Rules

I am a person used to rules, a person comfortable with creating and living by rules both real and perceived.  Since my childhood I have created a large collection of rules, even collections of collections or systems of rules as it were, to describe not only how the world around me operated but also to set in order how I should operate within this world.  I felt, even adamantly believed blindly, that Teutonic discipline and principled self were absolute and necessarily required to operate successfully in the world.  The weirder and stranger my world became the more I tried to delve these hidden rules, rules that everyone but me seemed to understand intuitively.  If asked I swore that I was the last person not in a secret club, a club that had a seemingly infinite number of secret hand signals to which I was not privy to no matter how much I asked, begged, or scrutinized.  Everything, and I mean everything, became an abstraction back to some level of invariance which could then be encapsulated as a rule.  As I grew up I had complete systems of rules I used in order to operate within the word and no more specifically than for my interactions with other human beings.  Whenever things did not work as anticipated per these set of rules I assumed the deficit lay within myself; a more sane and rational human being might have first suspected that those pesky underlying rules themselves were to blame.

In the past couple of years I have realized that much (all?) of my general loneliness, unease and unhappiness are directly correlated both to the rigidity by which I applied these rules and to these rules’ impoverished nature to describe, anticipate or predict the very subtle, even sublime, nature that is the human experience.  As fallout to my last divorce I finally acknowledged my own hand in my downfall, deciding not to be further victim to my ineptitude and so started to leverage the very analytical skills I had honed to craft this byzantine maze of conditional if-thens as a means to dismantle them.  In areas such as work, career and my personal life I decided to remove all the rules and replaced them with the simplified, even rarefied and most basic first-order question:  Am I happy?  And based on this the rule is a straight-forward set of conditions: If I am not happy then I change my behavior; and, if I am happy then continue my current behavior.  I am not sure I can make it simpler than that.  The only place that hereto now I have not challenged is the realm of personal relationships.  Till now.

I recognize now that whereas I used rules to provide a means to engage with others, at least with respect to day to day relationships, I used rules in more intimate settings to protect myself from myself and even going as far to protect others from me — two divorces have tended to batter my self-confidence in these matters.  But I also recognize that in order to grow, mature and further deepen my happiness I need to allow people into my life in a more than cursory manner.  As a very good friend said after a long evening: “Ward, fuck all these rules.  Give people a chance to love you.”  It was the proverbial boot-camp kick in the ass I needed.  Frankly, I acknowledge that I fundamentally, even principally, need to trust myself to know what is best for myself irrespective of rules that either I, others or even society may impose.  In some ways this is an embarrassingly scary proposition both to undertake and to admit.  Scary in that I have no means of a priori predicting what the right thing is to do in any situation.  I am flying by the seat of my pants deciding what to do next based on the current moment.  It is embarrassing that has taken me this long to grasp how simply things really are.  I appreciate I will make mistakes.  Crash and burn even. And more so I appreciate that as a consequence of this newest undertaking I will put myself in a position of vulnerability where no rule or principle, no matter how canonized, can be used to shield me from my own decisions.

Here is to rules: fuck ’em.

My only proviso to this newly adopted response of “fuck ’em” to rules, at least in the domain of relationships, is the adoption of the contra-positive corollary, or “don’t fuck ’em” rule, best exampled by John Waters who said, “If you go home with somebody, and they don’t have books, don’t fuck ’em!”

I Like

In this day of Facebook “Like” I found myself wondering what is it that I like that does not have a convenient, spiffy button next to it?

I like?

I like running 10k first thing in the morning. Every morning.

I like coffee in a French press on a Sunday morning.

I like Cafe Solstice in the evenings after work where people know my name and where I can get a finger and a smile from the barista.

I like playing a kick ass mage on a rainy day.

I like to read.  A lot.

I like traveling and Traveling.

I like to smile at attractive women. I like it better when they smile back, their skin creasing at their eyes.

I like a woman who knows who she is and is in the world to live and not wait for it to come to her.

I like jumping off of cliffs.

I like that my work is periphery to who I am.

I like lemonades that spike your tongue in bitter, sweet awesomeness.

I like warm molasses cookies with a large glass of cold milk.

I like chocolate milk.

I like to peel off the plastic covering on remotes.

I like to imagine. I like imagine a couple in a room with the end of the days light coming in from the bay window. It is Fall, maybe October toward the end of harvest where there are still leaves on the trees even as some stand denuded in readiness for the Winter coming. It is one of those clear days when the shadows freeze you and the direct Sun makes you sweat even though the slightest breeze wicks and cools you uncomfortably.  Her name?  I am not sure her name any more than I know his. But I can well imagine her name might be Amelia, maybe because of the aviator or maybe because of the film. A lovely French name. A kind name. A name that even in the dusty years of later life comes equally to your ear and from my tongue as something young and flapper-ready for a new adventure.  She is reading a book, he napping.  There is a fire in the fireplace, he closest with a blanket wrapped around his legs.  She looks up and over to him.  She remembers yesterday and the picnic outside, he placing the items around them all the while laughing.  She cannot remember why but it does not matter why, only that she remembers him laughing.  It is enough.  Even now as he sleeps there is the remains of an impish smile dusting his lips.  She closes her book and gently rests it to her side along with her glasses.  She wishes to linger longer looking on him but she knows there is a time when we must all close our eyes.  So she does. He now wakes.  It is now dark outside, the sun having set hours ago.  Only embers remain, a soft glow touching her cheeks and eyelids.  He takes the blanket from around his legs and puts it over her frame, it now fast fading in the late hours of the day’s remainder.  He kisses her lightly and then picks up the book and sits back down to read where she left off.  But he only looks at the remains of the fire.  There is no heat left in the room.  And he knows that he too will soon sleep.  He turns to her, takes her hand in his and smiles, his eyes closing.  The room is now black.

I like this ending.

Home Sweet Seattle

It may seem a surprising thing, even absurd really, when you read that in the thirteen years that I have lived in Seattle I have never been picked at the airport by a friend; until last night, that is. It is funnier, maybe even ironic, that this most auspicious event is hallmarked by maybe an even more auspicious week wherein I decided that my home, for better or for worse, is Seattle. This decision comes on the heels of a rather extensive interviewing with numerous companies in and out of Seattle, including but not limited to NexTag in San Francisco and Google Japan. However, these past three months searching for something I thought I needed I discovered instead I was already in possession of what I need most: a home.

Three months ago, upon experiencing a moment that crystallized my recognition that my well-being, happiness and general state of life are entirely in my control, I began to look outside of Amazon for alternatives both to company and city. As much as the event that precipitated all this is an unfortunate intersections of stressors, nevertheless, in the final analysis I was afforded an introspection of my life in Seattle which, while slow and which has at times shriveled back to bud, has finally taken meaningful root. I came to realize that I, a person who is pathologically shy at self-introductions, has built a small, but deeply committed set of friends; people who regularly call me to see what I am up to and how I am. As small a thing as it is, I have even begun to re-explore my world through art and photography. So much so that a cafe is currently exhibiting some of my photographs. These may not have been the reasons I was so explicit about when I set out from Buffalo back in September of 1998, my then car loaded with hopes to someday return to soil more foreign than the that to which I was born to. However, in these past thirteen years I have lived a bit of a life here in Seattle. It is a life worth continuing and a set of friends worth staying with to cherish and celebrate life with — in Seattle.

And from now on I will have to remember that pickup at the airport is on the ground floor next to baggage claim. Thanks, friend.

Spinoza’s god is the Nihilist-Solipsist god is the Egoless-Subconscious Self

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Not the the pithiest title for an entry, I know.  But it will have to do for now.

As a child at the age sometime before turning the age of awkward I recall developing a sense of how I ought to process the world.  In reality, I suspect my (overly) analytic mind was attempting to build for itself a model of itself, a “Who am I that is I?” kind of doubly redundant kind of query.  Maybe a question only an overly analytic, self-absorbed child such as myself would find worth any consideration.  In many ways I was trying to determine how to learn and absorb the world.  I discovered very early in my childhood that thinking during the act of doing produced poor results; I instead discovered that if I could push whatever I had from my conscious mind to my subconscious mind I could very quickly assimilate a skill with a certain amount of prodigal finesse: I try not to think what I am doing, I just try to do what I am doing.  In this manner I had stumbled upon, in a very cursory way, ideas such as ego, ID, self-awareness, consciousness and subconsciousness.

In this time I also came up with a question about god’s self-awareness, or: “Does god know it is god?”  For whatever reason I did not then nor now believe god, whatever it may be, knows of its role; it just is.  By definition, self-awareness is predicated on being conscious.  If you think of god being aware of all things at all times then a conscious god does not make a lot of sense to me.  Consciousness is a pinpoint of coherent thought, the biological version of a laser.  God, the way we might envision it, needs to be bath of light in order to everywhere at all times, the very opposite of consciousness; namely, god is by definition and my way of thinking subconscious and ergo not self-aware.

I actually think the conscious mind is too oft over-emphasized in this age and culture.  What do I mean by this?  Let me try to answer my own self-stated question by addressing the question of what is art.  Art is simply the act of self-expression.  Art is the expression of self in context to the perceived world.  In this way it is no hard thing to say: Art is Life; Life is Art.  In this manner everything I (we) do is art.  Every word.  Every gesture.  Every thought.  Every conversation.  Nothing is outside the purview of art and artistic (self) expression.  If we step back into the world of art that most people understand and attribute to the noun, the act of creating by hand or taking with camera is far more an act of getting the conscious self out of the way so the subconscious mind can discover a truth, can express itself.  An artist will describe to you that something does not “feel right”, they will pace and look at the work from various angles, all while perturbed that something does not fit.  It is the act of problem-solving, there is a final solution somewhere in there but it takes time to discover the path to it.  It is a solution that has no meaningful, originating question, though.  The solution is just a link in an infinite series; the solution itself will just breed more “questions” that lead to more “solutions”, a never-ending quest when the quest is the everything and the (final) destination is the nothing.  In a word: the conscious mind has words to express itself; the subconscious mind has everything else.

God, if were to be everywhere all at once working through us, feels no different to me than my subconscious mind.  In SAT and GRE-like analogy, my body of life is to the universe as my subconscious mind is to god.  And thus Spinoza’s god is the Nihilist-Solipsist god is the egoless-subconscious self.

I Am My World

It may be that I, now after having started back up the slopes toward the philosopher’s hut, find myself in the company of those with hypochondria.  More than a few will go as far to self-inflect in some sado-masochistic bout of irony to read medical volumes in order to find every illness possibly inflicting them.  In like vein, I might be accused of subscribing to major schools of philosophy that seem remotely related to my own mental states.  I recall a roommate in college who took courses in psychology in order to have access to academic journals in order that he could attribute bizarro mental states to his own being with the panache of an accredited psychologist.  It is easy for a lay-person to overly attribute some deeply academic theory or set of thinking to a condition when, at best, the label we attach includes far more than we might ever understand it to convey.  On this point, when I write that I am Solipsist or even a Nihilist then recognize that I am ascribing to myself attributes in these schools of thought that I do so as a lay-person with all the generalities and (over-) simplifications this entails.  But I am getting ahead of myself.

When Descartes wrote “(dubito ergo) cogito ergo sum”, or “(I doubt therefore) I think therefore I am” we may see this in the light in which we are cast or in the light which the statement was cast.  It is not that I am not interested in this histories surrounding René per se; but, no matter how much I might delve into such matters I acknowledge I cannot fully extricate myself from my own understanding of these said matters.  This last sentence, if you are paying attention, is with no undue amount a nodding of head to the Solipsist in me.  Therefore, because I recognize the butchery that will result if I attempt to understand the latter, I will chop it off  from further topic to leave us but one leg in the former light, as it were.  Whether we will remain standing by the end remains to be seen.  Back to Descartes.  His words stand as both bulwark to and clarion call of the intellectual human for whom (rational) thought triumphs supreme over their world.  But we must also come to recognize that his is the Solipsist clarion call, its ringing of our prison cell slamming closed on us.  Our thoughts are our everything: our world, our universe, our god, our us.  There is nothing else; we only exist, our world we perceive only exists, because we think we do.

Why bring up any of this?  I am certainly not a philosopher and thus have nothing substantive to add to those more qualified than I to comment on that many natures of Solipsism.  But in my past year’s reading of various philosophical texts (e.g. Nietzsche’s The Anti-Christ(ian); Plato’s Apology, Republic and Sophist), scientific texts (e.g. Richard Dawkin’s The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion; David Reznick’s The Origin Then and Now: An Interpretive Guide to the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin; Michio Kaku’s Physics of the Impossible and Hyperspace) and literary fiction that ascribes to bring story and structure to philosophical ideas (e.g. David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest; Herman Hesses’s Steppenwolf) there was more than enough source material for me to come to articulate a new position I found myself in; namely, that the singular state of self is our only alpha (beginning) and omega (end), and more so we only need ourselves to discover true happiness.  As Solipsist I do not take the strong form of believing nothing exists beyond my perceptions.  However, I only trust what I perceive as true.  This nuance might be expressed as: I cannot know what you know, only know what I perceive you to know.  As Nihilist I do not believe life has any intrinsic purpose other than to be born, live (, procreate), and die; our lives boil down to natural selection.  Even free will does not exist external to the self to be handed down by some supernatural being; regardless, I do unflinchingly and with no irony argue that we must take free will on faith as axiom to be true.  Finally, because of these two I then come as Atheist.  I do not ascribe to any belief in any supernatural beings, gods or GOD or God.  In sum, for me there is nothing more to this life than myself, for I am “god” to my world of one.

I am not here to per se defend my position since, as you will see, I do not believe I need to defend it, nevertheless I will try to explain it.  But before I proceed let me quickly summarize much of my “philosophy” of life up to the age of 36.  First principle: I believed in unconditional love.  Second principle: I believed that judging others in any shape or form was to be avoided.  Thirdly, I believed I was a fundamentally broken human being; I literally believed I was emotionally, spiritually, physically sub-human: to wit, not of the species homo sapiens.  Fourth, counter to third I believed I could do anything or at least intellectually comprehend anything (The Little Engine That Could was read by me obsessively and compulsively as a child).  Fifth, I was raised in a fundamentalist Protestant environment that taught by application of fear and Fear of my eternal suffering for any rejection or rebuff of God or Jesus Christ.  Sixth, contrary to my introverted nature I was guilted into believing that every waking moment should be spent spending time with human beings.  Seventh, the parenting I received included negative reinforcement on a regular basis and comically absurd indifference or irrational attachment.  Add this all up in a cocktail, hand to a borderline autistic child with extreme bouts of introversion to quaff down for three decades on a daily basis and you get one very disturbed and self-conflicting person.  In short, because I believed I could not judge others and because I needed to love unconditionally I saw any and all external incompatibles with my own nature as fundamentally due to my own nature.  I could never see that I and another were not compatible with each other; I saw the incompatibility is solely resting in me.  This inability to see reality only reinforced my belief that I was fundamentally broken, overtime cementing with bedrock certainty my un-humanity [sic].  Additionally, due to my religious upbringing and in spite of my renouncing it over two decades ago I still framed this kind of life as my own “living purgatory”; I had to prove to “God” my worth as a loving being.  Sadly, whenever I failed to love another or whenever they rejected me it only fueled me to try again, but this time a bit more cracked and crazed about finding my redemption in others.  In trying to love others I forgot how to love myself.  To say I lived a life of near perpetual spiritual, emotional and physical pain is not nearly the overstatement I wish it were.

As I have written before, my world collapsed in my 35th year and by the time I turned 36 my fall was complete.  From this fall my ascent back into sanity was, ironically enough, predicated on me becoming “more me”.  I have since learned to sit squarely and comfortably on my haunches and resoundingly within the marrow of my bones.  What initiated this discovery that I needed to be more me began when I recognized all my failures revolved around centers of power.  In every instance, the solution was to bring the locus of power back inside of myself.  This, of course, also meant I needed to take more and more responsibility for my actions and my perception of my world.  While we can talk about empowerment, I learned the key is to learn to effectively apply my very limited resources (time and energy) to realize the greatest benefit.  For the frank reality I am neither omniscient nor omnipotent.  Amongst all this, it may be with irony that I refer you to the prayer of serenity as a source of profound wisdom.  One of the strongest and most virulent walls that blocked me from empowering myself was my ascribing to my situation one of being a victim.  I am not a victim.  No one can hurt me.  No one can belittle me.  No one can judge me.  And conversely, no one can make me happy.  I do these things to myself.  I do these things for myself.

Life is, in large part, a matter of perspective.  By way of analogy, I am but a mere, small pollen sitting atop an infinitely running river; my gross movements are utterly beyond our ability to influence it, I can only operate locally to shift my position.  From the scale of the river any change by the pollen is undetectable; but, from the scale of the pollen it is life-size.  Again, turning back to my childhood I was reared in a household where people exercised control over their environments through external manipulation and control.  It was a world filled with the word “should”; a word I believe a truer murderer than the appeal of Hamlet’s ghost: “murder most foul”, indeed.  My allergy to the word “should” stems from its implications of criticality, judgement and pending recrimination.  The application of judgement outside the very limited confines of jurisprudence is at best meaningless and worst harmful in the most foul manner.  I believe we judge others as a means of trying to control our external world, forcing it to adopt to our short-comings rather than we to it.  The act of judgement is the act of the pollen trying to bend the course of the river.  Stepping back a little to provide framework, it may be humbling, even humiliating to someone to accept they have absolutely no meaningful control over most of their life.  Just by raw numbers we are all a force of one at the mercy of six billion homo sapiens.  And of course, by weight and in comparison to total biological mass that exists on this planet the entire human race in total is only a small fraction of the whole.  Compound to this a lifespan of seventy-five years to the current span of all time — some thirteen billion years — and we are all at best a mere speck of pollen indeed.

One of the unfortunate take-aways, as it were, of my last marriage is that it left me with a life-long infection that is transmittable to my sexual partners.  While the infection will not kill me nor anyone else, it has irrevocably changed my social landscape and thus my oft said quip that I am a “celibate monk.”  I simply can no longer afford the casual flippancy that myself and most of my generation has applied to sexual relationships.  And while it has made it at times challenging, it nevertheless has been one of the deepest blessings of my life.  I can no longer afford not only casual sexual relationships but also casual relationships (given the sexual promiscuity that is mainstream in my generation).  Why is this good?  I married two of those casual relationships and subsequently got divorced; and therefore my point is that this condition has demanded I think deeply about who I am and who I want to spend my time with.  I am not immune to loneliness and certainly I, like many others, have used relationships as a salve to cover the loneliness we feel.  I can say with utter frankness that both my previous wives and myself each vocalized the belief that one benefit of our marriage would that it would rid us of our feelings of loneliness.  It never did; it actually compounded our loneliness.  We went from lonely and single to married believing we should not be lonely.  To discover loneliness under these false expectations is to amplify the pain.  Regardless, this infection that demands my celibacy and which I begrudgingly accept has nonetheless allowed me to find a peace and happiness I do not believe I could have otherwise.  Belatedly as it might, I finally came to realize everything I feel, everything I perceive, everything I am is conditional on one thing and one thing only:  me.   Once I discovered that I was the core to my everything I began the arduous task of removing, whenever and wherever possible, any and all attachments to external dependencies.  In short, I no longer look without myself to be happy.  At first I feared that I was retreating into myself, shutting out the world though a course of disconnection.  Whereas I suspected my ego would overwhelm me, I instead discovered I had to eradicate my ego; there is simply not enough room for it.  In particular, I found my ego consistently getting in the way of me being an empathetic person.  My ego led me to lash out at people, my ego led me to defend myself in spite of my failings and prevented me from growing and maturing.  I now find myself detached to a degree and in a manner that I am, ironically enough, more connected and more able to care than ever before.  I find I love more deeply and more truly because I am unfettered by feelings of guilt, obligation, duty, recrimination, subservience, domination, self-loathing and all the rest of the baggage I often heaped upon myself.  The whole of who I am, as much as I can allow myself, is under my management.  When I extend myself to another human being I am doing so with most of energies directed toward that singular act; I am no longer being sapped by all the other secondary connections I would have in the past been trying to maintain and satisfy.

I suspect people might find my view of the world lonely, depressing, or even horrifying.  I know that many people feel the same after coming to terms with natural selection.  Darwinism tells us that there is no motive other than what comes from the “the selfish gene”, that even our conscious self is a mere consequence of genetic survival.  Add to this that there is no personal god interested in the affairs of this universe or our lives and a person might feel that is not much left in the way of life.  (Though I can and do make exception for Spinoza’s or Einstein’s god; a philosophically constructed entity useful, even beneficial, to the human psyche but no more supernatural than god’s creator, man.)  As a teenager I vocally rejected all of my religious upbringing and declared that Science was my belief, my Religion — a misuse of the word “religion” meant to emphasis a symmetric break and not to meant convey that I thought Science is Religion.  When I returned from Japan I had discovered Buddhism and declared that the meaning of Life was Life itself.  However, the boy returning as man from his Japanese bildungsroman some twenty years ago had not been sufficiently tempered by life to appreciate how fleeting everything is, even his then precarious understanding of some of these deep truths.  Now, twenty years later his future self, my now I, writes knowing with utter confidence that our shared future self of some sixty years will again look back to reaffirm his discovery of self.  I am sure I will struggle to remember in my bones what I am sharing with you now.  It is the nature of things for us to circle back continuously on the wisdoms in our life that we learn and then forget and then learn again anew.  But in the meantime I am happy to be alone with no god but myself so that I might live a life and to love the people who want me in their lives.