The Man Comes Around

(originally written 4-10-09 but never published)

Opening Introduction (Spoken part)

And I heard as it were the noise of thunder
One of the four beasts saying come and see and I saw
And behold a white horse

Song

There's a man going around taking names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Everybody won't be treated all the same
There'll be a golden ladder reaching down
When the Man comes around

The hairs on your arm will stand up
At the terror in each sip and in each sup
Will you partake of that last offered cup?
Or disappear into the potter's ground
When the Man comes around

Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers
One hundred million angels singing
Multitudes are marching to the big kettledrum
Voices calling, voices crying
Some are born and some are dying
It's Alpha and Omega's kingdom come

And the whirlwind is in the thorn tree
The virgins are all trimming their wicks
The whirlwind is in the thorn tree
It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks

Till Armageddon no shalam, no shalom
Then the father hen will call his chickens home
The wise man will bow down before the throne
And at His feet they'll cast their golden crowns
When the Man comes around

Whoever is unjust let him be unjust still
Whoever is righteous let him be righteous still
Whoever is filthy let him be filthy still
Listen to the words long written down
When the Man comes around

Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers
One hundred million angels singing
Multitudes are marching to the big kettledrum
Voices calling and voices crying
Some are born and some are dying
It's Alpha and Omega's kingdom come

And the whirlwind is in the thorn tree
The virgins are all trimming their wicks
The whirlwind is in the thorn tree
It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks

In measured hundred weight and penney pound
When the Man comes around.

Close (Spoken part)
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

"The Man Comes Around" by Johnny Cash

Lines on the Sphere

For I know your transgressions are many and your sins are great,
You who distress the righteous and accept bribes
And turn aside the poor in the gate.
Therefore at such a time the prudent person keeps silent, for it is an evil time.
Seek good and not evil, that you may live;
And thus may the LORD God of hosts be with you,
Just as you have said!
Hate evil, love good,
And establish justice in the gate!

Amos 5: 12-15

Take away from Me the noise of your songs;
I will not even listen to the sound of your harps.
But let justice roll down like waters
And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Amos 5: 23-24

Do horses run on rocks?
Or does one plow them with oxen?
Yet you have turned justice into poison
And the fruit of righteousness into wormwood

Amos 6: 12

(Okay, for the mathematicians and other science types, I know I'm taking liberties with this lines-and-spheres metaphor, but I think it works somewhat for my purposes.)

While the United States Constitution guarantees us the Freedom of Religion and forbids the establishment of a mandatory State Religion, too many postmodern "thinkers" have decided that the only way to protect these rules is to completely eliminate all religious influences from public life. Well, it should be logically obvious that such thinking clearly cannot be defended because it violates its own premise of Freedom. How can restricting the "free exercise" of religion in the public sphere be consistent with protecting any true Freedom? Some might object and insist that they are guaranteed some "freedom from religion" and that all public places should be free of any kind of religious symbolism or other influences, but that kind of 'reasoning' does not fit on a sphere where it does not intersect with other fully reasoned freedoms. How else can I make it obvious that one cannot violate a basic principle with such an exception? We know that parallel lines on a sphere will eventually always intersect, and this is not a flat world.

Basic principles and fundamental laws and liberties cannot be breached for the sake of "exceptions." And to favor or champion the exceptions at the expense of the basic and fundamental is inconsistent with reason, justice, fairness, and the rule of law.

An inconvenient reality for the postmodern Constitutional flatlanders is that our entire system of Freedoms is dependent upon the Christian concepts of morality. As Christ taught people how to live in peace and harmony with one another, and he insisted that all men treat each other with the same esteem and respect as themselves. He berated the leaders who did not live in accordance with these principles.

Jesus answered, "How terrible also for you teachers of the Law! You put onto people's backs loads which are hard to carry, but you yourselves will not stretch out a finger to help them carry those loads

Luke 11:46

"How terrible for you teachers of the Law! You have kept the key that opens the door to the house of knowledge; you yourselves will not go in, and you stop those who are trying to go in!"

Luke 11:52

It seems to me that the downfall of our Constitution (and arguably, our society) began with the illogical and errant Supreme Court ruling in Brown v Board of Education which used faulty sociological reasons for declaring that "separate is inherently unequal." Now, no one should confuse himself that I am defending racism or any kind of mandatory segregation. That is NOT my point and that does not fit anywhere on the Sphere of Freedom. My argument is that the very idea that 'separate cannot be equal' is completely wrong and unnecessary to assure equal freedoms. Racism is not an argument I am pursuing, and I will not engage in it at this time except to suggest that one look at the evidence of the last 40 or so years that shows us the steady decline in the quality of education and social conditions since the Court ruling. Usually such evidence speaks for itself.

Jesus Christ himself was arguing that separate IS equal - that all men are equal in the eyes of God (and should be in the eyes of the law) even if they are "separated" by the natural variations of life experience and conditions. And this idea is at the heart of our American psyche and soul:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

What that means is basically the same as what Jesus Christ taught his disciples about their own status in the world:

And there was an argument among them about which of them was the greatest. And he said, The kings of the Gentiles are lords over them, and those who have authority are given names of honour. But let it not be so with you; but he who is greater, let him become like the younger; and he who is chief, like a servant. For which is greater, the guest who is seated at a meal or the servant who is waiting on him? is it not the guest? but I am among you as a servant.

But you are those who have kept with me through my troubles; And I will give you a kingdom as my Father has given one to me, So that you may take food and drink at my table in my kingdom, and be seated like kings, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22: 24-30

Of course, Jesus Christ required that men accept the judgment of God over the judgment of other men in order to have eternal life in heaven. While these are religious requirements, one cannot dismiss or deny the basic truth of equality within the statements. Our Founding Fathers knew, and assumed that others would know, the biblical basis of their own principles. However, it cannot be considered any kind of co-mingling of Church and State to have your basic principles founded in the truths that are shared by a religion. It is merely an intersection of the parallels on the sphere

Transcend the Poison and Boot the Bastards

This whole financial scandal is full of poison, and it's making many of us very sick. On top of that I've been dealing with my own monthly possession by some kind of evil, satirical demon, as well as going through a battery of tests to make sure there isn't any more cancer trying poison my body. I am working on transcending all of this poison. Here is a dose of reality to try to help others transcend it too.

Let's look at the reality of who said what in recent years about the problems surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:


The NYTimes reported this Sept. 11, 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending.

However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.

What Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, said (page 2 of article linked above):

These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.

Well, so much for the Democrats' argument that the Bush Administration ignored the building problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and is responsible for it. Obama, read it and weep, or at least quit falsely blaming Bush and McCain for all of this mess which is rooted much more in the corruption of the Congressional Democrats on the committees involved in finances and banking.

May 25, 2005, John McCain, speaking to the Senate:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

The legislation was blocked by Democrats, with the assistance of a few Republicans.

October 27, 2005, NY Times reports:

Responding to the accounting scandals at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the House of Representatives approved legislation on Wednesday overhauling the regulatory oversight of the two huge mortgage financing companies.

...

The White House issued a statement on Wednesday criticizing the legislation adopted by the House, saying it envisioned a regulatory regime that "is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions."

The legislation "fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large," the White House statement said.

That legislation died in the Senate. Did you catch that part about the Bush Administration wanting stronger regulation? Yeah, that's right. Whatever tripe Obama is pushing is spoiled rotten and full of toxins. We all know why this legislation failed. It was purely political games by the Democrat-dominated Congress because they hate Bush so much they were willing to sacrifice all of our future financial security just because they didn't want him to "win" anything. That, and they used the excuse that they thought he was seeking too much power. blah, blah, blah

All of that being said, can we please put to rest the wrong ideas that the Republicans are at fault for our "financial crisis"? How can Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank sleep at night knowing that they were actually big players in preventing the problems from being fixed before it became such a huge "crisis"? Pelosi has said that the Republicans and the Bush Administration failed to properly regulate things so that they got out of control. Well, Nancy, why can't you properly regulate the corruption right under your nose (Charlie Rangel, et al)?

Let's just stop it and do what Obama won't do: transcend the poison of the old political games. Yes, it's difficult and I'm having trouble doing that myself, but Jesus Christ, they (and we) are going to have to put all of that political nonsense aside and actually try to solve some problems. Will the Democrats please just stop demanding all these extra things that only complicate the problems? In Sunday's New York Times:

Ms. Pelosi said Democrats would also insist on “enacting an economic recovery package that creates jobs and returns growth to our economy.”

Jesus F. Johnson, is she a complete idiot or what? Oh, sorry, I'm still dealing with some residual poison. ;-) How about we just try to solve this one huge problem first before we start adding all these conditions and extras that will only complicate and impede progress? Growing jobs is important, but let's get this mortgage situation under control first. And as soon as the government-secured mortgages can get properly straightened out and distributed/sold to financial institutions that can actually handle them, then the broader "economic recovery" can be addressed. Sometimes it's necessary to prioritize and handle one thing at a time, instead of trying to kill fifty birds with one stone.

Truth be told, I tend to agree that there needs to be a serious restructuring of how corporations and financial institutions do business. In my utopian ideas it wouldn't be necessary for the government to regulate so much because all the businesses would naturally want to be ethical, fair, and responsible for their own behavior and the consequences of that behavior. But I know that is only an idealistic fantasy and that a lot of people won't regulate themselves without force or fear of severe penalties.

My own ideas are fairly radical, and maybe even "liberal" depending on how you define it. ;-) I've never believed that the corporate business model is really that good because it inherently encourages too-risky behavior without tough enough consequences. Inevitably when a corporation fails, especially the very large ones, it becomes a private profit-public loss situation because the "owners" aren't held accountable for the losses. The value of their ownership in the company is often not at all related to any real, physical assets. Their wealth is just an illusion based on an assumption of future performance. It's just a bad model to begin with, although I do know and somewhat appreciate some of the "pro" arguments for it. But any other purely private business just can't survive or function by doing things in the same way as corporations, and they can't rely on public money for bailing them out when they screw up.

Let's look at this $700,000,000,000 that the government wants to "liquidate" the whole mess, which apparently accounts for only about 10% of all mortgages in the US (though I haven't found any solid numbers on that so it could be inaccurate). Well, I'd say 10% isn't really that much, but because of the fucked up ways that the banks overinflated the values of them and lent much more money than what the actual collateral was worth, the problem seemed to exponentially grow somehow. Anyway, if I've done my math right, which I probably didn't because every time I try to use real numbers I mess up for whatever reasons ;-), every single man, woman, and child in the US either owes the government over $2000, or you might could say they each will own $2000 worth of other people's houses until the mortgages are paid off.

Okay, I suppose the socialists might be cheering about this movement into that direction. But frankly, I don't like it, although logically and rationally and morally speaking no one can place any claims, or liens as they call them, on our mortgage because ours isn't in any kind of trouble. It's just between us and our credit union. I just hope that all those other supposedly 90% of people like us will actually see some "return" on our investments in other people's properties. I'd say it would be fair for the government, as soon as they are able (if ever?), to send us a dividend of that $2000+ per person plus interest (but definitely not at a "sub-prime" rate). ;-) What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak. Or to be a little more "charitable" they could just give us future tax credits for those amounts, including some percentage of interest.

Does anyone really think it's a good idea to trust the current Congress to improve anything? Regardless of your political leanings it should be very clear that these people who are supposed to be "public servants" paid with our money have done a piss-poor job. In fact, I think we should have many of them charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors" and bribery (in the guise of lobbyists' payments). A good explanation of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means in this context is found in an article by Jon Roland:

... the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Our Congress is sworn in and under the obligation to uphold their Oath of Office. This puts the responsibility on them to act on our behalf. I would lead an insurrection if that's what it would take to get all those corrupt bozos out of office. I am a conservative, but I'm a rebel too. Perhaps a revolutionary conservative is a paradox, but here I am anyway. ;-)

As for all those "executives" of these failed and brink-of-failing financial services companies, I think they should be charged with several serious crimes. Stop it with this namby-pamby fiddle-farting around with some big bailout that we can't really afford. Throw the bastards in jail for practically treasonous fraud. Yes, treasonous is a very strong word, but if you believe that the failings of these companies without (and possibly even with) a bailout will actually lead to the complete collapse of the US, and possibly global, economy, then okay, that looks awfully serious to me. They've essentially weakened our country's security in every way.

At least treat them like drug-dealers and seize all their property that they gained from their criminal activities. Make them pay for the mess they created. Of course, that wouldn't be enough to cover it all, but at least it would be something coming from the criminals who caused it. Back in the good old days, people like that would have been dealt with quickly. They certainly wouldn't be rewarded for their betrayals and treachery.

I hope that everyone who reads this will see the truth. And spread the word. I mean really. We're actually the bosses here. So let's act like it.

Amen, go in peace. :-)

Update: Shortly after finishing this and posting it, I heard on the news that the FBI is investigating Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Bros., and AIG. Praise the lord! I hope they are investigating some Congress members too. (of both parties, whoever has been instrumental in allowing the banking fraud to continue)

Because I'm Worth It

(I used to work for L'Oreal, by the way, in my pre-vicious momma life.)

There is a price for availability. Nothing is free. I've said this before, I think. As you might have noticed in the last post, Vicious Momma has a new rule. "No free rides- ass, grass, or gas." (that order is negotiable ;-) ) I've realized that I do an awful lot of things for "free" that many people get paid, often large sums, to do. So, I'm taking some advice from someone and raising my price. If there is a long line (and there is actually) then the price is too low. That is the principle upon which this advice was given. Well, hell, let's try it out and see if it works.

Anyway, I've been moping around lately needing some motherly nurturing. I need to go see my "hired mom" (counselor). I pay her $80 (thereabouts) to be motherly for 50 minutes. She gives support and good advice, just like my mom used to do. For whatever reasons (actually, the cost was one consideration because almost a thousand bucks a year is a lot of money) I haven't been maintaining my monthly appointments with her for probably most of this year, and I'm suffering for that.

She frequently has told me that I am worth more than I expect and she has wondered why I don't value myself more. Well, there's neither the time nor space to explain all of that right now. ;-) One day I surprised her. Our session was much more intense than usual because I finally lifted a different part of my mask and showed her a new mess underneath. She had no idea I hid such a chaotic wreckage of guilt and conflict. I hide it well sometimes, even when I'm supposed to be showing it. See, the fear is that even someone paid to look would be so annoyed, disturbed, horrified, bored, uninterested or whatever that they "quit" me. Actually, I think the fear of abandonment is the primary root of all insecurities and problems. Not sure who said that first. Maybe I'll look it up later.

In thinking about what today's sermonette would cover I decided to consult the great oracle box: the TV. Since I like to think that I'm 'attuned' to the underlying currents I thought I'd check and see what the TV preachers were talking about today. Well, wouldn't you know it? The first sermon I found was about value and self worth and all of that. Coincidence, you say? Heh, whatever.

I'm in a bit of a hurry today so I didn't listen too long to the sermon because I got the confirmation that I needed pretty quickly. And don't we all love when that happens? I sure do!

Anyway, this preacher was talking about how if we don't value ourselves then we are not valuing God. By hating or rejecting ourselves we are hating and rejecting God and all the things He has done for us. I missed the scriptures he used to back up his statements, but I've listened to this guy before and he's pretty good so I trust that he's not just blowing smoke. His basic point was that if God didn't value us then we wouldn't have all of this (life, the world, and so), and so in order to please God we should value ourselves, each other, and the world.

That jealous God of the Old Testament just wanted to be appreciated and recognized. Much like anyone else who does so much for "free." In trying to get man's attention he did many things, most notably, sending his Son to die for man's salvation. "For God so loved the world..." (John 3:16) In God's efforts to show us how much he values us he also realized that we humans tend not to value those things that are free. So he set one condition, or price, for our salvation. No more free rides, He said. You see, even God doesn't give free rides, so why should I? Indeed, there is a price for all of life. And if we don't value ourselves, no one else will.

I think I have an appointment to make soon... And that's today's Sunday Sermonette.


Afterthought: Like Stephen Hawking, I know the mind of God. And let me tell you, it's very interesting but only in finite portions. ;-)

Dear Pope Benedict XVI,

I'm not sure of the proper way to address your Excellency or whatever. ;-) Please forgive my American informality. With all due respect I admire your intelligence, reason, faith, and diplomacy. If I may, I'd like to make you an unusual offer. In light of the recent controversy over your words about the nature of Islam and the resulting confirmation of your statements, I'd like to provide you with an opportunity to express how you really feel about the death threats and other nonsense in a personal and private way.

Sometimes it's necessary to express our displeasure through some form of empathic projection or other therapy. I realize that you have a real close relationship with God and that He sustains you in all the ways you need, but I think God would not be too upset with you if you joined me for a little joyride. Sometimes when I'm feeling put-upon I'll get in my (red) Corvette convertible and drive around playing some loud music. This is a "safe" way to express the thoughts and feelings I have that I can't otherwise fully express in good conscience.

What in particular I have in mind is that we could listen to "Ridin" by Chamillionaire and sing along but change some of the words if you'd like. The first part is okay as is (actually it's the best part):

They see me rollin'
They hatin'
Patrollin'
And tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty
Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty
Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty
Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty
Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty
My music so loud;
I'm swangin'
They hopin'
That they gon' catch me ridin' dirty
Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty
Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty
Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty
Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty

Well, don't you agree that it fits with your situation? Those crazy Jihadists love to try to catch you ridin' dirty (criticizing Islam). In this next part you can think of the "police" and "law" as the Jihadists, and you can think of all the other stuff as just 'fluff' that makes you feel like a badass, kind of like all the papal vestments and all that. ;-) The parts that I've made bold type are parts that I think you'd really appreciate.

Police think they can see me lean;
I'm tint so it ain't easy to be seen.
They see me ride by, they can see the glean
And my shine on the deck and the TV screen.
Ride with a new chick, she like "Hold up."
Next to the Playstation controlla;
well have a full clip, in my pistolla
that I'm a send a jacker into a coma.
Girl, you ain't know, I'm crazy like Krayzie Bone;
Just tryin' to bone, ain't tryin' to have no babies.
Ride clean as hell so I pull in ladies.
Law's on patrol; you know they hate me.
Music turned all the way up and to the maximum;
I can speak for some niggas tryin' to jack for some.
But we packin' somethin' that we have
And, um, will have a nigga locked up in the maximum
Security cell. I'm grippin' oak.
Music loud and the tippin' slow.
Twins steady twistin' like hit this dough;
Police pull up from behind and I'm sittin low.
Windows down, gotta stop pollution.
CDs change; niggas like "Who is that producin'?"
This the Play-N-Skillz when we out and cruisin'
Got warrants in every city except Houston
But I still ain't losin'.

But really, the content of the verses is kind of hard to understand, and it might be better if you didn't understand them anyway. ;-) But the chorus is great and sounds really good in my car. The point is to allow yourself to temporarily feel the indignation and redirect it through the music and the wind blowing past you. It will make you feel better. I call it Corvette Therapy. :-) (for a preview, click here)

And I totally respect your oath of celibacy and all those other concerns. You do not need to worry about being in a fast sports car with a hot-blooded American woman. I promise I won't put a move on you or anything. You'll be perfectly safe. (you're a little 'mature' for me anyway) ;-)

So just think about it and let me know if you think you'd like to try it. I might even let you drive a little, which is a huge thing because I don't let anybody (except grudgingly my husband sometimes) drive my Corvette. But if you can't trust the Pope then who can you trust? Do you know how to drive? It's an automatic so it's easy, but don't let that make you think it's not powerful and quick and very responsive. It is. Very.

I'd be most pleased to be able to fulfill this offer. Thanks. And stay tough and hang in there.

Most respectfully and sincerely,

Rae Ann (a.k.a. Vicious Momma)


PS If you like "Ridin'" you might like Snoop Dogg's "Drop It Like It's Hot" too.

PPS Just last night I heard Weird Al's parody of "Ridin'" ("White and Nerdy"). Visit Weird Al's MySpace Page to hear it. It's hilarious!

Magic Words and Alchemy

Much of the Cognitive brand of psychology tells us that we create our own reality with our thoughts and perceptions. A nice summary (from the above linked wikipedia article) of this approach to psychology is as follows:

Cognitive theory contends that solutions to problems take the form of algorithms—rules [processes] that are not necessarily understood but promise a solution, or heuristics—rules [exploratory or trial-and-error processes] that are understood but that do not always guarantee solutions. In other instances, solutions may be found through insight, a sudden awareness of relationships [intuition].

I must confess that I've had a longterm love/hate relationship with this Cognitive approach. While it seems to be one of the 'best' approaches to understanding our minds it still is missing something. And those "rules that are understood but that do not always guarantee solutions" are just not satisfying. When I was in school there was little discussion about the physical/biological aspects of our thoughts and behavior other than some brain anatomy about which structures were 'believed' to be related to different thought processes, etc., and even then the brain imaging technologies were still in their infancies so we just didn't know that much. All of that is probably the main reason I was unsatisfied with this 'cognitive only' approach. Apparently, many other people felt this same way because these fields were much more widely researched and developed shortly after I graduated.

Now I have the benefit of many more years of living and experience to add to my education. I've had plenty of time to observe, examine, study, and learn about my own thought processes and behaviors so that I've been able to figure out what's what (for the most part). Of course, not all people are like me so I can't assume that because something works for me that it must work for everyone else. But it's probably safe to assume that I'm not an anomaly either.

Besides, one of the things I've noticed over the years is that the things I get interested in are almost always very 'popular' soon after I get into them. I think it's just that I somehow have insights about future events/trends a little sooner than most people. And largely, when I talk about being "psychic" that is what I mean- "having insights about future events/trends sooner than most people." However, as I get older I'm finding that I'm becoming more accurate in more 'specific predictions' in addition to the more general trends. Maybe this is some brain mechanism or process that "burns" an 'easy track' in the neurons so that it speeds up with use. Maybe it's like a 'smoothing' or 'polishing' effect more than just a simple 'carving' out of space. Whoa, where'd that come from?? *snickers*

(Okay, so, I just got a little lost in the smoothing-and-polishing visuals ;-), sorry.)

"Neural Perturbations"


Anyway, this cognitive approach to understanding behavior has successfully spawned a large movement of psycho-spirituality which advocates the idea that we are ultimately in control of our mental environment (and by extension our outer environment somewhat) by adjusting our thoughts and perceptions of the world and how we react to them. The Four Agreements are a reflection of this movement, too, even though the Toltec Wisdom that bases them is much older than modern cognitive psychology. Part of this psycho-spiritual movement's growth has happened because of the compatibility of that older wisdom with the newer 'discoveries.' And in many ways it can and does work for people. We can stop thinking a certain way about things and therefore change our 'reality' (extrinsic and intrinsic environments) within limits.

But at what point does it fail to work? I've always thought that it is at some physical or biological point in the process, a threshold of sorts. I'm tempted to call this the Point of Alchemy*, meaning the point of "an inexplicable or mysterious transmuting," but that term is not optimistic enough for me. ;-)

It's pretty clear that there are many things we can't do just by thinking about it. We can't think up a rose out of thin air. We can't change water into wine just by thinking it. But at some point we are able to alter our reality with our thoughts, and by extension, with our words. And this is pretty much the basis of the Cognitive Therapies as well as the concepts of prayer and magical incantations.

We have lots of 'magic' words - words we can say that change our realities. Probably one of the most powerful is "love." If someone tells us, "I love you," it has the power to make us soar. How is it that one word (or three) can have so much power or 'magic'? And in case someone's heart is so hardened that "love" can't work its magic there is most likely some other word that would work just as well to change that person's reality.

Cognitive therapies are largely based on 'talk therapy' and working on 'controlling' or altering thoughts and behaviors through the use of words. The same is true for prayer (spoken or not). This cognitive practice in whatever form it takes can work at large scales of influence on people just as it can work on individuals. I think a good example might be the way the media can use particular words to alter reality. But again, I'm asking myself about the boundaries, or thresholds, or constraints. ;-)

Let's return to the quote at the beginning about cognitive problem solving. What it seems we need is something to 'consummate' or bridge the gap between the "algorithms" and the "heuristics". Even in psychology we need a 'unifying' theory of everything. Is it some 'physical' or biological process at which this 'alchemy' of reality happens? We know that many psychiatric drugs work by altering the 'chemical imbalances' that result in 'wrong' thoughts and behaviors. It seems we understand the chemistry of that action. But what about the changes that aren't assisted by introduced chemicals? What about those changes we induce ourselves by our own thoughts, etc.? Through biofeedback we do know of some things we can alter by our thoughts, like heartrate, pain relief, etc. But again, we don't know exactly why or how or to what extent.

I certainly hope that whenever someone does discover and 'prove' a Theory of Everything that he/she or another someone will be able to translate it easily enough to terms that describe how our minds work. And in many ways translations are a type of magic words and alchemy too. ;-)


--------
*Alchemy was the medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal cure for disease, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging life. Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want to live forever, unless you could remain at your youthful peak forever. ;-) And besides, I think that life is indefinitely prolonged no matter what we do. That's probably my Christian upbringing and its "eternal life/eternal damnation" influence showing. ;-)

Got the Butterflies All Tied Up

This is a Gulf Fritillary (Agraulis vanillae incarnata) just after emerging from its chrysalis, expanding its wings, and preparing for its last stage of life. The photo really doesn't do justice to its exquisite beauty and opalescent coloring (I wonder if the coloring is why it's named 'vanilla incarnate'). This photo was the other on display at the Dogwood Arts Festival Photo Show in April along with 'Splendid Anomaly.'

This post has been a long time (several months) coming. One problem was that I just could not think of the right title to 'tie it all up'. Then a few weeks ago (yet more delays) I heard the Prince song "When Doves Cry" on the radio followed by Eddie Money's "Take Me Home Tonight." It was the 'random' juxtaposition of these two songs that somehow connected for a solution. Hearing in the second song, "I can feel you breathe; I can feel your heart beat faster.....faster," caused a 'free association' (see, female verbal pattern thinking can be pretty cool) to the first song:

Touch if u will my stomach
Feel how it trembles inside
You've got the butterflies all tied up
Don't make me chase u
Even doves have pride

I've been somewhat obsessed with butterflies for the last several years. This obsession with butterflies was born in December 1999, when in Puerto Rico exploring Old San Juan we stumbled upon The Butterfly People. I was instantly caught in the "butterfly dimension" and butterflies (click for a brief description of some cute shamanic totem animals including butterflies) began to enter my life in various ways. Living in the country for the last 5 years has made it possible for me to have hands-on studies of them. In the summers my friends have teased me about my jars of caterpillars and chrysalides lined up on the kitchen bar. But they've never complained when they got to watch a butterfly fly for the first time. (However, this year the kitchen bar has been dominated by the black widow spider jar, and that has been the source of even more teasing about me really finally 'losing it.' lol But I think that the spider's presence, until her recent death, fit nicely with the symbolism of tied-up butterflies.)

I've recently finished reading the book, An Obsession With Butterflies, by Sharman Apt Russell. The first few sentences of the book immediately intrigued me:

In physics, string theory suggests that there are more than four dimensions, perhaps ten in all. [I thought it was 11.] These extra dimensions are curled up into a very small space, big enough only for subatomic particles, or tiny loops of vibrating "string." The theory does not rule out more dimensions, perhaps in the area of time. These dimensions, here but not here, exist outside our range of perception.

Adding butterflies to your life is like adding another dimension.

Russell goes on to describe examples of the richness and complexity of activities happening in the world all around us that we never even notice or perceive at all. Always surrounding us there are countless chemical messages being passed between flowers and insects (as well as other animals and plants) that exist in what can seem like dimensions other than our own. (I might could call it the "Olfactory Dimension".) She describes many examples of the hidden behavior that occurs in the butterfly world and how that behavior and other traits evolved in concert with the evolution of plants and other animals.

Let me indulge in a bit of quoting of out context. Czech string theorist Lubos Motl (who told me his name coincidentally is very similar to the Czech word for 'butterfly'- motyl[missing its proper accent thingy], which is much easier than the Aztec name of one type of butterfly, xiquipilchiuhpapalotl) says:

The punch line is that we absolutely need string theory to understand what's really going "inside" various physical systems that depend on nice mathematics. For an intelligent person, it is impossible to deny that string theory connects A,B) with C,D) and with E). It allows us to make seemingly obscure but true relations as clear as the sky. String theory allows us to answer questions in each category. It even tells us what are the right questions and what are the wrong questions. It also informs us which similarities, isomorphisms, and identities are deep and which of them are just random coincidences.

...

Our understanding of such dual systems is necessary if we want to predict what happens behind the borders between our current knowledge and our current ignorance. Sometimes the borders of the hostile empire of ignorance are only defined by our limited calculational skills. Sometimes the borders occur because without string theory, we would have no idea how to define the theory of the physical phenomena in the first place...

I know that he's not talking about butterflies and their seemingly extra-dimensional communications with flowers and other insects. But it's a fun thought to try to take complex theoretical physics and 'apply' it to events in the 'real' world. Russell does this with her opening paragraph, but that wasn't quite enough for me because I had hoped she would explicitly weave that idea into the rest of her book. I like to dig a little deeper and 'see' the connections in more detail. Or at least with my limited understanding of string theory it seems to fit together pretty well in that metaphorical sense. And I do want to emphasize the word "metaphorical" here because at this level that is all I can do to connect string theory and butterflies. I'm only describing an analogy or metaphor as I perceive it. I'm not capable of explaining why or how. (link to an explanation of various ways of looking at the Universe) However, I do think that when a theory begins to be used as a metaphor for real events that it means it is gaining acceptance in the minds of non-scientists. There is so much more going on in the world around us than the tiny bit that we do perceive. I like the use of String Theory as metaphor even if it might not be 'analytically correct'. It is philosophically pleasing.

I enjoyed the first half of Russell's book more than the rest because she discussed in detail some scientific observations of butterfly behavior and the complexity that has evolved (and continues to evolve) in relation to other animal and plant behaviors. Butterflies and ants in particular have established close symbiotic relationships:

Over 2000 species of butterflies around the world suffer from myrmecophily. They are ant-loving. (page 32)

And this dynamic symbiosis is present with flowers too, though these relationships rely on a balance of needs by each participant and seem to constantly change/adjust in small ways which is, of course, the point of evolution. But this interconnectedness isn't limited to animal-animal or animal-plant relationships. For example, in many species their developing coloring responds to temperature changes, but that ability is lost in butterflies bred in climate controlled labs in fewer than 20 generations. Apparently, climate change is necessary for adaptability and evolution. Whoda thunkit? ;-)

There is also a discussion of the unique characteristic of caterpillar blood that seems to 'count time', a true biological clock. This is only one of the discussions in the book that makes it so worthwhile and thought provoking. I highly recommend this book to anyone who appreciates the complexity and 'connectedness' of Life even down to the smallest, most common of creatures. (And it's a small book and a quick read, provided you don't have kids constantly interrupting you.)

In her discussions of the history of butterfly study, lepidopterology, we learn that Vladimir Nabokov was an avid and well-known 20th Century lepidopterist. Many of us know him for his controversial novel, Lolita, about, as most of us know, a pedophile's pursuit and 'capture' of a young girl. (I haven't read it, and I will admit that it could have literary value despite the subject which I find disgusting.) Apparently, Nabokov was obsessed with butterflies too, especially their metamorphosis from a "bag of goo" (Russell's description) to a beautiful work of biological art. Russell sums it up by saying:

It is a gesture of beauty almost too casual. (page 48)

"A gesture of beauty almost too casual" seems to me to be expected from an "Elegant Universe."

When gulf fritillaries are mating they stay connected for most of a day.

The primary purpose of the adult butterfly is reproduction. And butterfly sex is almost as varied as human sex. Some species like the Monarch (Danaus plexippus) engage in 'rape' or what looks to us like forced, uninvited sex, and is probably the result of the male Monarch lacking enough pheromones to properly 'attract' a female. Other species like the Zebra Longwing (Heliconius charitonia) engage in pupal sex, or what could be compared to pedophilia in humans, though in the butterflies it does often result in actual reproduction but also sometimes results in female death. This barbaric practice in butterflies has evolved probably as a result of intense male competition to perpetuate their own genes. They even sometimes engage in interspecies pupal mating (which kills the female) probably to reduce competition on host plants. (A disturbing thought is that perhaps human pedophilia is an evolutionary relic which has yet to completely disappear.) And some butterfly species have even developed a form of 'bondage' (or being "tied up") with a structure called a "sphragis" which Russell equates to a "chastity belt" that keeps other males from mating with a female. However one male butterfly sexual feature that I'm sure most human males would wish they had are rudimentary 'eyes' on their genitalia that detect light and probably assist the males in properly 'lining up' with the female genitalia.

Gulf fritillaries are probably my favorite butterflies for several reasons. They are plentiful here so I have gotten to watch them quite a bit. They have the coolest scientific name ("vanilla incarnate"), and they feed on the Passion Flower plant (Passiflora incarnata or roughly "widespread goddess of flowers incarnate") which grows wild around here and is quite beautiful and smells incredible:

Maybe their feeding on this Passion Flower is part of why their mating lasts so long? And it seems logical to me to think that they must surely be having little butterfly orgasms even though we've yet found a way to detect them. (Why would they stay connected so long if wasn't very pleasurable? Staying connected for long periods increases the risk of being eaten by a bird or other predator so you'd think there has to be some big benefit to offset that danger.) Maybe these butterfly orgasms are occurring in another dimension, a curled-up dimension predicted by string theory that we've also yet to detect? Maybe someone should try to study this further? Maybe this is the answer so many have been searching for? ;-)

I'd like to leave it here with that 'punchline', but no discussion of butterflies and the significance of their lives and life-cycle is complete without mentioning death. Butterflies, like most of us, live then reproduce and then die. It's the Way of Life. In Russell's book there is a brief discussion of the cross-cultural spiritual symbolism of butterflies' metamorphosis. Many cultures have independently associated this metamorphosis with the life/death/rebirth cycle of Life, and some have associated it with reincarnation. Some say that butterflies are the souls of dead humans. Here is an iconic representation of this idea:



Of course, there is much in the book that I haven't mentioned, but that's why you need to read it. Now that I've come to the end of this I'm wondering if it was worth the trouble, but I'm relieved to have it finally finished.

A quick disclaimer here: this is for entertainment purposes only. ;-)

The Four Agreements

Inspiration (the muses, answered prayers, intelligence, whatever you want to call it) is a funny thing.

Thoughts arrive like butterflies
But he don't know
So he chases them away

"Evenflow" by Pearl Jam

A little fun with numerology:

4 x 4 x 4 x 4 = 256

2 + 5 + 6 = 13

1 + 3 = 4

"The number 4 symbolizes the principle of putting ideas into form. It signifies work and productivity. The 4 is constructive, realistic, traditional and cautious. It is the number of system, order, and management." (direct quote from site linked above)


Four 1

The elements:

air - relates to the mind, thoughts, intellect
earth - relates to the force of place, environment, landscape
fire - relates to action, behavior, motion, movement, energy
water - relates to emotions, visceral feelings and perceptions


Four 2

The directions:

east - relates to spirituality, source, illumination, thought
south - relates to the material ("real") world, personal environment, physical perception
west - relates to 'life path', behavior, movement, action
north - relates to wisdom, integration, purpose, intention


Four 3

The intelligences:

intellectual (measured by typical IQ tests) Relates to the air element, east, thought, how one thinks
emotional (measured by 'maturity') Relates to the water element, north, wisdom, how one 'feels' about his world
perceptual/place (measured by 'common sense') Relates to the earth element, south, perception, how much one senses his world
behavioral (measured by 'success') Relates to the fire element, west, behavior, how one acts in the world


Four 4

A book I'd recommend to anyone who's interested in spiritual health is The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz which discusses Toltec wisdom. These four 'rules' for living are complementary to other spiritual/religious teachings.

The Four Agreements are

1. Be impeccable with your word,

2. Don't take anything personally,

3. Don't make assumptions,

4. Always do your best.

I think these are good, but sometimes difficult, rules to live by. They seem to depend upon a reasonable level of intelligence, all four kinds, not just any one. But primarily these agreements require enhancing focus on emotional, perceptual, and behavioral intelligences. One might ask how these are really different from the 'standard' IQ and intellectual intelligence. Well, it seems pretty apparent by looking at people that just because someone has a high IQ it doesn't automatically mean that he/she is emotionally, perceptually, or behaviorally intelligent. Many 'smart' people have no 'common sense' (meaning they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground- sorry that's not too technical, lol) as evidenced by those geniuses who can't remember where they left their keys or whatever. (I'm flying by the seat of my pants today so forgive any blaring incongruities.) Likewise, many times very 'smart' people are very emotionally immature/underdeveloped. (I'm not sure how malleable these various intelligences are, but I'd say there is a similar threshold as with typical IQ.) They just don't know how to get along with others. And then there are those very smart people who just do dumb things. They make bad choices. This is evidence of lower behavioral intelligence.

'Don't take anything personally' means that what other people do or say is a reflection of their own reality and not yours. Even if someone kills you it isn't because of you. It is because of his/her own thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and actions. No one is responsible for anyone else's reality, only their own, so don't take it personally when someone conflicts with you. It's not all about you! This depends upon emotional intelligence (or the balance of the water element within one's spirit which translates to wisdom). Part of this worldview that might seem strange to Western thinkers is this relationship of emotion to wisdom. But the connection is in how one handles emotions that makes him/her wise. A person who isn't especially intellectually intelligent can be very wise, or emotionally intelligent.

'Don't make assumptions' means that you should pay attention to your surroundings and how they change or don't change. Don't think that because something is a particular way once that it will always be that way. You have to be perceptually engaged in and aware of your world to truly function in it. And this means actively questioning yourself and others in order to know what is real. Knowing what is real is a simple definition of 'common sense' or perceptual intelligence. (This is related to the earth element- where we are- and the southern direction and the power of place, or how we relate to our environment.)

'Always do your best' means making good choices in how to act/behave and is clearly dependent upon behavioral intelligence. It means making the choice to do your best under whatever circumstances. And if you've truly done your best (made good choices) then you can't harshly judge yourself. Behavioral intelligence means that you can reliably predict the outcomes of various actions and choose a path with the best possible outcome. (This is related to the element fire and how its energy is used for either constructive or destructive purposes.)

'Be impeccable with your word' means to always speak with integrity and requires the integration of emotional intelligence (wisdom), perceptual intelligence (common sense), behavioral intelligence (right action), and less so, intellectual intelligence (ability to think it all through). Personally, I find this Agreement the most difficult to consistently follow, but I think it is probably the one that depends on all the others. In order to be "impeccable with your word" you must first "not make assumptions" and "not take things personally" and "do your best." Being impeccable with your word is a reflection of the proper use of the air element. After all, we do speak by pushing air through our bodies, and in some world-views this is akin to sharing a part of your soul with the world.


Disclaimer: This is certainly not a comprehensive discussion of Toltec Wisdom or any other thing. It is basically an outline regurgitation (Did you know that honey is basically bee regurgitation? Honey and lemons go really well together. Oh, I just can't wait 'til those lemons are ripe!) of what I've absorbed from my own life's experience and studies. It is okay with me if someone thinks it is all Mumbo-Jumbo (their reality that I won't take personally). I'd like to close with some four dimensional lyrics that popped into my mind:

You put your whole self in
You put your whole self out
You put your whole self in
And you shake it all about
You do the Hokey-Pokey
And you turn yourself around
That's what it's all about!

(I just totally cracked myself up)

Dust in the Wind

I close my eyes, only for a moment, and the moment's gone
All my dreams, pass before my eyes, a curiosity
Dust in the wind, all they are is dust in the wind.
Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do, crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see

Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind

[Now] Don't hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away, and all your money won't another minute buy.

Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind
Dust in the wind, everything is dust in the wind.

By Kansas

Cainer's for today:

Thursday, 22nd June 2006

AQUARIUS

People say one thing when they mean another. People insist that they mean what they say even when they are not saying what they mean. People, sometimes, DO say that they mean something different, but that's only in the hope that the second meaning will obscure the true meaning. We need translators to go everywhere with us to unravel the complex web of confusion. Assuming, that is, that we actually want to know what people really mean. Maybe it's as well we don't!

Someone in Saudi Arabia translated my blog into Arabic. I've always thought that Arabic is such a pretty-looking language in print. How interesting to see my own words translated into such a foreign language. At least I guess they are still my words with their same meaning. I'll never really know, will I?

Words really are like dust in the wind. We say things and those sound waves just keep going until they scatter into tiny bits like dust I don't know if that's "scientifically correct," but I don't really care at this particular moment. ;-) (Okay, just to be clear, I'm not saying that sound waves become dust particles, this is just a simile.) It's kind of poetic and that has it's own value. It gives me a most pleasant sensation in my brain.

God, I love Neil Diamond. Even more than Elvis, which is saying a lot for a Southern girl.

"Maybe tonight
Maybe tonight by the fire
All alone you and I
Nothing around but the sound
Of my heart and your sighs

Money talks
But it can't sing and dance
And it don't walk
As long as I can have you here with me
I'd much rather be
Forever in blue jeans"

"Forever in Blue Jeans" by Neil Diamond

Fuck. I've been dropping the "F-bomb" an awful lot lately. Maybe I'm just trying to make lots of dust. ;-)

Last night I was thinking about how different things look through a screen of smoke or fog, the way the light reflects/refracts differently. It makes it easier to shift your focus. Shifting your focus is essential in solving problems.

Dust in the wind. We need that, and that's why it is that way.

"And it wasn't so much her words as such
As the way they were sung
It was the way they were sung"

"Desiree" by Neil Diamond

See what I'm talking about or do I need to make more dust so you can focus on it better? ;-)

Neil Diamond sings about all the good things in life.

We got things we gotta catch up on
Mmmm, you know you know what I'm sayin'
Can't stand still while the music is playin'

"Cherry, Cherry" by Neil Diamond

We all know he's not talking about dancing on a dancefloor, right? Isn't that what he's saying, Mr. Cainer? Oh, yeah, that's right, it's one of 'them there' (sorry, the Hick in me pops out sometimes) double entendre things. Or maybe he really is just talking about dancing? And that's how the focus changes in the smoke/dust. Sometimes it's a little frustrating.

Oh, the sound and the fury!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth by Shakespeare

This is an idiot's tale, or at least that is one way of looking at it. William Faulkner, another Southerner, wrote an idiot's tale called The Sound and the Fury. I did a paper in high school about why Faulkner chose that title. It seems so common now, but at the time it was very interesting to me to analyze that kind of thing. I probably still have that old paper stashed away somewhere. Not that it matters. Let it turn to dust for all I know. I have no original ideas. I'm an idiot in this particular consistency of light and dust.

Poor Lady Macbeth, she would have been so much better off if she had Neil Diamond singing to her.

I hope I'm posthumously famous. I don't care if it takes 500 years either. Living fame is hard on people.


Okay, where was I?

There was supposed to be lots of other stuff 'between the paragraphs' in this post, but I had a very long (several hours) interruption and some of those thoughts decayed past dust before I got to put them down. Dust in the wind. Signifying nothing.

Song sung blue
Weeping like a willow
Sleeping on my pillow
Funny thing,
But you can sing it with a cry in your voice
And before you know it start to feeling good
You simply got no choice

"Song Sung Blue" by Neil Diamond

And that, folks, is shifting your focus.

Tree of Life

(7-20-2006 For an update on the Tree of Life click here.)


As I mentioned a while back my lemon tree is blooming, and now there are these cute little 'baby' lemons on it:



And the blooms have attracted a wide range of insects, and I'm having fun with that.

Today I found a young praying mantis:



They are always welcome because they are great predators of not-so-welcome guests.

And I also was amused by this little guy:



He appears to be some kind of weevil, but I will call him a "'possum bug" because when he saw me he immediately jumped off the leave above and played dead where he landed. Yes, I must be that scary-looking! Hopefully, if he is still in the tree the mantis will show him exactly how to play dead. ;-)

I think lemons have gotten a bad rap. Sure, they are sour, but with a little sugar or other sweetness they are delicious in drinks and foods. And lemon oil is good for cleaning and deodorizing.

I got to thinking about the symbolism of lemons. We call a bad car a "lemon". Poor lemons! Why not call bad cars turnips? I hate turnips. I think that would be a much better name of a bad car or any other inferior thing.

I even found that there are songs about lemons. One very sad one written by Will Holt has been sung by many performers like Peter, Paul, and Mary:

When I was just a lad of ten, my father said to me,
"Come here and take a lesson from the lovely lemon tree."
"Don't put your faith in love, my boy", my father said to me,
"I fear you'll find that love is like the lovely lemon tree."

Lemon tree very pretty and the lemon flower is sweet
but the fruit of the poor lemon is impossible to eat.
Lemon tree very pretty and the lemon flower is sweet
but the fruit of the poor lemon is impossible to eat.

One day beneath the lemon tree, my love and I did lie
A girl so sweet that when she smiled the stars rose in the sky.
We passed that summer lost in love beneath the lemon tree
the music of her laughter hid my father's words from me:

Lemon tree very pretty and the lemon flower is sweet
but the fruit of the poor lemon is impossible to eat.
Lemon tree very pretty and the lemon flower is sweet
but the fruit of the poor lemon is impossible to eat.

One day she left without a word. She took away the sun.
And in the dark she left behind, I knew what she had done.
She'd left me for another, it's a common tale but true.
A sadder man but wiser now I sing these words to you:

Lemon tree very pretty and the lemon flower is sweet
but the fruit of the poor lemon is impossible to eat.
Lemon tree very pretty and the lemon flower is sweet
but the fruit of the poor lemon is impossible to eat.

And then Electric Light Orchestra's song "(Here We Go 'Round) The Lemon Tree" is a little less tragic:

There's a girl next door to me who's round the bend
But she wonders why she can't make any friends
From her garden she could see me
In her silver-clad bikini
Singing, dancing round her fruit tree

Here we go round the lemon tree
Mister, can't you hear me
Here we go round the lemon tree
Mister, don't come near me

Could I calm her down by throwing stones at her
If only I could make the right approach to her
Think I'd rather tame a tiger
Turn those lemons into cider
Still I'd like to get beside her

CHORUS

Three o'clock in the morning
I could her her toneless singing
I could smell her lemon perfume in the air
I walked up to the window
In the hope that I might see her
Could the deadly shade of night still bring her there

CHORUS

Morning came and into action went my plans
Went to meet her dressed in bright green underpants
I crept in and sang discreetly
Seemed to change her mind completely
Danced together singing sweetly

CHORUS

CHORUS

But the one I'm most familiar with is Led Zeppelin's "The Lemon Song" which is I'm pretty sure a cover of an old blues song:

Should have quit you, long time ago. (X2)
I wouldn't be here, my children, down on this killin' floor.

I should have listened, baby, to my second mind (X2)
Everytime I go away and leave you, darling, you send me the blues way down the line.

Said, people worry I can't keep you satisfied.
Let me tell you baby, you ain't nothin but a two-bit, no-good jive.

Went to sleep last night, worked as hard as I can,
Bring home my money, you take my money, give it to another man.
I should have quit you, baby, such a long time ago.
I wouldn't be here with all my troubles, down on this killing floor.

Squeeze me baby, till the juice runs down my leg. (X2)

The way you squeeze my lemon, I'm gonna fall right out of bed.

I'm gonna leave my children down on this killing floor.

"The way you squeeze my lemon, I'm gonna fall right out of bed." I've never been sure if that was a good thing or not. ;-)

So, as the old cliche goes, "If life gives you lemons, make lemonade!"
(Regardless of how you get the juice...) *evil giggle* ;-}

"P" is for Provocative

This how it works: Comment on this entry and I will give you a letter. Write ten words beginning with that letter in your journal, including an explanation of what the word means to you and why, and then pass out letters to those who want to play along.

Kat gave me the letter "P". Here are my words in no particular order:

Plants I love plants! I love to grow things. Plants are endlessly fascinating because they are so different from us, yet we coexist and we rely on them for survival, among other things. I've been studying herbal folklore for a while. ;-) Plants have been here longer than we have, and they would continue to live even if we all disappeared. Sometimes it seems as if plants and humans live in parallel universes or dimensions or something, well, maybe parallel isn't quite right because our existences intersect. My ten year old and I were talking about other universes/dimensions and thought that an hour-glass model was an interesting one. But anyway, although we differ in so many ways from plants we also share certain basic characteristics. I could go on but I have 9 more words to do!

Psyche The mind is probably the one thing I ponder most. I studied psychology in college. I think that despite its efforts to act like a hard science it really is more a system of philosophy. This doesn't necessarily make it less valid or less important or influential. Just different. Anyway, Psyche was loved by Cupid. You really can't separate love from the mind or soul, which I tend to think are the same thing. When I left school there was a 'new' trend of thought that implied that the psyche is purely biological, or the product of chemical and electrical processes inside our brains. I was somehow drawn to that model, but it also left many questions that I couldn't answer (partly because I ended my studies). I wondered, if it was purely biological then could it be reduced to a formula or pattern of some sort? Well, no one has succeeded in finding such a formula that I know of. In some ways it seems the study of the mind is analogous to theoretical physics, but I think it's a mistake to link the two too closely as some are prone to do.

Ponder I'm ALWAYS thinking. From an online dictionary: synonyms ponder, meditate, muse, ruminate mean to consider or examine attentively or deliberately. PONDER implies a careful weighing of a problem or, often, prolonged inconclusive thinking about a matter [pondered the course of action]. MEDITATE implies a definite focusing of one's thoughts on something so as to understand it deeply [meditated on the meaning of life]. MUSE suggests a more or less focused daydreaming as in remembrance [mused upon childhood joys]. RUMINATE implies going over the same matter in one's thoughts again and again but suggests little of either purposive thinking or rapt absorption [ruminated on past disappointments]. I do all of those different varieties of thinking, but I'm afraid that 'prolonged inconclusive thinking' might be the most common one. Not that this is always a bad thing! For many subjects require prolonged inconclusive thinking, just like in the paragraph above about the psyche. (and there are other activities that also benefit from some prolonging, ;-), though incompletion is unsatisfactory)

Philosophy Now, I can't tell you all the different types of philosophical thought even though I did take at least one course about it. But I've always been a philosopher of a sort, even as a child. That just goes along with all that pondering!

Phenomena There are a couple of meanings to this word that apply here. One is "objects or aspects known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition." Now all this thinking I do doesn't just spring from my mind uninspired by observations of the world around me. They all, well, almost all probably, are directly related to some physical/sensory observation. Even my 'imaginary' thoughts are usually based on some physical reality that I've noticed or sensed. The other meaning of "phenomena" that is important here is "rare or significant facts or events; exceptional, unusual, or abnormal persons, things, or occurrences." When you notice so much in your environment it's natural to note the unusual events and try to figure out how they fit into the grand scheme.

Pattern When thinking about the world and trying to construct meaning out of all of these observations certain patterns become apparent. In some areas of examination, like math and physics and chemistry, these patterns can be written out in formulae. We humans find some comfort in patterns and predictability (because they are a natural part of the environment in which we've evolved). This search for patterns seems to be the motivation for so many areas of study and pondering. I like thinking about archetypal symbols that represent various intrinsic patterns of our world. Ancient people noticed these patterns and expressed them in whatever limited ways they had, like petroglyphs, etc. Whether or not we'll ever be able to discern the ultimate patterns that seem to govern our existence is the great unknown. And we will always seek that.

Particular There are many meanings for this word. One is "singular," and another is "distinctive." But the ones I'm most fond of are "concerned over or attentive to details: METICULOUS [a very particular gardener]" and "hard to please: EXACTING." I recall my grandmother describing certain people as "particular." When I was a child I confused that with "peculiar" which is rather similar. I've always been a 'detail' person, a 'nit-picker', a 'stickler' (and sometimes a tickler), but let me tell you in case you didn't know, people just hate that! Why is it people always pick on those of us who are particular about things? We don't mean for it to make others uncomfortable, and certainly we don't usually mean for it to make others feel inferior if they aren't as meticulous. Nowadays some of us have even gotten a fancy label called Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. The Obsessive-Compulsive part isn't so offensive, but man, the "Disorder" part is way off the mark! We want order, not disorder! ;-) Anyway, I can and do coexist peacefully (usually) with people who are not so 'particular' because I'm aware that not everyone is like me. And thank God for that, right? LOL

Perception I'm a primarily visual person. By that I mean I think in images. I love that photography reflects the world the camera sees, and with some skill a photographer can work with the camera's abilities to more accurately capture his or her own vision. And now with digital photo manipulation it is even easier to bring those mental pictures out of the mind and into a form that others can see/perceive. I've always been interested in perceptive thresholds among various species of creatures, as well as differences between individual people. For instance, butterflies can see ultraviolet light. Wouldn't it be cool to see what they see? And I think that individual differences in people's perceptive thresholds are probably not adequately studied and understood. These differences might could help explain some particular phenomena.

Parent Since I'm a mother being a parent is the first and foremost identity I have. I'm many other things and fill many other roles, but I will always be a parent. Is my purpose in this existence to procreate? Yes and no. Certainly, a person can live a fulfilling, important, and influential life without having children. Growing my babies in my body and now watching them grow, develop, and learn has been the most amazing experience of my life, but I know that if I hadn't had children I would still exist and function and influence the world.

Penis Last but not least! I was going to make this first on the list because honestly, it was the first "p" word I thought, but I decided that it might distract so much that the other words wouldn't be noticed. I've made no secret that I'm a bit phallicly obsessed. I've heard some women talk about the penis and how ugly they think it is. No way! Not me! I think it's a beautiful biological sculpture. Well, except for this one I saw once, but I'll spare the details. But make no mistake. Being phallicly obsessed does not mean that I have penis envy! I don't want to be a man! I like being a woman. I don't want a penis attached to me. I just want, er, okay let's not 'go down' *snickers* that path. (Damn, sometimes I crack myself up!)

Okay, sorry that I sort of lost it here at the end. I hope this isn't an unsatisfactory conclusion! ;-) But I've been working on this phucking post all phreakin' day because I keep getting interrupted. And perhaps this is an example of when prolonging something isn't beneficial.


There are lots of other great "p" words, but if you want to participate in this word game/exercise leave a comment and I'll give you a different letter!

"No Representation Without Taxation"

Yes, that's the inverse of the famous slogan from our REVOLUTIONARY WAR,

"NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION."

Does anyone remember our American History? Does anyone remember why we fought for INDEPENDENCE from England? I'm not going to review that here because it should be COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

But I'm so mad about all the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION bullshit that I'm spitting venom.

They sneak into our country illegally, leaving huge, litter-strewn trails along the borders, trespassing on TAX-PAYING AMERICANS' property. And now just because they 'peacefully' demonstrate on our streets they think they have a RIGHT to citizenship and 'respect.'

SORRY! I have no respect for someone who comes here and expects to have all the same rights as a LEGAL resident without going through the proper processes.

I see them as no different from a MOB OF BULLIES who think that they are above the law. They are just like that selfish person who tries to jump ahead of others when there is a long line at the bank or whatever. We're all in line here, folks. It is NOT the American Way to cave to a mob of criminals.

If our Congress gives in to the demands of the ILLEGALS then we all should

VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE BECAUSE THEY OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT REPRESENTING THEIR TRUE CONSTITUENTS, REAL AMERICAN CITIZENS.


Article Three, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them
aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the
testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open
court."

Well, I'm sure many will object to my calling ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS our 'enemies', but they are AN INVADING FOREIGN FORCE, and if that's not an enemy then what is??


I have no qualms about accusing any US CONGRESSMEN of TREASON if they are "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," which certainly seems the case if they are putting ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS' demands ABOVE their CONSTITUENTS', American Citizens, needs.

Call me mean-spirited, non-compassionate, whatever. I don't care. MY TAXES pay the salaries of my so-called REPRESENTATIVES, and if they aren't doing their job then they need to at least be fired, if not convicted of aiding criminals.

April Fool's a Day Early

My ten year old and I believe that our calendar is more off than most people realize. Today is one more piece of evidence that supports that idea. I am 'celebrating' April 1 today, March 31, with a series of fantastic blunders.



First, this morning David was enraged when he discovered that the younger kids and one of their friends, who spent last night here (because his mother, my good friend, was recovering from outpatient surgery), destroyed about $400 worth of 'flex duct' in the garage. This was not the first time that they had played on some of this stuff and crushed it, so we were especially angry about it. So I had 'court' with the kids this morning. This court might more resemble Saddam's trial than a typical American court, but since I'm the Judge, Jury, and Executioner around here so what I say goes. Oh, sure, that's just my story-telling bravado. I didn't really execute anyone. ;-) Anyway, the culprits were lectured on the law that says, "If it's not yours then don't touch it unless you ask first." And also the law that says, "When in Rome (my house) do as the Romans do (follow my rules)." And I threw in a little guilt-trip by telling the visiting boy, "Your mother is one of my very best friends and I would do anything for her. I don't like being put in the position of having to threaten her kid with banishment (a little too strong a word). How do you think it will make your mom feel knowing that you've embarrassed her this way?" After hearing each child's testimony (admissions of guilt) I sentenced them to no PlayStation all weekend. I'm sure I'll think of some other things too. lol

So after starting the day with a bang I've spent the rest of it cussing out and threatening with serious harm my stupid computer and printer. I'm trying to get my pictures finished for tomorrow, and my computer has taken today as sick day. It seems to be missing much of its memory, hmm, a little like its owner. Maybe the TSA came in the night and abducted some it my computer's memory to go with my brain that I'm convinced they still have. (When they 'reconstructed' my head a while ago they must have used some cheap aftermarket reproduction parts.) All day I've been getting a message "not enough memory to perform task..." (printing large files that haven't bogged it down before today). I'm just about ready to go to Circuit City and buy a brand new computer! Or run away... Or both...

Groove Is In The Heart 2

Warning: Anyone who is easily offended by religious questions should skip this post.

note: This a 'continuation' of some thoughts in February.

Well I ain't no new messiah,
But I'm close enough for rock and roll.

38 Special, "Rockin' Into the Night"

What is love? The Bible tells us, "Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God." (KJV) 1 John 4:7

Anyone who gets to know me finds out that I'm not usually a Bible quoter, I do believe that God (or the Divine, or the Universe, or the Great Unknown, or Whatever you choose to call It) is the source of love. What else but some omnificent, omnipotent, omniscient omnipresence (did that cover all the 'omni's?) could create such a thing? Surely it can't just be the result of chemical reactions. As much as we try to recreate love with chemicals we ultimately fall short. When I was younger (college age) I began to doubt the existence of the "Omni-" although I'd grown up in a Christian (Lutheran) home and had been baptized and confirmed and all that. I never thought of myself as an atheist but more as an agnostic at that time.

Then I fell in love. I couldn't explain love in any other way than that it had to come from some great "Omni-". Surely, anyone who has loved can relate. And when I had my children my knowing of the "Omni-" was even more confirmed. And that maternal love also gave me the purest and strongest glimpse of the "Omni-" that I've ever had. Looking at my firstborn I literally felt my heart open and fill with something that had never been there before. I was never the same.

To be sure, love comes in as many forms as our imaginations and nature can create. There is romantic love, parental love, friendly love, etc. Maybe it seems different only because we each filter and express it differently with different people. Maybe it's like light and sound that travel differently through different substances. But let us not be confused as to love's source even though it seems to exist in so many various forms.

The Divine Feminine

My problems with Christianity lie largely with the Father and the Son. Yeah, I know that's huge. The Lutherans believe in the Trinity, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. That always bothered me, even as a child. Where was the Mother? Where was the feminine aspect of divinity? It didn't make sense. Was the Holy Spirit feminine? Not according to the church's teachings. Can't you see how this oversight would concern a thoughtful little girl?

Even as encompassing as the Trinity tries to be it seems still incomplete. And I've wondered why the concept of the Holy Spirit wasn't enough in itself. Any time that we try to limit the "Omni-" with names and personifications we are limiting our own understanding of It. Of course, we do want to name things. That's what we do. We like to identify our surroundings and give things names so that we can communicate about them. But isn't there some scripture that tells us not to name God? Or am I suffering from another false memory caused by too many random thoughts (some old and feeble) bumping into each other and getting confused?

Doesn't it seem like it's time for another Reformation? Doesn't it seem like the way-it-is has been somewhat dysfunctional? And no wonder, there is no balance. Hold the groans, yes, I'm going to make a Star Wars reference here. Anakin was the promised one who was going to bring balance back to the Force. In his wisdom George Lucas chose not to have that happen with ease and happiness (where's the material for 6 movies in that?). The balance to the Force came only after much pain and suffering, all connected in some way to Anakin's love for his mother and Padme. Where am I going with this? I'm not sure, but I do have a point somewhere. Maybe I'm trying to say that we need a new messiah, a female who can give the world a new, more complete perspective on the Divine. Despite an occasional delusion of grandeur, no, I'm not suggesting that I'm some new messiah... I'm not even close enough for rock and roll.

So, what's love got to do with it? Well, over the last couple of thousand years the masculine concept of the Divine hasn't been terribly successful in promoting 1 John 4:7, has it? Maybe if males grew lives inside their bodies they would revere it more? "...and every one that loveth is born of God..." Born of God. Born of woman. You make the connection. I'm being facetious; I'm not saying that God is a woman. I'm saying that by denying the feminine aspect of the "Omni-" we are limiting It. If it truly is "Omni-" then it is everything, not just the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The problems with love are due to our own limitations. Love inevitably causes us pain, so how can it be from the Divine? Asking that is the same as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's not the love itself that causes the pain. It's the denial, withdrawal, or blindness to the love that hurts us. Love really is like a drug in that way. Once you have a taste of it you want it over and over and over again. The trick is to learn to access that love on your own and not rely on it coming from others. Oh, yes, I know what a difficult trick that is! And anyone who has loved, really loved, has felt their heart break, if only from the thought of their love going away. But we don't have to rely on others to connect to the flow of love that comes from the "Omni-".

Some say that we can only do that through the Son, Jesus Christ. Frankly, and I know this is a heresy, but I think that what Jesus said was misinterpreted or even that his own language was limited by his time and place.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (KJV) John 14:6

I guess Jesus was brought up with the prevailing Jewish views of the time. And that was Father-based. Maybe you can only get to the Father by way of Jesus, but what about the "Omni-"? Is it possible that what Jesus meant was that he knew the meaning of love and that people needed to listen to his words in order to learn that truth? I know these are uncomfortable questions and statements.

And what happens when our hearts get broken anyway? That answer is probably as variable as the different people in the world. My heart has been broken many times, even in the 'protection' of marriage. David says I'm way oversensitive. Maybe so, but maybe sensitivity is a tool people can use to access (open up to) the love from the Source, the "Omni-"? Either way, I do know that Groove is in the Heart, and if people want to be some kind of a conduit for it they need to reinforce their insulation somehow because it can burn like a bare, hot wire. Or maybe like light reflected from a mirror (you really can burn things that way):

There's a mirror moving inside my mind
Reflecting the love that you shine on me
Hold on now to that feeling
Let it flow, let it grow, yeah, yeah

My heart is on fire
My soul's like a wheel that's turnin'
My love is alive, my love is alive, yeah...

Love Is Alive by Gary Wright

But just because it is hot and possibly dangerous, much like the electricity that runs through our wired world, doesn't mean that it's not worth the risk in order to have our lives lit up and powered from within.

So I'll close with the Aaronic Benediction that traditionally closes Lutheran services. This is a vast improvement over my first draft (that blogger lost) which ended with a link to a song that celebrates a very different, yet just as valid, way of finding that God/love connection.

The Lord bless you, and keep you; the Lord make His face shine upon you; the Lord lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace.

Numbers 6:24-26