural for one to want one's father to love one; but, in this case, it was something that he could not have. He was not able to accept that he could not have it. (see e.g. Serenity Prayer) He ended up dying from this disease. Surrender means that we have to accept that we are not in charge and that we don't get what we want all the time.
I have a friend who has wanted to stop the genocide in Darfur. Now, really, if there is anything that she is powerless over, it's the genocide in Darfur, but she could not accept that. She had a sign in her front yard that said "not on my watch: stop the genocide in Darfur." Social activists are often overweight, because they cannot get what they want. They might be acting selflessly by the standards of the outside world, but not by the standards of program.
I have a friend who has wanted to stop the genocide in Darfur. Now, really, if there is anything that she is powerless over, it's the genocide in Darfur, but she could not accept that. She had a sign in her front yard that said "not on my watch: stop the genocide in Darfur." Social activists are often overweight, because they cannot get what they want. They might be acting selflessly by the standards of the outside world, but not by the standards of program.
For me, the most basic formulation of "selfish" was "I want people, places, and things to be different so I can be more comfortable."
More about "dishonest"
The Dishonest category was something I really did not understand at first. I thought it only related to lies that I told other people or stealing. I did not understand that it included lies I was telling myself. These are the harder ones to see.For me, dishonesty includes: not accepting how much can be accomplished in a day, how much can be accomplished in a lifetime, how much sleep I need, how much time for self care. I make myself crazy over these things.
Some other categories of dishonest that I had trouble seeing were:
- I don't accept people, places, and things the way HP made them. I think I know better than HP.
- Allowing other people to esteem and value me, e.g. "people pleasing" In fact, HP is the one who should esteem and value me. If I am allowing others' opinions of me to make me miserable, I am making other people into HP
- I thought it was my responsibility to make others happy. No, it is my responsibility to keep my side of the street clean, using the steps. If I do that, and others are unhappy with me, then that is not my problem. It's their problem. Only HP can make others happy. If I think I can make others happy, then I'm thinking I'm HP.
More about self-seeking
This category is particularly troublesome, as to what it means. How is it different from "selfish?"I heard 3 explanations of this
1. It is the same as selfish and is just listed as "elegant variation," a writing style thing, in the list.
2. It is "seeking yourself in others," i.e. people pleasing. I personally put this category under "dishonest."
3. How I acted out. That's the one I prefer. What did I do as a result of being selfish, dishonest, and afraid? There are a lot of things that could be put in here.
The most common for female compulsive overeaters is constantly putting out a cloud of negative emotions, which makes everyone miserable. As with everything in program, there is a spectrum here. We want to find a happy medium between: being constantly negative and being falsely cheerful, which is emotionally dishonest. The truth is somewhere in between. Black & white thinking is not good.
Another way of acting out is somatizing. I learned more about this when I did ACA. If I have psychosomatic symtoms, e.g. nervous stomach, blushing, rapid heartbeat, (or in my case also eczema and back spasms can also result from stress) that can often be my first warning that I need to do some stepwork. My body is warning me. I put that under here because it's important to be aware of body warning signals.
Afraid
I'm hoping to put this in a separate blog (see e.g. AABB p. 68)Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Journalling about my career change
I was at a Quaker retreat a year ago. They asked us to draw pictures. That seems to be a common activity at Quaker workshops. I don’t remember what the topic was. I do remember what I drew.
I drew a picture of me in church, fuming, because I had to listen to a preacher, whose preachings I found insipid, annoying, lacking profundity. This was one of my motivations for becoming a Quaker — to get onto the other side of the pulpit — to become one of the ministers — and all Friends are ministers.
Below the picture of me in church, I drew a picture of me, looking at my computer screen, fuming, because I had to watch material, much of which I found annoying for some of the same reasons — but also some other reasons. This was one of my motivations for getting into acting and performing. I wanted to get on the other side of the screen.
There were other reasons as well. I love performing. I feel it comes naturally to me.
Yet, as I try to get into the entertainment industry, I find myself continuing to dislike the very things that drew me to want to change it.
I have been studying improv comedy for two and a half years. I love improvising. I love getting on stage and making things up. So far, tho, they haven’t let me into conservatory level courses at the my school.
I was just at the theater run by my school last night, watching a show, by one of my preferred groups. The show was raunchy. That seems to be the norm.
I don’t like raunchy. I am not laughing. I respect the talent of the people on stage. They’re bouncy, energetic, working well together. They’re great singers. They are nice people off stage. I really want to be their friend. But I didn’t like the show.
I also don’t like the widespread use of profanity in improv. I don’t like profanity.
I’m taking an acting course at an acting studio. We’re working on a classic play called “All My Sons,” by Arthur Miller. It’s a great play. But my character has to use some profanity. I don’t like it.
I get e-mails offering me courses with casting directors who are casting for TV shows that I’ve never watched. I’m not a TV watcher. I went completely cold turkey off video in college, because it seemed like a dangerous, addictive drug to me. I was only recently drawn back into video, because of my computer — the lure of YouTube videos, videos that are shorter, geared to my interests by an artificial intelligence algorithm.
TV still doesn’t lure me, tho. I would rather be creating content than consuming it, so it’s hard for me to get motivated to go to casting directors who are casting for things that I know little about and probably wouldn’t enjoy.
I’m drawn to sci-fi fantasy villains. I like the idea of scaring people. Probably that’s because I’m a timid person. I don’t feel badly about being a villain, because usually the villain gets killed. It’s just a role.
I auditioned for a horror musical recently. The director saw on my resume that I’m religious, so he wondered if I would fit into horror. I’m drawn to scaring people, so I’m drawn to horror. I told him that I thought that horror is often very moralistic — often more so than other genres — and draws conclusions that are very basic ethically. There was no moral conclusion to the musical improv comedy show I saw last night at all.
Still, I was most drawn to Dark Shadows as a child, because Barnabas wanted to reform. That’s part of what I really liked about Star Wars, Darth Vader was redeemed at the end. Redemption is a theme that I like, much more so than killing the victim. Tho I don’t consider myself a traditional Christian, I was impressed with the Christian idea that we are trying to save people spiritually, to get them to repent and reform rather than just punishing them.
I also liked Star Trek, as a kid, partly because Captain Kirk always regretted having to kill sentient aliens. He did not take pleasure in it. He wanted to avoid it.
I like to watch movies based on comic books. There’s little or no profanity there. There are scary villains that I would like to play, but they don’t have to swear. Also, I like watching sexy men in tights, if it’s only slightly suggestive, and not raunchy.
One of the things that drew me to Quakers was the historical testimony of plainness. Historical Quakers felt that spending time decorating themselves was wasteful, that that time and energy should be spent helping the poor. For me, it’s a bit different. I don’t like the feeling that women have to spend huge amounts of time and energy decorating themselves, because they feel insecure about themselves, particularly with respect to men. Also, I feel that society generally compensates women less than men and women are expected to spend scarce resources on their appearances.
I got into a big debate on Facebook recently about Bruce Jenner’s transition, where I was disturbed that he felt comfortable with his natural appearance while being interviewed by Sawyer so long as that was identified as “male,” but identifying as “female” and becoming “she,” involved wearing makeup, hyper-sexualized clothing and styled hair — a male fantasy of what a woman is — not the natural appearance of a person in the process of transitioning from male to female, with mixed features and body attributes.
The person who got most upset about my post was a successful actress, who does buy into the whole makeup, clothing, hair thing. She felt threatened, apparently, by my opinion that Jenner’s way of defining female involved all this beauty enhancement stuff.
The first transgender people I met were Quakers. They, like me, were not so into the commercialization of female beauty and tended to be fairly plain. They made me curious. I tend to be drawn to gay and transgender men. I wanted to know more about them.
Jenner is different. Women in his life as a straight man included the Kardashians. Jenner buys into that view of women. I’m still curious about Jenner, as most everyone seems to be, but I don’t like the way Jenner defines female.
But this brings me back to my friend who is a successful actress, who is not into “plain” the way I am. In some sense, she represents my fears about what I would have to become to be successful as a performer.
I’m not going into this to become like everyone else. I don’t want to have to do roles that include profanity. I don’t want to have to buy into this definition of female that includes spending huge amounts of time and energy on commercial beauty products and fashion.
Still I find myself buying some pretty clothes — drawn to them. I used to like to wear grey and black a lot . I don’t like it so much any more.
Part of this is my realization that grey and black clothing is still dyed. Dyes are applied in toxic processes. The whole dying industry has been mostly moved outside the USA, because modern commercial dying cannot be accomplished in compliance with OSHA and EPA regulations. We’ve shipped the toxicity to the third world.
Jonathan Woolman, a historical Quaker, insisted on wearing undyed cloth, because even then toxicity was a huge issue for workers. I have a few pieces of clothing that are made of undyed cloth. They show stains very badly. They’re ecru in color. They don’t feel practical because of the way they show stains.
So I’m wearing dyed cloth and feeling schizo about it.
I feel like I’m on a slippery slope. I’m practicing a role where I have to use some profanity. I’m wearing some dyed clothing. I’m anxious not to alienate a successful professional actress who is happy with her makeup and hair styling.
I don’t want to become what I hate in order to succeed. I don’t like the influence some people have on me.
I’m not sure where I’m going with this. I feel like I have moral concerns that no one else shares, a Don Quixote of sorts.
I drew a picture of me in church, fuming, because I had to listen to a preacher, whose preachings I found insipid, annoying, lacking profundity. This was one of my motivations for becoming a Quaker — to get onto the other side of the pulpit — to become one of the ministers — and all Friends are ministers.
Below the picture of me in church, I drew a picture of me, looking at my computer screen, fuming, because I had to watch material, much of which I found annoying for some of the same reasons — but also some other reasons. This was one of my motivations for getting into acting and performing. I wanted to get on the other side of the screen.
There were other reasons as well. I love performing. I feel it comes naturally to me.
Yet, as I try to get into the entertainment industry, I find myself continuing to dislike the very things that drew me to want to change it.
I have been studying improv comedy for two and a half years. I love improvising. I love getting on stage and making things up. So far, tho, they haven’t let me into conservatory level courses at the my school.
I was just at the theater run by my school last night, watching a show, by one of my preferred groups. The show was raunchy. That seems to be the norm.
I don’t like raunchy. I am not laughing. I respect the talent of the people on stage. They’re bouncy, energetic, working well together. They’re great singers. They are nice people off stage. I really want to be their friend. But I didn’t like the show.
I also don’t like the widespread use of profanity in improv. I don’t like profanity.
I’m taking an acting course at an acting studio. We’re working on a classic play called “All My Sons,” by Arthur Miller. It’s a great play. But my character has to use some profanity. I don’t like it.
I get e-mails offering me courses with casting directors who are casting for TV shows that I’ve never watched. I’m not a TV watcher. I went completely cold turkey off video in college, because it seemed like a dangerous, addictive drug to me. I was only recently drawn back into video, because of my computer — the lure of YouTube videos, videos that are shorter, geared to my interests by an artificial intelligence algorithm.
TV still doesn’t lure me, tho. I would rather be creating content than consuming it, so it’s hard for me to get motivated to go to casting directors who are casting for things that I know little about and probably wouldn’t enjoy.
I’m drawn to sci-fi fantasy villains. I like the idea of scaring people. Probably that’s because I’m a timid person. I don’t feel badly about being a villain, because usually the villain gets killed. It’s just a role.
I auditioned for a horror musical recently. The director saw on my resume that I’m religious, so he wondered if I would fit into horror. I’m drawn to scaring people, so I’m drawn to horror. I told him that I thought that horror is often very moralistic — often more so than other genres — and draws conclusions that are very basic ethically. There was no moral conclusion to the musical improv comedy show I saw last night at all.
Still, I was most drawn to Dark Shadows as a child, because Barnabas wanted to reform. That’s part of what I really liked about Star Wars, Darth Vader was redeemed at the end. Redemption is a theme that I like, much more so than killing the victim. Tho I don’t consider myself a traditional Christian, I was impressed with the Christian idea that we are trying to save people spiritually, to get them to repent and reform rather than just punishing them.
I also liked Star Trek, as a kid, partly because Captain Kirk always regretted having to kill sentient aliens. He did not take pleasure in it. He wanted to avoid it.
I like to watch movies based on comic books. There’s little or no profanity there. There are scary villains that I would like to play, but they don’t have to swear. Also, I like watching sexy men in tights, if it’s only slightly suggestive, and not raunchy.
One of the things that drew me to Quakers was the historical testimony of plainness. Historical Quakers felt that spending time decorating themselves was wasteful, that that time and energy should be spent helping the poor. For me, it’s a bit different. I don’t like the feeling that women have to spend huge amounts of time and energy decorating themselves, because they feel insecure about themselves, particularly with respect to men. Also, I feel that society generally compensates women less than men and women are expected to spend scarce resources on their appearances.
I got into a big debate on Facebook recently about Bruce Jenner’s transition, where I was disturbed that he felt comfortable with his natural appearance while being interviewed by Sawyer so long as that was identified as “male,” but identifying as “female” and becoming “she,” involved wearing makeup, hyper-sexualized clothing and styled hair — a male fantasy of what a woman is — not the natural appearance of a person in the process of transitioning from male to female, with mixed features and body attributes.
The person who got most upset about my post was a successful actress, who does buy into the whole makeup, clothing, hair thing. She felt threatened, apparently, by my opinion that Jenner’s way of defining female involved all this beauty enhancement stuff.
The first transgender people I met were Quakers. They, like me, were not so into the commercialization of female beauty and tended to be fairly plain. They made me curious. I tend to be drawn to gay and transgender men. I wanted to know more about them.
Jenner is different. Women in his life as a straight man included the Kardashians. Jenner buys into that view of women. I’m still curious about Jenner, as most everyone seems to be, but I don’t like the way Jenner defines female.
But this brings me back to my friend who is a successful actress, who is not into “plain” the way I am. In some sense, she represents my fears about what I would have to become to be successful as a performer.
I’m not going into this to become like everyone else. I don’t want to have to do roles that include profanity. I don’t want to have to buy into this definition of female that includes spending huge amounts of time and energy on commercial beauty products and fashion.
Still I find myself buying some pretty clothes — drawn to them. I used to like to wear grey and black a lot . I don’t like it so much any more.
Part of this is my realization that grey and black clothing is still dyed. Dyes are applied in toxic processes. The whole dying industry has been mostly moved outside the USA, because modern commercial dying cannot be accomplished in compliance with OSHA and EPA regulations. We’ve shipped the toxicity to the third world.
Jonathan Woolman, a historical Quaker, insisted on wearing undyed cloth, because even then toxicity was a huge issue for workers. I have a few pieces of clothing that are made of undyed cloth. They show stains very badly. They’re ecru in color. They don’t feel practical because of the way they show stains.
So I’m wearing dyed cloth and feeling schizo about it.
I feel like I’m on a slippery slope. I’m practicing a role where I have to use some profanity. I’m wearing some dyed clothing. I’m anxious not to alienate a successful professional actress who is happy with her makeup and hair styling.
I don’t want to become what I hate in order to succeed. I don’t like the influence some people have on me.
I’m not sure where I’m going with this. I feel like I have moral concerns that no one else shares, a Don Quixote of sorts.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
response to @wsj op ed piece on assisted suicide 5/23/15
I personally favor the option of an assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. As I understand it, this writer does not.
The writer points out that many states have not approved assisted suicide. One concern that comes up, and the writer expresses it in this piece, is that health care providers may be put under pressure to terminate expensive patients if physician assisted suicide is allowed.
The missing link here is the physician assisted piece.
The mission of physicians is to save lives. They take a Hippocratic Oath to this effect. This is the single most fundamental part of the ethos of physicians. Why should they be the ones to have responsibility for this delicate procedure?
Why not have a separate profession of people to do this job? These people would have cross-disciplinary training, e.g.:
I would like to see these assisted suicide ballot efforts changed slightly to include this different vehicle for carrying out wishes of terminal patients.
The writer points out that many states have not approved assisted suicide. One concern that comes up, and the writer expresses it in this piece, is that health care providers may be put under pressure to terminate expensive patients if physician assisted suicide is allowed.
The missing link here is the physician assisted piece.
The mission of physicians is to save lives. They take a Hippocratic Oath to this effect. This is the single most fundamental part of the ethos of physicians. Why should they be the ones to have responsibility for this delicate procedure?
Why not have a separate profession of people to do this job? These people would have cross-disciplinary training, e.g.:
- some medical so that they can evaluate the seriousness of the patient's condition and administer suicide drugs;
- some in psychology so that they can evaluate any need for counseling, both for the patient and for those close to the patient, and administer such counseling;
- some legal, so that they can help the patient procure necessary assistance in preparing a will and a living will; getting a health care proxy; arranging for a power of attorney for people to administer finances if the person elects not to commit suicide
- some general practical in terms of arranging for care of the patient and any responsibilities the patient has if the patient elects to continue living, but is not able to maintain those responsibilities. This might reassure many patients and help them feel more hopeful.
I would like to see these assisted suicide ballot efforts changed slightly to include this different vehicle for carrying out wishes of terminal patients.
Sunday, April 19, 2015
A neurological argument about why prayer and meditation help combat addiction
Why do I think a spiritual approach to addiction works?
I often speak with people who are skeptical that a spiritual approach works for addiction. In some cases, this is because these people do not believe in a higher power.
I see no reason why you should have to believe in a higher power in order to work a 12 step program. I believe it is necessary to pray, but that does not mean one has to believe in a higher power. I would like to offer a sketch of a neurological argument for why a spiritual approach should work. First, I will talk about some articles that I have read. Then I will talk about impressions that I have in my own head — what some things have felt like to me — and connections I see between my own impressions and the articles that I have read.
I’m struggling to make this coherent. I tend to get too complicated. I may edit it more later.
Very shortly after I joined program in the fall of 2004 there was a short article in Science News that strongly influenced my thinking (Science News, 11/13/2004, Vol. 166, No. 20, p. 310). This article dealt with the topic of synchronized gamma activity in the brain. The article compared two studies.
The first was a study of schizophrenics. This first study showed that schizophrenics have less synchronized gamma activity than normal people.
The second study compared normal people with Buddhist monks who had been meditating several hours per day for fifteen to thirty years. These monks had much more synchronized gamma activity than normal people, and especially spreading into more areas of the brain. The article said that it wasn't known what was cause or effect here, because possibly people with more synchronized gamma activity were choosing to be Buddhist monks, but they found that normal people who tried to meditate would increase the size of the areas of their brains that had synchronized gamma activity.
Moreover, I saw another article (Scientific American Mind, November/December 2009 pp 65-67) where Buddhists were interviewed and they explained what they were doing when meditating. One stated goal was to try to expand their mediation into more parts of their brains.
I have seen some articles proposing that the schizophrenic impression of hallucination relates to some lack of connectivity between brain centers generating the hallucination and brain centers perceiving the hallucination, (cf P. Boksa, “On the Neurobiology of Hallucinations,” J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2009 Jul; 34(4): 260–262)
This reminds me of my experience in natural childbirth. At the time I did that, I was doing a lot of yoga, so I was in a what I would now call “fit spiritual condition”. I got a sense of being in contact mentally with the labor process and even of having some control over it, despite labor allegedly being involuntary. That sensation of being in contact with the process had a spiritual feel to it, something like ESP.
Shortly after childbirth, I read the fiction book The Mists of Avalon, which is a retelling of the Arthurian legends from a female perspective. This book talked about women who had been in childbirth believing that they some kind of second sight, a sort of ESP. I really related to that, from my own prospective of having ESP-like feelings while in childbirth.
I also found a diagram on a government website related to addiction that posited that addiction is related to the central portion of the brain, including the amygdala. These central portions of the brain are at approximately on eye level.
Another article in Science News gave a diagram of the brain showing areas of the brain that have been linked to conscious thought. (Science News, 2/11/2012 p. 24) These areas were almost all on the outer surface of the brain, in contrast with the suspected areas relating to addiction, which were deep in the center.
Yet another article that I saw (Currents -- Science Journal: A Wandering Mind Heads Straight Toward Insight --- Researchers Map the Anatomy of the Brain's Breakthrough Moments and Reveal the Payoff of Daydreaming, Robert Lee Hotz. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern Edition). New York, N.Y.:Jun 19, 2009. p. A.11 ) said that neurological researchers have seen decisions being formed in the subconscious part of the brain eight seconds before we are aware of them. The conscious brain is a delusional egomaniac. It thinks it is in control, but it is not.
My impression as an active food addict was that there was a part of my brain that wanted to stop eating and a part that didn't want to stop, and, somehow, the part of the brain that didn't want to stop was winning. A lot of other addicts have told me the same thing, and chapter three of the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous is dedicated to this phenomenon, the idea that the conscious brain wants to stop, and, yet, there constantly arises this insanely trivial excuse to go back and engage in the addictive behavior, and the conscious brain is powerless to stop it.
When I first got abstinent, I had a sensation of fluid flowing inside my brain. I have sometimes had a similar sensation after a limb falls asleep. As sensation returns, there is sometimes a feeling as if fluid were flowing into the previously numb area. I therefore got the definite impression, early in program, that somehow prayer and meditation were causing parts of my brain that were asleep or numb to wake up, or have circulation return.
In view of the different positions in the brain of the conscious brain and the centers for impulses and desires, it makes total sense to me that one would not have conscious control over addiction — that there would be a disconnect between those regions. In view of the ability of meditation to cause some form of neurological activity, namely the synchronized gamma activity, to move into more areas of the brain, it makes sense to me that meditation could help connect the conscious and unconscious brains. This also makes sense to me in view of my experience with natural childbirth.
When I started program, I devised a meditation of an ocean wave at eye level washing into the back of my brain. I spoke about this in another blog https://annalisse-mayer.blogspot.com/2013/09/musings-on-making-my-higher-power-work.html. This was even before I saw the diagram of where the amygdala is, but, in fact, this meditation involved reaching with a wave image into precisely those areas that the government diagram specified as relevant to addiction.
The use of prayer seems analogous to me — a potential tool for getting one part of the brain to connect with another, precisely what seems to be missing in the addict who wants to quit and yet finds him or herself continually returning to the behavior that s/he wanted to stop.
I often speak with people who are skeptical that a spiritual approach works for addiction. In some cases, this is because these people do not believe in a higher power.
I see no reason why you should have to believe in a higher power in order to work a 12 step program. I believe it is necessary to pray, but that does not mean one has to believe in a higher power. I would like to offer a sketch of a neurological argument for why a spiritual approach should work. First, I will talk about some articles that I have read. Then I will talk about impressions that I have in my own head — what some things have felt like to me — and connections I see between my own impressions and the articles that I have read.
I’m struggling to make this coherent. I tend to get too complicated. I may edit it more later.
Very shortly after I joined program in the fall of 2004 there was a short article in Science News that strongly influenced my thinking (Science News, 11/13/2004, Vol. 166, No. 20, p. 310). This article dealt with the topic of synchronized gamma activity in the brain. The article compared two studies.
The first was a study of schizophrenics. This first study showed that schizophrenics have less synchronized gamma activity than normal people.
The second study compared normal people with Buddhist monks who had been meditating several hours per day for fifteen to thirty years. These monks had much more synchronized gamma activity than normal people, and especially spreading into more areas of the brain. The article said that it wasn't known what was cause or effect here, because possibly people with more synchronized gamma activity were choosing to be Buddhist monks, but they found that normal people who tried to meditate would increase the size of the areas of their brains that had synchronized gamma activity.
Moreover, I saw another article (Scientific American Mind, November/December 2009 pp 65-67) where Buddhists were interviewed and they explained what they were doing when meditating. One stated goal was to try to expand their mediation into more parts of their brains.
I have seen some articles proposing that the schizophrenic impression of hallucination relates to some lack of connectivity between brain centers generating the hallucination and brain centers perceiving the hallucination, (cf P. Boksa, “On the Neurobiology of Hallucinations,” J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2009 Jul; 34(4): 260–262)
This reminds me of my experience in natural childbirth. At the time I did that, I was doing a lot of yoga, so I was in a what I would now call “fit spiritual condition”. I got a sense of being in contact mentally with the labor process and even of having some control over it, despite labor allegedly being involuntary. That sensation of being in contact with the process had a spiritual feel to it, something like ESP.
Shortly after childbirth, I read the fiction book The Mists of Avalon, which is a retelling of the Arthurian legends from a female perspective. This book talked about women who had been in childbirth believing that they some kind of second sight, a sort of ESP. I really related to that, from my own prospective of having ESP-like feelings while in childbirth.
I also found a diagram on a government website related to addiction that posited that addiction is related to the central portion of the brain, including the amygdala. These central portions of the brain are at approximately on eye level.
Another article in Science News gave a diagram of the brain showing areas of the brain that have been linked to conscious thought. (Science News, 2/11/2012 p. 24) These areas were almost all on the outer surface of the brain, in contrast with the suspected areas relating to addiction, which were deep in the center.
Yet another article that I saw (Currents -- Science Journal: A Wandering Mind Heads Straight Toward Insight --- Researchers Map the Anatomy of the Brain's Breakthrough Moments and Reveal the Payoff of Daydreaming, Robert Lee Hotz. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern Edition). New York, N.Y.:Jun 19, 2009. p. A.11 ) said that neurological researchers have seen decisions being formed in the subconscious part of the brain eight seconds before we are aware of them. The conscious brain is a delusional egomaniac. It thinks it is in control, but it is not.
My impression as an active food addict was that there was a part of my brain that wanted to stop eating and a part that didn't want to stop, and, somehow, the part of the brain that didn't want to stop was winning. A lot of other addicts have told me the same thing, and chapter three of the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous is dedicated to this phenomenon, the idea that the conscious brain wants to stop, and, yet, there constantly arises this insanely trivial excuse to go back and engage in the addictive behavior, and the conscious brain is powerless to stop it.
When I first got abstinent, I had a sensation of fluid flowing inside my brain. I have sometimes had a similar sensation after a limb falls asleep. As sensation returns, there is sometimes a feeling as if fluid were flowing into the previously numb area. I therefore got the definite impression, early in program, that somehow prayer and meditation were causing parts of my brain that were asleep or numb to wake up, or have circulation return.
In view of the different positions in the brain of the conscious brain and the centers for impulses and desires, it makes total sense to me that one would not have conscious control over addiction — that there would be a disconnect between those regions. In view of the ability of meditation to cause some form of neurological activity, namely the synchronized gamma activity, to move into more areas of the brain, it makes sense to me that meditation could help connect the conscious and unconscious brains. This also makes sense to me in view of my experience with natural childbirth.
When I started program, I devised a meditation of an ocean wave at eye level washing into the back of my brain. I spoke about this in another blog https://annalisse-mayer.blogspot.com/2013/09/musings-on-making-my-higher-power-work.html. This was even before I saw the diagram of where the amygdala is, but, in fact, this meditation involved reaching with a wave image into precisely those areas that the government diagram specified as relevant to addiction.
The use of prayer seems analogous to me — a potential tool for getting one part of the brain to connect with another, precisely what seems to be missing in the addict who wants to quit and yet finds him or herself continually returning to the behavior that s/he wanted to stop.
******
Addendum 9/2/15
Also prayer releases endorphins http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-Natural-Rush which is generally what addicts are seeking -- and prayer is much healthier than other things that addicts are doing to get endorphins.
******
Addendum 8/31/21
New research about spirituality and the brain
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)