1st step, get on the horse. Next step, stay on the horse.

Now that I'm not working at my job anymore, let me talk about my job without breaching my confidentiality agreement.  I am specifically not going into the detail I could, as most or all of my readers are looking for an introduction into the subject, and the less I say the less chance there is that I will incur legal penalties for my writing.

DCF (department of children and families), formerly known as DSS (department of social services), provides custodial care for children from abusive or otherwise dangerous families.  I will hereon refer to DCF as "the agency".

The above mentioned custodial placements are, to provide an incomplete summary: foster homes, group homes, and residential treatment programs.  The agency also solicits adoption for their advocated children.

Residential treatment programs, used for the children with mental health problems and behavioral concerns can be either for those who are repeatedly unable to socialize in a foster/group home environment or who have specifically been brought up on some criminal charges.  Those convicted of crimes are sometimes sent to DYS, the "juvenile justice agency of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" (prison), in other cases they are sent to secured residential treatment facilities.  Those awaiting trail on a crime for which they have been indicted are most often placed in these secured treatment centers as they cannot (really) yet be committed to DYS and the agency, while retaining custody of them, will not newly submit them for foster care.

Residential treatment programs or, to the kids and direct care workers, simply "programs" provide a structured, scheduled daily lifestyle with therapy services and incentives for good behavior/investment in treatment.  Long term placements also contain schools, where the teachers cater to the various levels of education the residents have achieved.  While the classrooms are small, the teachers are run ragged attempting to address all the different academic issues of the residents.

Being in a residential treatment program means, for the adolescent, twenty-four hour supervision by direct care workers.  These individuals maintain the daily schedule, correct problem behaviors with specific program instituted consequences, assist with the day to day needs of residents, provide feedback, and ensure the safety of residents through searches and sometimes, physical management.

I was fortunate to work in a setting, which I will obviously not name here, that had a long-standing and comprehensively structured discipline system.  All communication was very clear, professional, and when necessary conforming to a powerful and directive language.  Residents that have been moved through multiple programs are usually experienced with physical management, either in observation or through personal experience.  

Every attempt is made to convince residents, and literally put them in a good place, to make good, healthy decisions that will foster their progress through the program and not compromise the safety of themselves, other residents, or staff.  However, for kids who have never known a disciplined, structured environment and who have often been brought up on charges involving the harm of others they sometimes see no other option than to physically act out.  

While physical management is by no means the main job of direct care workers at a program, it is the job on the minds of all staff at all times.  In these settings, the safety of clients is the number one priority, and when a resident becomes a danger to himself or others, it becomes necessary to physically restrain him.

I would like to speak about the tactics and practices involved in management but I believe that doing so would violate my agreement.  I am fairly sure that I can say it is done in such a way as to cause as little harm as humanly possible to the client.  

Moving on.

Treatment programs often have specialties, working with clients who fall into a certain category of mental health issue or criminal offense.  For example, there are programs who will specifically deal with psychotic patients, others who will specialize in dealing with, say, sex offenders.

Working with criminal populations, generally, a main goal is to help the clients/residents develop empathy.  This is an ability that is generally developed during childhood, but, for children who have had to literally fend for themselves, in terms of getting the necessities of survival, other concerns overwhelm this socially necessary development.  Of course, the development of empathy does not prevent criminal behavior, as empathy is just a recognition of the feelings/perceptions of others.  Allowing this recognition to affect one's decisions and actions is what prevents criminality.  So, a final step would be helping the kids become less ego-centric.

With juveniles, especially juvenile delinquents, especially male juvenile delinquents, often anger is the only emotion individuals are comfortable expressing.  Obviously, this is a huge impediment to therapy, and understanding that anger is only a surface sort of symptom of other emotions is crucial to self-awareness, something that many residents almost completely lack.

In my time at work I interacted with individuals who committed some horrendous crimes.  The thing that always struck me about my work was how easy it is to relate to these people even if you are somewhat disgusted by their actions.  It is a reminder of one's humanity and of the instincts that ultimately drive all of us.  I found myself asking at times, was I really that different from this when I was 14?  Different enough to justify these people living in custody and me wandering free?  What more experienced professionals have reminded me is while the feelings and motivations are sometimes the same, the difference is that socialized people have the coping skills and the "conscience", to use a non-industry term, to not act on the occasional destructive urges all people have.

OK.  I'll be back to this.  I've just lost my train of thought is all.

Filing (here goes)

"Times getting tough, gotta sign for unemployment"

-Hieroglyphics

Brackets for pure meta-commentary.  Parenthesis for examples or diversions within the subject.

I tried to file using the teleclaim center last week, but the wait on the phone was more than a half hour and they directed me to call again. The center opens at 8:30 AM, I am attempting to be one of the first who calls.  I figure while I'm waiting on the line I'll put something here.  You know I'm unemployed for real when I'm coming back to writing in this internet journal thing.  Plus I had a request to write more and my weakness to flattery is obscene.

I intend to write about love; its targeting, its application.

When you tell someone you love them, what exactly is it you are saying you love? [I just tried calling again, still not open]

When you tell someone you love them, do you mean that you love every part of them?  Do you mean you love their mind as a whole?  Their body as a whole?  What is it that is the most essential part of an individual that draws feelings (and other things I will attempt to explore) from others?

Let me first explore the idea that when you love someone you love every part of them.  I have an immediate problem with this idea.  If you love every bit of a person, from their eyelashes to their fingers to their toes, does this love become fractured if a part of them changes or disappears?  In the most benign example, say you fall in love with someone and shortly thereafter they cut their hair.  Do you love them less?  Is your love compromised because part of the person you fell in love with is now (albeit temporarily) gone?  What if they had a facial piercing and they took it out?  To cite a more serious example, what if a loved one is in a traumatic accident and loses, say, their legs?  Is a fraction of your love, that was your love for their legs, now gone?

I will allude to a future issue by asking what if they merely lose the use of their legs?  Do you love their legs less because they no longer respond to the person's mental commands?

Anyway.  Due to the questions noted above, I find this way of looking at love to be problematic.  [I am making a lot of typos along the way that I am missing.  I am out of practice.] I am willing to believe that some people view love this way, and it is certainly a recognized phenomenon that relationships sometimes break up because of, say, the loss of a limb in one of the partners.  However, I doubt it is true that these breakups occur because the relevant person loved the leg and their love is diminished, rather, the implications of living with a missing leg on day to day routines and concerns makes the relationship difficult and less desirable.  [No dice, by 8:33 AM, the wait to talk to a representative is over 1/2 hour.  Like calling a radio show when they're conducting a giveaway.]  This is interesting.  Perhaps when you say you love someone, you mean you love them for what they bring to the relationship.  First, let me dispose with this first idea completely.

If you love every bit of someone, you are not going to love them less if they, say, clip their toenails or lose a single hair off of their head.  At least, I think enough of us would not that it is fair to dismiss that extreme view.  However, I don't think it's so far from the way that a good chunk of people deal with love (or at least view it in an idealistic sort of way) that it is a ridiculous proposition.  To be more general, if you make a commitment of any kind to a person, I don't think it is fair to suggest that part of your vow or commitment is directed towards all of their fingers and toes, their hair and their skin.  Skin cells are coming off of us constantly.  Anyway.  Moving on.

I'm going to work on a more cynical and scientific idea.  Say you are willing to grant and cope with changes in the individual's body, but, what you love about them is still purely physical and mechanical.  You love their "body" in the sense that you love their physical appearance (the way light bounces off their form to create an image), the way their brain produces neurotransmitters in order to produce what you experience as their personality, the way their voice sounds (or the way their larynx is constructed to produce a sound), the way they smell, the way their skin feels, the way they taste.  This is a bit complex, but, the idea is that you love how their physical body works with the world to produce all the sensory manifestations you can experience by interacting with them.  I suppose, well, I know, that this view could extend to loving the way they make decisions, their motivation, the way they emotionally respond to events.  As a (mostly) scientifically minded individual, I have difficulty poking holes in this idea.  Let me start by saying that perhaps if you love a person in this way, you are neglecting the fact that what you love is the way that you perceive all the sensory information you are receiving from their body.  In other words, you don't love their smell, you "love" the way their smell affects your sensory organs and changes your affective state.  You don't love them at all, nor do you love the physical methods of communication that allow you to experience them.  If you take this view you must grant that what you are enjoying is the experience, not the other person at all.  Perhaps only the object of love can produce the combination of stimuli that you believe produces "love" in you, and perhaps you are willing to sacrifice yourself to preserve them so that this combination is not compromised.  This is becoming difficult so let me use an example in an attempt to deal a death-blow to this idea.

Say your loved one wants to go to an italian restaurant for dinner, and you want to go to a japanese restaurant.  If you insist on going to the japanese restaurant, the consequence may be that you perceive "dissatisfaction" or "anger" from them over the course of the night, that they may restrict your access to their sensory information.  This is displeasing because you enjoy the sensory experience they give you more than you enjoy the sensory experience your sushi produces.  You may even regret not going to the italian restaurant so as to have avoided these consequences.  In this case, though, does the other person's experience of the event affect you at all?  Does it matter to you that they are emotionally affected (negatively) by the facts: 1) they aren't eating something they like or 2) you were not willing to compromise your own desire to please them?  Since you love only the productions of their body, it is unlikely that their experience of these feelings would bother you.  

An alternate view of this would be that you "love" their emotional state because it is generated by their body and you want that state to be positive and pleasing to them rather than negative and displeasing.  But - what are you (am I) referring to with the word "them"?  Their consciousness (which is arguably an entirely biological production)?  

OK, this is getting really hard, especially considering that there is really no satisfying definition of consciousness.  I am going to go to the dictionary, one of the few external sources I use in the blog, for this.

Of course there are several definitions.

1. awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people

3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life

4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge

5. concern, interest, or acute awareness

6. the mental activity of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes

7. the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.

I've tied a fucking knot for myself here, but, I am an Eagle Scout, I am excellent at tying knots.

So.  The scientist espousing this view of love "loves" the other person's consciousness, their thoughts, emotions, and....ah, fuck.  Anyone who takes this view of interpersonal relations probably would never use the word love.  Empathy for another person involves having another person's emotions affect your emotions, your thoughts, your decision making.  I don't understand how, if you "love" the biochemical construction of a person's brain, you could even be conscious of the substance of their emotional state.  Someone espousing this view certainly couldn't claim to know what the other person's emotional experience might be like.  Maybe my limited understanding of science is impeding me here, but I'm tired of dealing with this ridiculous viewpoint.  Fuck.  I can't knock it down.  

Alright.  Struck out.  Trying again.

Say you understood neuroscience, biology, chemistry, physics, whatever, so completely that you could scientifically rationalize and explain the interactions between your consciousness and another's and think (or feel, or make decisions appropriate to the belief) that a specific interaction you undertake can be accurately labeled as love.  

I don't understand this point of view, especially considering that the definition of love is far more complex than that of consciousness.  What I want to know is, for a person who is in this position, who has scientifically proved their love for another to themselves, could they grant that a person with a less developed understanding can experience love?  If the person they "love" does not have such a developed understanding, could they grant that the other is capable of loving them?

[I am fucking sick of this, and it is the reason I stopped writing before.  I throw out all these ideas and they are so god damned complex that I can't come to a thesis or testable statement based on a synthesis of them.  I can't imagine that anyone will get anything out of this blog post other than a profound confusion, or at best fascination, with the operation of my psychology.  It must be clear that I have difficulty believing in anything.  And yet, I do have beliefs.  That is what this is about, challenging these beliefs and then seeing afterwards if I still hold them.  Let me just go ahead and say what I believe love is without having completely logically justified my belief.  I can't expect to dismiss science and postulate a rationally viable option in its place, at least not in the span of a single blog post.  Before I jump into this, let me say that while I didn't list the definitions of love, I did look it up and several of the definitions claim it is purely sexual interaction and that I cannot stand for this kind of definition.]

I believe that love is a desire beyond all other desires.  It is an exception to the term desire that proves the continuity of all other experiences called desire.  Whatever well-being means, it is a wish for the well-being of all conscious entities.  It is not entirely selfless, as it must include at least some desire for one's own well being as a conscious entity.  To have this desire, one must recognize and place a large value on the subjective experience of all others.  

I think this kind of "desire" is different enough from, say, the desire for a candy bar that it deserves a separate category in language.  

I suppose the question is, can one love and at the same time particularly wish for the well being of a specific individual or group of individuals?  If you love, does telling an individual person that you love them even mean anything?  This is what I struggle with and all the rational arguments are just ramblings that attempt to logically justify something that is unjustifiable for a human being.  Our genes are non-living compounds that hold the design for a living being whose "purpose" is to promote and ensure the continuance of the genes.  If such a being acts merely to promote the existence and prosperity of others while doing nothing to reproduce itself, is it a genetic failure?  It has to be.  And yet it is not a failure in the minds of all other beings.  Which is it more important to serve - our genes, or all conscious beings?  

Love is service.  Love is denial and acceptance.  Love is conflict.  Love is sacrifice.  Love only means something to others inasmuch as it promotes volitional practice.  Love must be chosen and it must be chosen over instinct.

If you can help me complete any of my ideas or add to this please do.  I need help.  I apologize for providing such a flawed account and for not tying up all the ends I left hanging.  I am exhausted, and I have only been awake for two and a half hours today.

weeding out the casual

This post is for readers.

What can be communicated?

This question has been hanging over my head for more than a month, still, I find it confounding.  I feel that my knowledge has been significantly increased over this time, my perspective feels more satisfying.  I still think the answer to this is beyond my abilities and my resources.  Having posed it is almost enough for me.  I have to try anyway.

It's always best to start at the surface and dig deeper when confronted with a difficult question.  In fact, this may be the only approach.  So, what is the most superficial way in which humans communicate?  Damn, that's a doozy too.  Does this mean the most transparent attempts at communication or the most functionally insignificant?  

Let's say functionally insignificant.

Talking about the weather or about topical, universally known facts or concerns.

"Damn, it's been hot the last few days."

"Seriously.  I've had to spend all day indoors with the air conditioning on!"

"That'll jack up the ol' electric bill."

"Yeah, tell me about it.  And I definitely don't have the money to spare, either."

"Amen to that, brother."

Apparently, no information has been exchanged here.  Both parties are talking about obvious issues that everyone in the climatic (is that an acceptable use of that word?) area knows about.  Also referenced are the general scarcity of money and the difficulties associated.  Another obvious issue that most people deal with daily and are intimately familiar with.

But what else?

Discomfort associated with the heat and financial hardship imposed through an attempt to deal with this discomfort are wide ranging concerns.  However, presumably, not EVERYONE in the area is troubled or annoyed by them.  For example, some people might prefer the high heat to spring-like temperatures.  Others might not be the least bit concerned about the additional cost of air conditioning.  So, in this exchange, it is confirmed that both individuals are indeed concerned about these current problems.  On a certain level, both parties end this exchange knowing that they share some common ground and their minds are, at least to some degree, on the same issues.

This is important.  Knowing that another's mind is similarly engaged is, I find, calming.  Sometimes people can become isolated in their own minds, feel that they have unique problems that no one else faces, that they are up against impossible odds.  The recognition that others are engaged in the same struggles is heartening, even if this is irrational.  I would say that talking about local sports falls into this category, even if these concerns are a bit more abstract and artistic in nature.  Something like gas prices affects a wider group of people than any weather front, but I believe the principle is the same.

So much for that.

I'm going to try to distinguish this form of communication from that which discusses a Specific topic that is known only to the two people discussing it, or perhaps, a small group.  I don't feel it necessary to work all the way down the continuum of less and less universally acknowledged problems.  Still, I wonder whether this example will be too big of a jump from the last.

Discussing a friend.

"I'm really concerned about (name).  (Pronoun) seems to be isolating (Pn)self a lot lately and isn't coming out with us the way (Pn) used to.  I wonder if (Pn) still hasn't gotten over that big breakup?"

"Oh, I know what you mean.  (Pn) really hasn't been the same since that.  Maybe we should throw (Pn) a party or something.  Or just get the whole crew together.  Let (Pn) know that we're all behind (Pn)."

"Good idea."

The first thing I notice about this example, contrasted with the first, is that the problem being discussed is one that the two individuals feel they can do something to correct or resolve.  They are not merely commiserating on the unfortunate effects of the problem, they are planning to attack it.  Indeed, this is a big jump.  Take a half step back.  Perhaps an intermediate stage would be a problem that no direct action could be taken towards but to which potential solutions could be posed.  (nothing can be done to change the weather)

"If the two parties could just work together maybe we could get some real health care legislation passed that would benefit everyone."

Half step back forward.  Deep breath.

I can feel my logic, as it is, slipping away.  I must attempt to continue.

The example at hand is an exchange between two people.  It doesn't involve a lot of communication because there is no tension or disagreement - both agree as to the best course of action.  However, that is the key, the conversation is a prelude to action as opposed to pure commentary.  It is goal-directed.  It focuses the attention of both parties on the problem and gets them thinking on the details of how the plan should be carried out.  It forces an allocation of resources, in a sense.  It carries an obvious functional purpose (as the general speculation about potential solutions for problems out of reach does not).

I'm going to endure internal argument and self-criticism over this, but, I believe that the communication of emotions is somehow more significant, or, at least, requires the transmission of more information than talking about the external environment whether it be comment or problem solving.  I'm not saying that emotions are more important, merely, that communicating them is more difficult and therefore stretches communication further, deeper.  I will try to demonstrate this with an example.

Fuck.

As I'm trying to write out an example, I realize that emotion is the most universal concern/experience.  Everyone is trying to feel happy, good.  Everyone knows what it is like to feel angry or sad.  While we can't (at least easily) convey the richness and nuance of our emotional experience, people can empathize with us if we say "I am so sad" or "I am so happy".  While their experience is probably not just like ours, they can easily relate.

I've been beaten by this question, but, I did make a forceful and somewhat effective attack.

This isn't over, communication.  I'll whoop you yet.

fighting self

I'm going to consider this a post-script and use it to inform my next post.  I'm not ready to dive into the next topic in question, yet, but I want to at least write it down as a reminder and as motivation to get on it at a more reasonable time.

Communication.  What an absurdly wide field of examination.  So much information, so many signals, in so many different forms, are exchanged constantly.  The idea of trying to pinpoint the foremost "innovation" in communication is just silly.  Human communication may be, for my purposes, the ultimate form, but since communication of one kind or another has occurred for so very, very, long, attempting to name the most important point in the unfolding of its history is a naive and foolish pursuit.  Verbal/written language is but a grain of sand on a beach.

That said, I'd like to move onto the question of what can be communicated other than information.

Again, this might just be testing the limits of the English language.  But I'd like to work that out for myself when it's not so late and I'm not so sleepy.

Sometimes you just wake up with an idea.  Most of the time, it's best to go back to sleep.

Read quotation marks at your discretion.

meaning less

As I continue to push my arguments and instincts to their breaking points here my limitations become more clear to me.  I don't find this troubling, rather the opposite, I relish the opportunity to patch up holes where they appear to be.

Now, to the question.

This seems to be a fairly arbitrary point in human development to fully celebrate communication...I'm not certain as of the beginning of this first sentence why the construction "question" is a more significant attempt at, or tool for, communication than making eye contact with another, or pointing at something, or a statement, or the e-mail.  Heh.

What does a question do?  It prompts, and arguably, demands a discrete response.  It points... well, why not just go to the dictionary and get as much out of it as possible?

"a sentence, in interrogative form, addressed to someone in order to get information in a reply."

That's basically the definition I was thinking of.  there are several - this one is also relevant, I think, so I'll include it.

"a problem for discussion or under discussion; a matter for investigation."

This has been a theme underlying everything I've covered, so with my examples, I'm going to stick with very simple survival and proliferation-based subject matter.  I'll start with what is the opposite of a question in this context, and another contender for most important innovation in communication, the statement.

"There is food over by the lake."

This conveys important or at least potentially important information to whoever may hear it and understand it.  However, there is also the possibility that it could be completely useless.  If it were an appropriate response to a question its value becomes less impeachable.

"Is there any food around here?"

"There is food over by the lake."

Another example:

"I would like to be your mate."

Higher stakes, not only potentially irrelevant but potentially offensive as well.  Combined with a question it becomes the consummation of a very significant interaction.

"Would you like to be my mate?"

"I would like to be your mate."

A question not only begs information, it lends meaning to whatever statement follows it.  It modifies and enhances.  More so than non-verbal communication it promotes continued interaction.  It seems also to allow more complicated exchanges of information.  As it developed it allowed the discussion of more abstract concepts, things that could not be referenced (by pointing or looking at) in the external environment.  Example.

"How do you feel today?"

Getting information about another's feelings colors communication and gives a frame of reference by which certain topics can be deemed appropriate or inappropriate.  I am only scratching the surface as usual.

Socrates, as I infer from his behavior, believed that the question was the gateway to all knowledge and that asking questions was a sign of wisdom.  When speaking to someone, it is best to assume nothing about what they think or what they believe.  A question is the original way to discern this information.  It provides access to the internal world, it is a gateway to the mind of another.  I emphasized in my post-post-conversation last time how important I think the community element is to the development and definition of science.  Questions and answers are a predicate to community - determining the needs of each and agreeing to work together to meet those needs.  

I have a major qualm with the original dictionary definition I've posted.  A question is not always addressed to someone.  Everyone knows the cliched action of screaming out "WHYYYY????!!!!".  Asking why, in general, is a dramatic and perhaps profound action.  A question is a means by which to speak without necessarily revealing anything about one's own beliefs.  It is also a means of getting at causes, which, as I also mentioned last time is crucial to science.  A question is the beginning of the scientific method as we know it- a hypothesis is a statement, a guess, but also implies a question to be asked and answered.

I think I've gotten to the heart of the question's value, though I haven't completely convinced myself of it's superiority.  This is a subject I will have to continue working on.  Moreover, the idea of seeking knowledge is beautiful, and the question is a fundamental expression of this desire.  I constantly wonder how communication will change and improve (?) but I am troubled by how impersonal communication is becoming.  Eye contact is so valuable, I almost detest not being able to look at someone when I am conversing with them.  

I love asking and being asked questions.  There are so many to be posed.

one march post, or, it's raining again.

At points in my life I've felt like I've said everything I ever needed to say.  Nothing is worse for a writer than forcing out ideas or phrases that seem to be contrived or regurgitations of things one has heard or, abysmally, said.

  

This is a block.

I'm going to, at least directly, leave society alone on this one.

Instead, I will discuss our potential (possible) status as divine creatures.

I have been reminded in recent days that science is the devil.  As much as I find this idea ridiculous, and thus appealing, I have a hard time offering it any sort of treatment.  I'll do it anyway.

Way before there were scientists, there were mathematicians, attempting to put a universal abstract logical language to the workings of the physical world.  This toil was largely without a rigorous method of practical testing and derived more credibility from the intuitive and internal sense it made rather than what it could accomplish.  It was lifting theoretical loads, not actual ones. (this reminds me of the South Park episode where the boys create a homoerotic video featuring Butters and earn 10 million theoretical dollars for the people of Canada.)

Of course, this is not strictly true.  Geometry has been essential to construction for centuries and thus achieved practical relevance.  Clearly (?) the Egyptians used mathematics to do what they did in terms of building monuments of living death for their human gods.  I point to the late 18th and early 19th century in Western Europe as a time where math led to discoveries about the elements that make up our environment and to mechanical achievements that set off an industrial revolution which is finally catching up with us in terms of consequences.

If I don't try to get back on topic now, I never will.

Our understanding of the universe is pitiful.  We can explain and name the details of the things that are currently happening but we can't answer any fundamental questions.  In terms of knowing the history of an action, we can only scrape the most recent surface.  Origins elude us.  Deductive reasoning is an achievement that we give great respect to because so rarely do we accomplish it in a grand or meaningful way.  

I can think of one time, one individual who did it well, and his piece of reasoning provides the most powerful challenge to our conceit that we are divine and special and above all else earthly and natural.

Charles Darwin provided a completely reasonable explanation for how human beings could have come about, starting from a simple life form, after a whole lot of time.  This is why many have cursed his name and many others have praised it.  He spent his last years with his family breeding pigeons and isolating himself from the scientific community.  It must have taken some kind of guts to release his theory knowing what it would do to all who read it.

Are our genes really the most significant part of us, or even, more significant than us as whole organisms or a society of organisms?  Are they the entirety of what drives us to do the things that we do?  

The question that has been posed strongly in the past is: does the end justify the means?  I think a better way to phrase that question is, are the means required to achieve an end more significant than the end?  It has been postulated that the journey is more significant than either its origin or its final destination.  This is appealing to me and might pose an answer to my new question.

Last night, I saw a concert at an art installation exploring the war in Iraq.  It was, I would say, a rock band consisting of a drummer, a cello player, and a guitar player/vocalist who was a young Iraqi woman.  She was beautiful, as were her words, which were inspired by Persian poetry of all stripes.  This poetry was rooted in the earth - the most visceral experiences of being alive.  Intoxication:  both on drugs and on love for others.  A celebration of the phenomenon of waking up every day and celebrating the rhythms that are instilled in our perceptions.  The constant rising and setting of the sun.  The beating of the heart.  Finally the transiency of each of us and the possibility that we are not finished when our current consciousness closes.  Love as a binding force that is more mysterious than any other and whose implications will be understood only after we understand all that our five senses detect.

A friend of mine from the past nicknamed me "Mr. Science" because of my constant preoccupation with facts and logic and my skepticism, or even contempt, for things apparently inexplicable or imperceptible at the time.  This contempt and skepticism no longer seems to me appropriate.

Non-human animals can communicate.  But it seems as though their communications are all related to the collection of food, warnings of predators, or mating.  I suppose this is a way of sharing perceptions and consciousness but I think it is different and less complex than our own.  We ask each other questions, not related to these immediate and important concerns, but purely for the purpose of sharing experiences.  I think there is a desire to connect that is entirely divorced from the compulsion to mate or survive.  This is close to godliness.

I can't think anymore.  I have worn myself out.  However, I feel that I have achieved my continual goal of digging deeper into our shared experience and forcing myself to think about things that make me uncomfortable.  

To ensure that I post again soon, in an attempt to justify my claim, I put forward the idea that the most important innovation human beings have ever achieved is the question.

complex

Meeting others' expectations.

Everyone has a desire to express their own feelings, to behave as they feel moved to, to make their own decisions.  This, I suppose, could be called freedom.

However, when a person cares about the feelings of others or even wishes to get along among others, freedom must constantly be compromised.  This is no novel statement - it is the basis of the social contract and indeed of society in general.  We must make sacrifices for the good of the group.  Those who do not are punished for their selfishness.

I think there is a deep and fundamental irony in a nation that is so thoroughly influenced by its code of laws, persecutes criminals so aggressively, yet values freedom above all else.  People aren't free to cross the street wherever they want to or to smoke indoors or to walk around naked in public, (to give three out of a million possible examples) yet we champion ourselves as being the freest nation in the world.  Where I take exception to laws is where they restrict us beyond any reasonable demonstration of the potential harm of the targeted behavior.  Laws are necessary but at a point they become cumbersome and service powerful minorities rather than the society at large.

But this is all too grand for what I intend to discuss.  Relationships between one person and another or one and a small group are much more interesting to me than the relationship between a person and society at large.

Immediately in discussing interpersonal relationships I come across a tension.

I can say, and feel pretty convinced of my accuracy, that the more we care about someone, the further we go out of our way (in terms of restricting our will) to help them to be comfortable and happy.

However, at the same time, I find that often we compromise our freedom most around those people who we have just met and barely know, so as to avoid them making harsh judgments of us or forming a poor first impression.

So who are we more concerned with pleasing?

I think it is clear that while we will hold back significantly in respect of people we do not know very well and are interested in forming a potential relationship with, truly large sacrifices in freedom occur only with those we hold closest.   

For example, in a social situation with friends and a new person, I will find myself holding my tongue about issues I would normally speak passionately about among just friends.  I will be self-conscious and attempt to portray myself as a fairly middle of the road, temperate individual.

However, with someone I truly care about, I may be willing to make a compromise as deep as where I choose to live or may even give up something that I am truly attached to in order to please them.  These are two entirely different levels of self-denial.  New friends may cause me to "act" differently in a very superficial sort of way but people I love have the ability to influence decisions that will truly affect my life in the long run.

I have given much thought to this issue before.  A conclusion I came to once is that the only way to be truly free is to free oneself from all social ties and live as a gypsy, a hobo, a person who answers to no one and to no group.  

Quickly, I determined that shutting oneself off from all other people eliminates many potential feelings and options of things to do, opportunities, and negates freedom rather than promoting it.

So, how do we live amongst others and still take advantage of freedom - to be our true selves without being neglectful of others' feelings, needs, and rights?  

Every decision to act or not to act deserves a consideration of the facts accompanying the situation.  This is pragmatism.  Say I'm with a group of people, conversing, listening to music, when I suddenly have the urge to sing along loudly to the music.  I am moved by the beauty and the passion of the music and I want to express that, I want to join along with the artist, to share in that moment the pleasure they are experiencing by expressing themselves in that way.  But I consider that this would be rude and would decrease everyone else's enjoyment both of the conversation that is occurring and, possibly, of the music that is being played.  

Am I less myself if I choose to restrain my desire to sing and merely continue to sit quietly or to converse on whatever subject the other people are discussing?  Or, does my decision not to burst out singing speak more of my true self than my desire to sing in that situation does?

I choose the latter.  I think that a desire not to act out of the consideration of others represents an exercise in freedom.  It is an expression of the strength we have to control our impulses and make compromises that will maximize the happiness among a group of people, whatever the size.  Not acting is as much an expression of oneself as acting.  We all have desires that feel real, visceral, fundamental to us.  But controlling them successfully is even more meaningful to the definition of who we are.  When we choose the well being and happiness of others over our own we are making ourselves into loving and caring individuals.  Every time we restrain an impulse considering how exercising that impulse might negatively affect others we grow - we overcome our animal instincts, we reach to a higher goal of harmony.  

When we live in harmony with others we experience true freedom.  

I apologize for the delay since my last post.