Destiny sings to us, it is the light that lights other lights. We sense it, and when we do we should not veer from it, and if we do, we need to let it find us again, and take that first courageous step of faith.
I must apologize for second guessing myself about the virtuous power and destiny I sensed concerning Bernie Sanders from the beginning. So often we have it right and talk ourselves out of what everything inside us is saying, a message forging a voice of destiny, lifting us, singing within us, a song that can move the world. Then we replace it with compromises and weak out of tune soulless analyses.
When everything looks like it is once again moving according to past truisms and acceptance of minor victories, it is time to reach into our hearts and see what virtue is singing, hear the call backs, and follow the rising chorus of human hearts.
Appearances are like the dark before the dawn, but for those whose souls see through the darkness and hear destiny in the deepest silences, they can prepare for the sunrise and work the works that cannot tire.
This election is Bernie Sanders’ to win, and destiny is on his side.
It took the light of three young hearts to bring me back to what my own was saying, back to the sanity before my faith was weakened by not hearing the angelic voices of our common human virtues.
Long ago I had chosen Robert Reich, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as the best of choices if they ran for President. I tried as in my religious days to sense the need of our world and I saw Bernie Sanders as if a great light had shown on him. Then I let my calculating mind take me away to what I thought “The United States was ‘ready for'”…
As William Shakespeare wrote: “To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.”
I would add: “When a virtuous light rises within you, singing and lifting your soul, let your heart be free to fly. It is then you will find your higher destiny, and in its vision you can never be untrue to yourself.”
Regarding a person I knew, who was so wounded as a child in life, and grew up and lived his life in Michigan, and who lost his life and his family tragically in ways that tore at the hearts of his children and one dear wife:
What a shame. I believe he could have been saved if our psychological profession and sufficient real research had backed Arthur Janov’s Primal Therapy long ago instead of staggering on into their maze of made up diseases based on groupings of symptoms and ways to stamp them down.
Origins of disease are important to know and understand, and help to make plain as well as what would define a cure. Soon in our future we will see a transformation of direction connected to understandings of the real causes of PTSD and its connection to the methylation of cells. That all said, everyone in Michigan could have done much more to support his sweet wife and her family.
Knowing all of this we can celebrate and cry for the deep goodness in people, all people, no matter how wounded.
Additionally it must be said that the atrocity called the Pine Rest “Christian” mental health system was the only neurotic and sweetly abusive arm of help that very religious Michigan had to offer.
The young man in question here should be celebrated as one who strove against great odds and managed to care as much as he was able.
The hope that remains to us today is to be found in the work of Arthur Janov, and France Janov, too very dear and precious souls, and in the brilliant insights and commentaries of Bruce Wilson the amazing medical science writer, and his friend, the very enlightened and courageous political science professor Peter G. Prontzos.
Regarding this world of great sorrow we must not neglect to celebrate each in our own ways the wounded souls who we all are and those wounded ones who brought us into and nourished us as best they could in a very difficult and painful world.
Is there a liberal sense of strong reliable and sane values? Yes, they are real values that are an innate part of us.
Real Values aren’t values based on blindly following a prescription of simple rules, but upon the natural core values stemming from deep curiosity and what is good in and for humanity. Without this there could be no true social values that support real progress for all, and not just for some. Real values move us to our better selves.
What are these real values? They are common to all. Real values are innate in our human social norms. They are Truth, Goodness, and Art. The creative ability to see and experience things from many perspectives, is how we find Art and artful appreciation of life others and ourselves. The empathetic altruism natural to us, and the use of it, is the basis of Goodness. The objective ability to perceive reality as it is, rather than how we wish it to be, is the basis of Truth. Liberals tend to get this, if not in word then almost always in practice.
A blind following of some cultural tradition or system as the basis of values is not dependable. It is enslaving of the minds and hearts who so blindly follow them. Following such things without reference to innate common human abilities, such as creative (passionate curiosity), empathetic, and objective thinking is morally ignorant. Such blind following of past concepts about values only leads to unfeeling, insensitive, and thoughtless approaches in life.
Forget your conservative morality based on blind faith, I will endorse the living faith of liberals. It is a faith that liberates the best in us and adapts to the times we live in, instead of pushing a cold and cowardly and ignorant clinging to past concepts.
Real values are liberal and we need to support them.
This nation belongs to all of us and not just the rich, to concepts that include everyone in a common living set of values, a caring for everyone and not just for a few. Caring that raises humanity toward its greatness and not toward a cowardly fear mongering thoughtlessness which can only end in disaster.
Claim true democratic values, reclaim your country!
What is wrong with religious and conservative thinking?
The theory I find best is my own perhaps. That is, unless you compare it to the theory of Arthur Janov. His theory is very probably more accurate as a neurological concept. My theory is simply that when our needs, and feelings related to them, are felt to be helpless, they are too painfully anxiety provoking to integrate in a fully conscious way.
When this occurs it tends to block creative, objective and altruistic empathy. This is present, to various degrees, in those who are deeply attached to religious and conservative styled thinking.
These needs attached to helplessness, forms what I call “pained need”. Such need becomes symbolized and generalized (distanced and spread out) in symbolic form. When this force allows sufficient or normal function in society, it supplies a symbolic struggle which can lower that overwhelming anxiety. (You might compare this concept to the theory of Arthur Janov.
When you grow up not feeling safe enough or loved enough by your caregivers, for whatever the reason, you might seek to “please” a super powerful deity.
Let’s now compare the impact of this “pained need” on the higher levels of our conscious mind or brain as similar to someone impacting an airbag in a car due to a crash.
The impact of the crash is distanced and spread out by the air bag and you would need a sufficient size of that airbag to handle the impact. This distancing in the brain would be the symbolizing of the need in terms of how distanced the symbol is, and the spreading out is the generalizing.
Let’s say you were traumatized by a cat. You might then be afraid of all cats (generalization or spreading out) and if the impact of the trauma was great enough you might be afraid of cat owners (the distancing or symbolization).
So, helplessness begetting anxiety which is too much to integrate, which is deeper and more unconscious than what is generally meant by fear, is the cause of religious and conservative thinking, IMHO.
Seeing and recognizing the unconscious fear in such people as embrace religious and conservative thinking is, to me, a “spot on” and very insightful observation.
Allow me to say that we can also see an analogy between the size of an airbag and the effective neuronal mass of the brain. This observation might give us yet another clue as to how hominids who survived such impacts gave rise to modern humans. Arthur Janov had said this long ago in fact and I highly agree, and hope my analogy helps to share this insight.
Earlier I had posted something from Ted Talks on Face Book, concerning how we must understand conservatives as holding just different and appropriate, or at least useful in various circumstances, forms of our common human “values”. I have thought about it and listened to the video many times.
I first of all do not agree with his concepts of “values” and see them as tendencies that have been sometimes useful to our survival as a species. Why? Because values should be values useful in all circumstances, they should be ways in which we process information and not “rules to live by” or else they are very much lacking in luster.
Secondly what I see in conservatives in relationship to these tendencies is a greater amount of anxiety which would come from deprivations and traumas, that is to say “primal pains” or “pained needs” which give rise to “false comforts”. This was plainly evident in the first minutes of the video where the presenter contends that conservatives are less “comfortable” with being open to new experiences, which is of course also the ability to see things from many perspectives and put them together meaningfully, that is to say: “creativity of perspective”.
He then went on to say as to how liberals see conservative states as “dumbfuckistan” and how this was inherently a wrong perspective. It was a rather intellectual and unfeeling perspective lacking in empathy and some insight, but still, it is clear that as to creative perspective, the rural and southern states seem to be lacking in this quite natural ability, a deficit derived from a lack of stimulation of that ability in their “minds” which is to say their “brains”. (How early this stimulation needs to take place is something of which I am ignorant, but I would say early childhood if I were to guess.)
This is in fact a kind of lamentable retardation of sorts, and even though, as he points out, conservatives also call liberals “stupid” it is more because they can’t handle the anxiety of embracing new experiences, and thus feel it is against survival and therefor “stupid”. It is not… So their claim against the liberals holds more anxiety than meaning. They can fix their kind of lamentable inability with the courage it takes to face their anxieties thus freeing their minds to be “smarter” in this creative sense, which is far more likely to help the human race survive than cowering and clinging to the past as a baby does with it’s favorite blanket.
Creativity, the ability to embrace new experiences, when coupled with objective analysis which liberals almost always do, it not in any way something to be feared, and those well grounded in their ability to be objective in the first place have no problems with creative thought and its ability to give us the power to embrace and enjoy change. furthermore, to excuse the conservative mind from being seen as less thoughtful, by saying that tribalism is a “virtue” neglects the fact that a greater degree of intelligent thoughtfulness and creativity of perspective allows us to see the whole race as a “tribe” and to work on making it so.
Plus, after all, when you consider that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” do not fit any individual perfectly, we being a blend of such abilities and inabilities of various sorts, it is evident that we should strive to improve communication by eliminating unnecessary anxieties and addressing real issues that affect the whole human “tribe” and the health of our earthly home. (Two things that those who tend to embrace the term “conservative” seem lacking in.) Now, to the presenter’s credit, he did mention that we leave any blinders of embracing such terms. However, the term liberal shouldn’t be something to abandon as it promotes the best and truest “values” for the human race.
Let us now consider what is called the pro life position on abortion.
What the pro life supporters get upset about is not so much denying life, for many that is ok. What upsets them is killing, and not killing of animals only the killing of people. The phrasing they choose in calling a fetus a baby means to them that abortion is the taking of a human life. This is a grey area since we evolve as we grow from the original joining of the egg and the sperm to a full adult. It is a grey area of discussion in that one has to decide at what point the fertilized egg becomes human. This is the debate. That said, we must add that some also react to the fact that even a fetus experiences pain, and very early looks quite human.
So we need to turn to nature to give us a clue regarding human survival and what promotes it.
Nature tells us, and common sense as well, that you preserve life but that the life of the mother and her ability to care for a child, or another child, is of preeminent concern. Nature chooses the mother, it chooses the mother who gives life over the offspring in cases where survival is difficult or harsh.
The answer to the abortion question is investment in love and care and a better environment for the mother. Focusing on this while respecting the mother’s right to choose is very pro life according to nature.
Why make it the mother’s choice? Well, consider that a woman is pregnant and she has to consider the risks involved to her own life in giving birth at a particular time. Who would feel it kind or right for even the father to say “Gee honey there is only a ten percent chance you can die, let’s go ahead with this pregnancy. Oh, and might I had that I will make that decision for you…”
The insanity of the so called “pro-life” movement is thus with these arguments fully revealed as not pro-life, against nature, and cruel and disrespectful of the mother.
Pondering the ways of peace and war, of love and hate, my mind finds both light and darkness and a journey beyond them: a transcendence of suffering and despair.
It has come to my mind increasingly something I had heard many years ago that supposedly was said at a peace summit. Someone said, “If we go to arms many will die.” Then someone else said, ” What will be the cost if we unarmed speak for peace?” Another replied, “Some will die.”
My thought is that we must seek the causes of war, the wounds of poverty, and hate, and heal with love and forgiveness. Then the thought comes to me that such forgiveness frees the one forgiving. Then as if whispers of love from unseen angels, their breath warm against my ear, I hear the litany that always moves my soul:
“You must feel what happened to you, before you can know what you lost or gained.
You must feel what you lost or gained, before you can grieve and rejoice from your heart.
When you have grieved you can forgive yourself and everyone from your heart, and when you have rejoiced you will be lifted as a child of love to the song of your destiny repenting of all hate and walking free.”
There is no revenge as sweet as forgiveness, no punishment as correcting as healing. Those who know this can bring sight to those whose hearts have gone blind.
I cannot say that with my words I lift these folks up. This is no more possible than lifting the angels of the human mind. Yet, when you see the light that guides you it is only right to point others to it, and this my heart rejoices to do.
My words here are also born of not only these but from what my friend David Sotelo wisely called “the template”, the explanation of which brings tears to my eyes with the beauty and humanity it embraces. The template says that when we communicate from our honest heart to a love from creative, objective and empathetic voices, we embrace Art, Truth, and Goodness, and conquer our darkness.
Find the love and the beauty that is you, and you will find the same deep in the heart of everyone.
Trump is turning off even many Republicans, and even lady’s in laundromats listening and reacting to the typical wild and crazy assertions of Trump on television.
I met a young lady and her teen age daughter while doing laundry and Trump was being interviewed on the television there. They had this blank look in their eyes seeming to barely cover a pompous angry disoriented look. I said to myself, “Whatever you do don’t try to communicate with either of these two, don’t even say “hello”.
Trump was ranting away almost incoherently trying to defend his idea to not let in any “Muslims” into the country “until we know what is going on”. Trump cited what Roosevelt did during World War II. His interviewer asked questions that showed the foolishness of his idea and he talked over his interviewer growing more and more loud talking faster and faster saying basically the same things without answering the questions.
The young girl and the mother were looking at Trump in shock. The daughter walked by with a smirk on her face as her mother was obviously saying things about Trump that were unflattering.
Finally Trump became so bizarre that I just broke out with a laugh. The mother seemingly in shock proclaimed “He’s stupid!” I thought I had an opening.
I brought up the bizarre statements of our own Governor Abbot about Obama trying to become the dictator of Texas and citing the normal military maneuvers that other Presidents had done many times as evidence. She gave no response and kept staring almost in disbelief at Trump.
I mentioned the Republican vote to keep allowing even people not allowed to board our planes to buy guns. She says to me, “I BELIEVE in guns, so don’t talk to me about it.” I explained that it wasn’t about guns that it was about proper screening so that crazy people couldn’t get them. Then I said that my sister Nena Pulsifer has a concealed hand gun permit but that she wasn’t insane or dangerous, and that I wasn’t arguing about this, just saying we need gun purchasers to be screened and trained.
Then the lady says, after obviously not getting the point: “I won’t discuss with a stranger a hot button topic like this.” To which I quipped with a bemused grin saying: “Obviously neither of us are going to shoot the other, correct?” That pathetic blank stare and barely restrained anger and fear were still plainly written all over her face, so I went about my business ignoring her.
I started thinking to myself: “Why don’t you pay attention to what was plain to you in the first place?” and said to myself: “Note to self: people with that kind of “pained need” aren’t able to hear anything that threatens their irrational self comforting concepts.”
Then I thought to myself “What a lost world where people are so ignorant of this common emotional state in society that they try to call it ‘cognitive dissonance’ as if it were a trick of the mind without anything lying beneath it.”
I thought while folding clothes how my own “pained need” drove me to try to convince people of plain facts that I knew they weren’t capable of understanding, and how “dumb” and neurotic that was, and then I had one of my low level epiphanies. “Eureka!” I said to myself: “I was doing what many of my Democratic friends tried to do ‘convince people out of their pain based false comforting errors in judgement’.
Then my realization became complete and laughing at myself I thought:
“Well darn, it’s not just the Republicans, I am a big dumb idiot too.”
Progress is at the core of what is truly progressive.
Working for real progress in the world is about dialog that is objective, creative and empathetic, a dialog, not just between everyone, but within everyone. Saying that you are a progressive either means you are for such communication, or that you have a definition of progress that falls short of true progress.
Some say progress is about improving and expanding the middle class, and although this helps, it is not a sufficient definition. True progressive dialog begins with empathy with those left out of the game and giving them not hope but the sustenance and means to leave behind despair, it is about mobilizing those who suffer under low wages, and joining them in their efforts to change the rules that keep them without respect and empowerment.
Without challenging the idea that capital should control the concept of financial success as the right to rule, until you challenge the idea that opportunity must be paid for, until you give workers the rights of any other trading partner to organize, you cannot say you are for real progress.
A two party system of politics allows the very wealthy to control the range of argumentation and retain control over those less fortunate in opportunity. Thus to work against a simple system, in which two political parties each allow only one united voice for its membership, is to liberate the voices that are repressed and to enlarge the range of political dialog.
Hidden behind the notion that progress is gained by enlarging and improving the middle class is the concept that the middle class should rule. True democracy allows all the voices to be heard.
What creates the progress out of the din of many voices is the clear rule of objective, creative, and empathetic communication, not just between people of different views but within each individual involved. Those that do not internalize many views and debate them within themselves must have this approach taught to them in the education systems within any nation and within the world at large.
We now have a scientific approach to our emotional lives which draw us into better saner communications. This approach is called the study and practice of emotional intelligence which is about self control, self awareness, and empathy. This approach is the best foundation for any civilized nation bent upon real progress.
Scientific approaches, emotional intelligence, and objective, creative and empathetic communication, are essential to real progress and to the best definition of what is a progressive movement. Nothing less than this is truly progressive.
The rule of money is the rule of greed, and nothing truly progressive comes from it.
Let us give a loud and strong answer back to the greed that has infiltrated our politics in so many nations. Greed is not good, and government can help to diminish it while increasing the welfare of everyone in society.
Have you ever noticed the arguments by conservatives, who seem to worship greed, against any attempt to make the money game in a nation more “fair”?
First of all they attack the various notion of fairness, yet if all are not nourished and fed that level of unfairness harms society and harms the middle class.
Then they refer to using government to increase the ability of the money game to have more fairness to encourage more invested players, as theft from those whose whose concept of freedom is the ability to use their power to diminish the opportunities of others by keeping them powerless and unable to organize (which democratic government is based upon), and fail to call such abuse as “theft”.
Then they wail that free enterprise is threatened by increasing the opportunities of the masses and an assault against their freedom which is in fact the ability to enslave others and organize them in a way that gives them the greater benefit.
Then they point out that when things were first manufactured they were expensive and required very wealthy people to buy them to bring down the cost and benefit the whole of society, neglecting the fact that government can itself invest in such products, create more jobs and get the new technology out faster.
Then the say that taxes won’t work anyway because the wealthy will just find a way around paying them. Really? Is that why they spend so much money on politics just to stop the higher taxes on themselves?
Then they claim that if taxes they will run to some less industrially advanced nation and take jobs away neglecting to mention that the full talents and variety of skills they will need cannot be found there.
Then on top of all of that they say that such a rise in opportunities for the working class is just a pipe dream while neglecting the fact that it has worked successfully and to the benefit of people and the planet in some countries already.
Often they complain that real democracy and freedom must depend upon down sizing the government which is more the organization of individuals and say it is full of bureaucracy and waste while neglecting the bureaucracy and waste of their own large corporations with their lavish rewards of those at the top and their enriching of those wealthy enough to invest in them. Also claiming that anyone can be an “investor” while neglecting to mention that votes in a corporation are “one share one vote” and that small “investors” will have not much say.
They praise the profit motive as “creative” while neglecting to see that the invention of a thousand varieties of soap is hardly creative and far less a source of stable jobs, and that a profit motive is often at the expense of the better lives of it’s workers and at times against the very welfare of all life on the planet.
Such conservatives hide behind religion and twist it to their warped view of freedom and democracy and have even published books and papers praising greed (which many religions see as evil) as the practical path to prosperity. Actually the profit motive when tested in studies of human behavior is often counter productive to quality and efficiency in producing anything useful and a killer of creativity which when they find it they merely feed off of it and cut it’s promise short.
Democratic Socialism has been proven to work and as more people wake up to this the more we find that people are waking up together. This is evident in Bernie Sanders campaign where across party lines Bernie is gaining more and more support.
All I have to say to greedy whiners who don’t want to see real care for all the children in a nation, and real investment in them, and who issue veiled threats and play on fear as if their way is destiny: “NUTS”. Which is what one brave Allied General at the Battle of the Bulge said to the Nazis when they issued similar threats.
Greed is not a virtue, it is not necessary to human prosperity, it is not a necessary evil, and greed based incentives don’t promote creativity. Greed doesn’t help to create better lives or help democracy or a growing middle class, nor does greed help with upward mobility. Furthermore greed is not looked upon favorably by any major religion. There is no up side to greed, and democratic socialism not only works and is working, but it helps to create a mentally healthier and better educated society than greed ever could.