think of this an online journal/ To the one straggler

a journal that may be perceived by a large percentage of the world. I will tell you it can be so inauthentic if you start to alter your words because of fear of how you may be misunderstood.

It's also difficult to concentrate with a bouncing 8 year old girl behind you playing Fornite who wants to show you the "potty dance" that is currently locked.

I do believe a writer can censor his words with publication in the mind. Publication means to make public. Someone can read my journals posthumously but thats about all. God blessed me with the art of poor handwriting so I could disguise my secrets from my mother when I was a teen.

Why would we alter our words in front of an audience? Some authors choose to restrict taboos and wisely so. Everyone is a critic. We have to face our own critics that sit front row and who you come home to and cook dinner for and live with us like ghosts before we face the unfamiliarity of new faces and attacks.

But some authors brave the elements bare chested yowling to the wind. A period suggests a pause in speaking. And as you get wiser I hope you pause more. My sentences are rarely complete as are my thoughts. Mea culpa.

There may be times you fantasize about speaking to a full crowd and at the end realize its an empty hall. And in our minds we wrote our magnus opus only to realize it has the value of toilet paper.

Ultimately, to write is for the intention to express something to someone, even if it is only one-you.

Who is more evil: Clinton or Trump?

Anyone that is voting third party or Bernie or Bust supporters will agree with me on these two statements about Trump and Clinton:

Both are 1% candidates;

Both are pathological.

They say politics is like fantasy sports for nerds.  It is simply a waste of time to debate politics like we have before. There is a reason they say to never discuss politics and religion at parties. One rarely converts the other with information. Why? My argument would be this: there are higher and lower levels of human consciousness. All of us are born on the bottom level and, as we develop, we have the potential to increase our depth by being expanding our level of care to others. The more developed we are the more we have expanded our level of care. If your level of development is for example, Christian only or Muslim only, then your worldview is at a certain level of consciousness. A higher level of care would transcend religious boundaries (race, gender, sexual orientation) and recognize that I should care for you because you are human.

 Anyone that has ever attempted to convince another person that their point of view is higher than theirs will recall the experience similarly to the old physics paradox: what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Think of a parent trying to convince their teenage child of “the ways of the world”. Or a Red Sox fan trying to convince a Yankees fan that their team is better. The argument is going to fall on deaf ears. The same can be said of politics: You are basically advocating for where you are in your development.

This is the only viable framework that I have come across that can adequately describe politics in a way in which you don’t want to reach across the table and strangle the other person.
I think it is no accident the media/networks take absolutely zero time to educate their viewers on this point of view.

For those of you who have never heard or read up on Ken Wilber’s integral theory I will attempt to summarize his view on the development of human consciousness. This information is taken from the book Integral Life Practice. And then I will attempt to explain why, using this framework, that Trump’s worldview is lower (less depth, fewer levels of care) than Clinton’s.

“The common denominator for all development in the interior is an individual is consciousness itself, and the rough equivalence that all levels share is their altitude of consciousness.

Each basic altitude of consciousness has its own unique worldview, its own way of interpreting and making sense of things. All the worldviews described below are true…but partial. And each step up to a higher altitude marks a truer and less partial views than the step before. We all have a “center of gravity” worldview from which we operate the majority of the time, while sometimes, we operate from above and below. In the individual dimension, everybody starts at square one.

The color spectrum-Red. Amber, Orange, and so on- make it easier to talk about the various altitudes of consciousness. Keep in mind, however, that the colors designate altitudes and can refer to any line of development.

One line that’s particularly useful is the worldview line because it gets at a person or culture’s most fundamental assumptions about the world.

Red- Power Worldview- Seeing itself as the center of the world (egocentric), the Red individualized self seeks to express and fulfill its wants and desires immediately. “It’s all about me.” People with a Red worldview don’t plan for the future, but rather act impulsively to get what they want now. Red lives and dies by the “survival of the fittest” maxim of the jungle. Intimidating and dominating others is how Red gets things done.

Amber- MythicWorldview- The violence and chaos of Red impulses threaten this orderly world. Order and goodness depend on strict laws, strong police, and soldiers. Conservative and traditional, the Amber worldview emphasizes order, consistency, and convention.

Polarized, black/white, ethnocentric prevail. You’re a believer or an infidel, with us or against us. The authority shows the true path to righteous living.

Orange- Rational Worldview- The ideals of equality, liberty, and justice for all come from Orange. The phenomenal success of Orange science and technology continually enhances the standards of material living around the world.

Green-Pluralistic Worldview- The Green worldview can stand outside the monolithic systems of Orange and see multiple points of view. Since Green cannot yet make judgments of depth, pluralism, and egalitarianism become the most appropriate responses. The pluralistic worldview attempts to give equal recognition to a diversity of perspectives. Green first made itself known on the world stage in the 1960s. Green’s strong sense of pluralistic sensitivity drives it to scan  the horizon to make sure that nobody’s feelings get hurt and nobody gets left out. Political correctness, an emphasis on community, and consensus decision making processes often result.

Teal-Integral Systems Worldview-Teal realizes every perspective captures some important aspects of reality extremely well, and yet also de-emphasizes, or marginalizes, others aspects of things (that is, each is true, but partial). Teal also realizes that some views are more true, and less partial, than others. In other words, every view is not equal; depth exists.”

Here is my conclusion on the major candidates’ worldview in this election year:

Trump: Red/Amber

Clinton: Orange/ Green

Sanders: Green/Teal

(What follows is a gross generalization of my take on current American political affairs using the integral model described above.)

Trump: Red/Amber

George W. went on record to say that he thinks he may be the last Republican president, which is another way of saying that he doesn’t see Trump as a Republican candidate. He wasn’t alone. If you somehow managed to troll through the RNC this year it was absent of the several major hitters. 

So why do W and others fail to recognize Trump as one of their one? Old GOP was a combination of Orange and Amber. Led by Fox News, the Koch brothers, conservative think tanks, corporations that have an invested interest in denying any agenda that interferes with profit. Specifically, I am thinking of climate change.

Rejection of science is a rejection of Orange. (Pre-Orange you have the Church burning witches and denying that the sun is the center of the universe.) Authority is grounded in whoever has the most power. This opened the door for Trump’s Red version of GOP. But it should come as no surprise. Once you reject higher levels you open the door for lower levels to come in. Unfortunately for the Old GOP they would have liked to have stayed their Amber-nothing lower, nothing higher. But they let a crack in and in came Trump.

It always surprised me when the big boys didn’t accept Trump. He seemed to be the poster boy for their movement. Is it because he is anti-establishment? Or maybe because he is not taking money from the donors?

His acceptance speech at the RNC is a perfect mixture of Red and Amber. There are hints of green thrown in there (As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBT citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.)

Red:

“These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer have a voice.
I AM YOUR VOICE.”
Not to mention the Citizen Kane-esque picture of his face and name during his speech. This is Citizen Kane meets Lex Luthor.
 

 

 

 

Amber:

  There is law and order platform “I will restore law and order our country”

There is also a rejection of green: “We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore.”

Every level has a side to its own unique unhealthy, or pathological traits. One of the downsides to the Green tier is what Ken Wilber describes as Boomeritis.

Boomeritis is the deadly combination of a modern liberal, egalitarian worldview with a deep unquestioned narcissism commonly held by Baby Boomers and their children. It is characterized by relativism and aversion to hierarchy. Another downside of the green tier is everyone shares their opinion (because all views are equal) but no decision of values gets paid because since there is an aversion to hierarchy all views are equal. Clinton might be the poster woman for Boomeritis.

Clinton’s (and Obama, for that matter) Democrats are pro-business, neoliberal hawks with a conservative (for progressives) social agenda. Her switch on same-sex marriage came only when it was in her best interests to do so, not because she believed it was morally/ethically correct. She still opposes legalized marijuana. Her decision to set up a server so her emails could not be subjected to the Freedom of Information Act is Nixonian. And her record of doing similar things are extensive. She has failed to release her Wall St. transcripts. She says one thing and will do something else behind your back. The FBI director described her as not sophisticated enough. That was PR. She is the machine. Where is there is smoke there is fire and with Clinton there is lots of smoke.

It is a question of who is less evil: Trump or Clinton? Using this criteria I think Hillary has more depth. I think both might be equally pathological but I would have to say Trump has less depth.

I am a Bernie supporter. I will have to wait and see what his final card will be. Maybe, he already played it. He has endorsed Hillary and was able to get many of his ideas on the Democratic platform.

Wikileaks came out with information that the DNC conspired to work against Bernie, but we already knew this. We just didn’t have the proof.

Who will I vote for?

I will have to wait and see. A good question might be who can do more damage? A red pathological person or an orange pathological person. 

It appears he world order is falling apart. Make no mistake both of these are 1% candidates and both display high amount of pathology. Maybe the whole thing should come crashing down.

Now for those arguing #neverHillary, you have to be mindful of the situation we are in. Unless there is a credible threat to these two candidates it’s a risk you have to take. But again this could be arguing with a Yankees fan on why the Red Sox is better.

I still am undecided. Would I vote for Jill Stein as a matter of principle? I might. This might also be the year I ask myself one serious question before I vote:

What would Bernie do?

Gladwellian Cointreau

 Gladwellian Cointreau

 9:08

(An hour challenge. Streams of consciousness)

What is the big deal if a certain few control the media? It becomes Disneyfied. You can claim this is what the market dictates. Not sure it is the market, as much as this is what the consumer culture is fed. There are not that many varying examples on reality. And this is a problem when you want to elect a leader, if you can only agree on one variation of reality.
This has been referred to as the Establishment this election year. So, let us settle for that being the definition of normalcy. I would like to establish (pun intended) different names to reference the Establishment as I move forward.
The first is conventional.
I work with youth, ages 17-24, that are on parole or probation. Late adolescence is the stage in our lives in which we challenge convention. We are coming from a pre-conventional stage. This stage is defined by progressions of egocentricity. We are born without a concept of other. There is no ego, or I. We have no separation from this Kosmos. But an ego eventually emerges. This helps "us" to understand the formula: hand + burner = pain. Now, the formula becomes: hand (oh wait this thing belongs to me) + burner (this thing ain't cool) = pain (I have a choice in which actions I do create more pain).
Why this is important for this election year is that we are faced with a very real ethical dilemma as to who to choose for the leader of the United States of America. Let me make this clear, in dreams this leader would be our king or queen. There is a psychological effect that permeates the collective consciousness of a group. These leaders become our identity-at least, a true King should be our highest Self. The part of our Self, that is not just self, but recognizes that there is a self and a Self, and they are one.
The preconventional stages are the stages in which the ego is opening itself to caring for something other than itself: trusted family are the first mirrors for our budding self. We then accept friends into our circle. We merge into an agreed conventional set of rules that dictates social order amongst others.
I work the group which challenges the social normalcy at a rate much higher than their peers. I would estimate 80% of the crime is commited by a small percentage of the population. Social normacy is the conventional stage. When I tell them at their age you have to learn to jump through hoops-the hoops you jump through is the conventional stage of life. It's just the way it is.
We all have to accept hoop-jumping as a certain level of life. The conventional slogan for this election year is: Hoop-jumping is all there is. Accept it.
Hoop-jumping is necessary. My slogan is this: Reaching for the stars the reason we jump.

I need to have a work ethic to support the style of life I want for myself so my family and I can flourish. And in turn my flourishing helps the community flourish.
There is a stage beyond conventionality. Let's call is post-conventional thinking. It is not a denying of this ego. It is not an ego denier. I am still not trying to get burned, but I still recognize that my hand is separate from the environment. The conventional stage doesn't like people reaching out beyond their own thinking. You would think you help others step up, but the group does try to hold you down.
That is my fact.
As a whole we are holding our breath desperate for some injection of life. We are at an empty well in the story.
We think we know everything, but do we admit that to our self. Truly admit how powerless we all are in this grand scheme of things. We have no idea and yet, we walk around proudly displaying our peacock feathers. We are in the desert with no water and leaders that are trying to steal the camp.
It is what it is and always will be. But there is more.
Still, our priority to the group is the foundation to reach the next stage: post-conventionality. We think of the health of the group. We should, at the least.
I am not sure we are very good at looking at collective self in the mirror. These be blamed on the media or the entertainment industry. That is the tool for the collective culture. It is the image they sell. And it is hegemonous. That is the nature of a collective identity. There is a drive, for evolutionary purpose, to work together.
This formula is written: if we both obey these traffic lights it greatens our chance to be alive (which is good [existenitalist would say: to be alive (which is good, right? Is it?]).
Try to convince someone tomorrow there is another stage that is above this and they will look at you like Neo fell down the rabbit hole and is wonderland.

An argument I heard counter to there being a social hierarchy of consciousness that are based on stages individuals go through in life is that it is an example of elitist thinking. But there would be no arguments that individuals that break the law are acting against the rules of a group. What we might not agree on is the equality of this group, or stage.
That is really the great divide of groups, specifically Democrats and Republicans.
We are all equal in the sense we are all human, but after that?
We deny the vertical existence of our humanity. We are kept in the dark about the knowledge that there are levels in which there are stages of consciousness in which an individual transcends the ego and embraces, in order: ego, friends + family, society, nature, universe, etc. We are all at different stages. Some of us never gets past, friends and family. Understand, this is not a good thing, overall, especially if your friends and family exclude the acceptance of others based on being at a lower level of acceptance.
People will say it is a free country and people can do what they want. What we have lost sight of this order: God, country.
There is a pre-conventional God.
A conventional God.
and a post-conventional God. All the same god just different faces for the Self.
The King, or Queen, in dreams, is one of the highest symbols for the psyche.
We are at a crisis point in our country. Crisis points bubble or occur when we can't communicate what is going on.
We are describing an accident from all different perspectives and claiming our view is the only right way.
The perspectives of this crisis is being witnessed from whatever stage we are at in our lives. But they are not all equal. That is my point. It is not elitist thinking if you can demonstrate that if can clearly demonstrate there exists a hierarchy.
That word word creates a fear for Americans. We are all equal. We believe simple statements of truth simply can't be built on. We like short exchanges. We prefer twitter rants than conversation. "We are all equal" is a philosophy and a very simple philosophy. And also very wrong when reduced to radical fundementalism that disguises wrong-doing as equal to doing-the-right-thing. These are not equal, but we are being forced to believe they are.
It is a call to our individual self to decide the drama of our collective self in our next collective chapter.
My moral dimemma is the candidate that deserves my vote. More specifically, is which canidate is more evil: Trump or Clinton.
Most importantly, there needs to be a criteria in which we can answer this question as group. And I suggest we do using these three stages: pre conventional, conventional, and post conventional.
Next, I will try to answer this question.

Not that anyone cares....

It has been about three years since I last wrote something on here. I have continued to write: journaling, etc. Younger people are more comfortable with Twitter and texts these days than actually writing. I am not sure if that makes them the scattered generation. If anything I am on the fringe of both generations.
And read. Just finished Girl in a Band by Kim Gordon.
There are a lot of thoughts going up there. I don't want to write in the traditional, linear sort of way.
I am thinking about evolution and our current political state.
 I thought about something at the gym today that was connected to Jung's concept of synchronicity.
I think all of us are interested in knowing the future. There also seems to be a cine-obsession with time machines (and zombies have taken over vampires for some reason).
What's with all this love for Trump? Is it the media? Why doesn't the GOP like Trump? I think it is interesting to speculate. I never quite got GOP thinking. All the Republicans I know don't like Trump. So, I am perplexed when I have not met a person who could explain what they love about him. I think the next time I talk to someone that is a Trump supporter I will ask them to explain it to me. I am not sure I will get anything rational/logical. I am sure from their point of view it will be.
I like how he is driving a wedge in things. I think sometimes there needs to be earthquakes for things to move. The last eight years have been predictable. I think it is deeper than racism. It reminds me of sports loyalty. Win or lose you are going to root for your team. Does that mean you cannot appreciate someone else's abilities in the sport?
I also think that when people discuss politics they are not looking for the solutions. So where does that leave the future or the state of the world today?

Kids can drive you nuts. This just happened. Like life, a lot of things are unexplainable. You just have to ride things out.

 I am also tired of explaining myself to people. I am not looking to be the most popular person at the party. Let's face it. There are some ignorant people in the world. Maybe, people think that about me. Like I said, I don't care.

I read somewhere that men search for freedom. Women supposedly values communion more (according to Carol Gilligan's work).

There can be a third way: a synthesis of everything. It can be that way in politics, in life...
Not that anyone cares...

Sunday morning

 some conglomerate of collected residue 

leftover from the weekend and our lives

a dream of a pile of Sunday papers 

some aftermath of history

it's a folly of misguided intentions, 

heart palpations from caffeine intoxication

it's a relief from falling numbers

it's being punched in the face

over and over

and drowning your face in 

ice cold water

It is anger at circumstances

and submission to servitude

Pressed Dockers

a throwback to salvation

and societal acceptance

It is crying under the overcast skies

while the crows caw on the tangled

telephone wires overhead

it's "despair" graffiti'd 

on the downward slopes

of the skate park ramp

It is getting back in the ring

and ready to fight

when the bell

dings

Head Above Water (Parenting)

 I decided that I would write about parenting. Reflecting on my "blogs" (which also on reflection is a horrible name for anything) I realized that I was keeping most of personal life out of my blog. This was by design. I don't want this site to be a diary. Or, at that was not my original intention. I can't remember when I starting writing this and I am too lazy to look it up. I do believe it was before my first child was born. Now, in the midst of a 5 year old and a 3 year old, watching Sesame Street at 9 in the morning, I have decided it is impossible for me to not write about parenting. Oh yes, and next to the computer open on the table is a copy of The Child Whisperer, by Carol Tuttle. This is how desperate I am.
For the most part, my wife and I split time watching our children while the other is at work. This is fortunate for a couple of different reasons. The first is that what I pay in rent and what I pay in child care is about the same. The second is that is nice to actually have more time with your own children. This is what I thought before I had kids. I didn't anticipate that my job would be less stressful and a bit of a break from being with my children.
I thought I was prepared for parenting. I had babysat when I was a teenager. I have always enjoyed being around children and looked forward to having my own. Fortunately, this morning has been tame, thus far. Maybe, it's the calm before the storm. This is what I imagined in my perfect family scenario-quiet children. No whining voices. No disobeying. No jumping off couches. No repeating myself. If every morning was like this one-ahhh.
While I have never participated in soldiering, or had PTSD, I believe I encountered something similar (without belittling true war experiences). Hence, one of the reasons I decided to even look at this Child Whisperer book. I looked through the book and I am not buying what it is selling. The basic premise is that there are 4 types of children, or energy profiles.I am always looking to add secret weapons to my parenting arsenal, but I don't think this one will fit into my armory.
My goal in parenting is a simple one-survive, without doing as little harm as possible along the way. What? No mention of love? Love is needed, of course. But when the battle lines are drawn between them or me, love transforms itself into an entirely different animal.
Parenting can be one of the most rewarding experiences in life. But why? It is constantly engaging. It is challenging. There are several teaching moments, for the child and the parent. I write this as my boy is using my milk frother on my marble table as a drum. A week ago, I never let them touch it. Now, it is used everyday in ways only a child can imagine. Am I bending my own rules? God yes. Then, there are those constant voices in my head that says "you should be stronger" or "you should go more easy on the child". In old cartoons, it has been depicted there is an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other. I wish they would identify themselves when speaking, because there are times I am not sure which is which.
Anyways, I think my time on the computer is coming to an end. As my daughter presses the enter button she tells me that I never let her do anything.
I feel for all the parents out there, more than I ever did before. I suppose this is a wonderful byproduct of parenting. I hope I do keep my head above water. Fingers crossed.

Cairo Time

Juliette: I like your dress.
Tareq: It's a thawb.

The other night on Netflix I watched Cairo Time (1999). The movie starred Patricia Clarkson (Six Feet Under) as Juliette and Alexander Siddig as Tareq. Juliette's husband, Mark, works for the United Nations and is unable to meet her at the airport. Tareq, a former colleague of Mark's, acts as a guide to Juliette because of Mark's absence. This isn't a political movie; however, there is a tense scene that illustrates the danger of a woman walking in Cairo that is unsettling. The movie reminded me of Before Sunrise with the natural, unforced conversations and happenings between Tareq and Juliette. There are few romantic films I can recall that takes place in the "Middle East". I was overly impressed with Alexander Siddig's performance. He reminded me of a modern day Omar Sharif.

Regardless of his cultural background, Mr. Siddig could hold his own with any leading actor today. I loved writer and director's Ruba Nadda's film. I am not familiar with her other works, but looking her up on IMDB reveals an extensive catalog. Patricia Clarkson also delivers an outstanding performance. She has a wonderful presence in the roles she portrays. Cinematographer Luc Montpellier needs to be recognized for creating stunning shots and a beautiful palette on film. He was the cinematographer of Take this Waltz and Away from Her, as well. And last but not least, the soundtrack is amazing. The score is done by Niall Byrne. The Arabic music used in this film was spectacular, as well.

The film is a real gem. It is not often that you find these in the rough. As a cinephile, it is rewarding to come across a feature that can deliver such pleasure.