Watching CNN Heroes, I'm inspired to do something for those less fortunate. What, I'm not sure. But I sort of so it now, by working with Dr. Pruitt, and helping people who have little hope for anything good or better in their lives.... and our visits are often the thing that brings a smile to their faces - some of them, anyway.
I'm so very tired of waiting for David's call. When it comes, it will change my life. And I'll be able to do MUCH MORE to help those less fortunate. I won't be rich, but I could very well be "well off" and able to focus on the final phase of my professional career.
So when, day after day, I get no call, and every week or so, I get emails saying that it's "just around the corner," I get quite discouraged.
No, I'm not like those being helped on CNN Heros, and I'm not like Dr. Pruitt's patients. But I'm struggling with significant debt.
I'm also battling the diet/exercise cycle - i.e., I'm not doing regular exercises, and I'm deating less health-ily. Today I ate better, but still no exercise. I blame it on depression over the above issues. I've noticed regular knee pain in my left knee - seems to be worse in the mornings, or any time after a period of inactivity.
I wish I could go visit my friends in Northern California, Tennessee, DC, Scotland, France..... I'm VERY worried about no word from Eric Lefrandt.... He said last Spring that he was close to death, but then soon afterwards they moved to Scotland.... I heard from him a few times, and then..... nothing. I'm fearing the worst. If that's what's happened, I wish Arno would contact me.
So, on I go. Not exercising, not reading, listening to podcasts, working part-time, visiting the kids & grandkids when I'm needed/when I can afford it (a trip to SLC).... on and on.
I wonder how long my health will hold out for this kind of life.
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Sunday, December 6, 2015
THE CYCLE OF HOPE <--> DEPRESSION
How do I cope with feelings that result from events outside my control?
They are not outside my FOCUS. I'm focused on the remainder of my career. I'm focused on what I'll be doing if/when David's call comes. I'm choosing to focus on these.
But his call coming or not coming is outside my control.
So since it's been over 2 years, I can look back and see a pattern of swinging back and forth between hope and depression.
So now, I'm mostly in a hope mode. David has said the deal is "DONE" - and this was not his word, but that of someone who is negotiating the deal. As a result, the money was to begin flowing 5 days ago. But it did not.
Since THEN, another email has been forwarded to me by David which indicates that initial funds will be distributed by mid-week next week (i.e., Wednesday, December 9th), and that they will be followed soon afterwards by the rest of the huge sums expected.
Sigh.
I dare believe, but I also have come to expect to continue vacillating between hope and depression.
Meanwhile, I'm trying to enjoy the holidays. It's not easy.
They are not outside my FOCUS. I'm focused on the remainder of my career. I'm focused on what I'll be doing if/when David's call comes. I'm choosing to focus on these.
But his call coming or not coming is outside my control.
So since it's been over 2 years, I can look back and see a pattern of swinging back and forth between hope and depression.
So now, I'm mostly in a hope mode. David has said the deal is "DONE" - and this was not his word, but that of someone who is negotiating the deal. As a result, the money was to begin flowing 5 days ago. But it did not.
Since THEN, another email has been forwarded to me by David which indicates that initial funds will be distributed by mid-week next week (i.e., Wednesday, December 9th), and that they will be followed soon afterwards by the rest of the huge sums expected.
Sigh.
I dare believe, but I also have come to expect to continue vacillating between hope and depression.
Meanwhile, I'm trying to enjoy the holidays. It's not easy.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
THIS REALLY IS DEBILITATING
Still no word from David.
I don't know how to deal with this depression, except to pretend that it's just not "time" yet.
Aggggggggrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Shit.
I don't know how to deal with this depression, except to pretend that it's just not "time" yet.
Aggggggggrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Shit.
Monday, November 30, 2015
SKEPTIC of SGU discuss 2 CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS
From SGU (Skeptics Guide to the Universe) this week:
The SGU Rogues received the following message from Paul, a listener in Linwood, WA. They use it to illustrate a logical fallacy (i.e., assuming your conclusion):
"Radio halos proves young earth. BTW, where is the missing link? Still missing? Have a blessed day, and know that God STILL HOLDS YOU IN HIS HEART. Enjoy your shows very much. Always amused when man tries to disprove the glory of God's creation. Take care."
Rogue: "argument from ridiculous nonsense.'
Rogue: "there might be some problems with the argument."
Rogue: "can we get the factual problems out of the way first?"
"we actually did a segment on the 'radio halos.' Bob, I think you did 'the Polonium Halos' - so just refer you to that previous segment on SGU where went into that in detail. But no, it doesn't prove a young earth. That has been completely scientifically demolished. The Polonium halos are completely consistent with a 4 billion year old earth."
Rogue: "We've talked about the missing link more than once on this show. There's no such thing as "THE" missing link. There ARE, of course, gaps in the fossil record, but you'll never fill in all the gaps to an arbitrary level of detail. We have found connections between many major groups, including.... I don't know if he's specifically referring to a human- ape missing link. But we have found and keep finding more examples of hominids filling out the space between humans and our closest ape ancestors. So this evidence FOR evolution. This is not a problem for evolution.
"But what do you think about his other sentiments here?"
Rogue: " 'Have a blessed day' - I got a big problem with that."
Rogue: "He's offered no evidence that the day is blessed."
Rogue: "You have no joy in your life, Evan."
Rogue: "Apparently not, based on that clip you played earlier."
Rogue: "But he is amused when man tries to disprove the glory of God's creation."
Rogue: "EVERYthing is the glory of God in his paradigm, so there's no way to prove or disprove... ANYthing."
Rogue: "I think the main thing to me is, he's assuming his conclusion. He's making a circular argument here. He's assuming that God created the earth. And we're trying to disprove something that he knows to be true: the glory of God's creation. The question is, 'Did God create the earth? Is the earth a product of creation? or evolution?' That is a question that we can address scientifically. He's stating his amusement in such a fashion where he's assuming his conclusion.
"Now, I don't know if Paul is sincere in stating that he enjoys our show; and he may be listening to our show , if for no other reason than to 'listen to what the other side has to say.' And we have been emailed by other people who said that they started listening to our show to hear what the skeptics had to say; and that over time, we slowly won them over. And in fact, there's a couple who were creationists who listened to our show to mock us. And then now they're staunch skeptics who reject creationism."
Rogue: "That is awsome!"
Rogue: "That is very satisfying."
Rogue: "We should not give up hope that Paul will eventually come around if he IS listening to our show and absorbing much of it.
"So Paul.... this is my challenge to you: You brought up 2 challenges to evolutionary theory (1. The missing link and 2. Radio halos). Investigate them honestly. Take a look at them. We talked about it. Do the same research that we did. And then come back to us. Email us back, if you're listening to this, and tell us what you think about those arguments after doing some actual research, and looking into what the scientists have to say about these two points.
"Because what we're saying is you're completely, factually wrong on these two points about radio halos and the missing link. You got it wrong, in my opinion, because you're listening to propaganda, to secondary hostile sources. You are not listening to what scientists are actually saying. If you do, you'll see that we are completely right on those two points, and you're completely wrong.
"And if you think that that's incorrect, please explain to me in detail, without gratuitous reference to your conclusions. Explain to me why those arguments debunk evolution. We'll be happy to go a round with you on that.
"And that was the real reason why I wanted to talk about this news item."
Rogue: "Throw down the gauntlet."
Rogue: "Yeah!"
Rogue: "Poor guy."
(Then the Rogues went on to discuss an interview with someone)
My resonses:
1. I don't know what "radio halos" are. My question is, why do creationists conclude that they prove a young earth theory.
2. Do skeptics/scientists rightly conclude that because so many gaps in the fossil record have been filled by discoveries over the years, that therefore ALL gaps could be filled if we had unlimited access to the complete fossil record? Or might there be gaps purposely left by a Creator so that people would necessarily have to rely on their faith for answers?
I don't know what I believe about these questions. But I do know that, AS AN EVOLVED & CREATED BEING, I must necessarily take into account that I'm part of this "system" before I can honestly assess what is really going on here. (Q problem?).
IOW, how can the created know the whole story of creation? And how can the evolved know the whole story of evolution?
Of course, my analysis above is, in turn, subject to this same dilemma: Would it be different (or worse? or better?) if it were written from a completely objective point of view?
I'm led to complain, "Who set this up, anyway? Why is it so completely impossible to be sure about anything?" I have often recently awakened with the thought that the only sure thing is that I awaken each day, wondering if there's anything else I can be sure of.
There is nothing.
*sigh*
And now I go through my day, hoping for a call or email from David about the mine.
The SGU Rogues received the following message from Paul, a listener in Linwood, WA. They use it to illustrate a logical fallacy (i.e., assuming your conclusion):
"Radio halos proves young earth. BTW, where is the missing link? Still missing? Have a blessed day, and know that God STILL HOLDS YOU IN HIS HEART. Enjoy your shows very much. Always amused when man tries to disprove the glory of God's creation. Take care."
Rogue: "argument from ridiculous nonsense.'
Rogue: "there might be some problems with the argument."
Rogue: "can we get the factual problems out of the way first?"
"we actually did a segment on the 'radio halos.' Bob, I think you did 'the Polonium Halos' - so just refer you to that previous segment on SGU where went into that in detail. But no, it doesn't prove a young earth. That has been completely scientifically demolished. The Polonium halos are completely consistent with a 4 billion year old earth."
Rogue: "We've talked about the missing link more than once on this show. There's no such thing as "THE" missing link. There ARE, of course, gaps in the fossil record, but you'll never fill in all the gaps to an arbitrary level of detail. We have found connections between many major groups, including.... I don't know if he's specifically referring to a human- ape missing link. But we have found and keep finding more examples of hominids filling out the space between humans and our closest ape ancestors. So this evidence FOR evolution. This is not a problem for evolution.
"But what do you think about his other sentiments here?"
Rogue: " 'Have a blessed day' - I got a big problem with that."
Rogue: "He's offered no evidence that the day is blessed."
Rogue: "You have no joy in your life, Evan."
Rogue: "Apparently not, based on that clip you played earlier."
Rogue: "But he is amused when man tries to disprove the glory of God's creation."
Rogue: "EVERYthing is the glory of God in his paradigm, so there's no way to prove or disprove... ANYthing."
Rogue: "I think the main thing to me is, he's assuming his conclusion. He's making a circular argument here. He's assuming that God created the earth. And we're trying to disprove something that he knows to be true: the glory of God's creation. The question is, 'Did God create the earth? Is the earth a product of creation? or evolution?' That is a question that we can address scientifically. He's stating his amusement in such a fashion where he's assuming his conclusion.
"Now, I don't know if Paul is sincere in stating that he enjoys our show; and he may be listening to our show , if for no other reason than to 'listen to what the other side has to say.' And we have been emailed by other people who said that they started listening to our show to hear what the skeptics had to say; and that over time, we slowly won them over. And in fact, there's a couple who were creationists who listened to our show to mock us. And then now they're staunch skeptics who reject creationism."
Rogue: "That is awsome!"
Rogue: "That is very satisfying."
Rogue: "We should not give up hope that Paul will eventually come around if he IS listening to our show and absorbing much of it.
"So Paul.... this is my challenge to you: You brought up 2 challenges to evolutionary theory (1. The missing link and 2. Radio halos). Investigate them honestly. Take a look at them. We talked about it. Do the same research that we did. And then come back to us. Email us back, if you're listening to this, and tell us what you think about those arguments after doing some actual research, and looking into what the scientists have to say about these two points.
"Because what we're saying is you're completely, factually wrong on these two points about radio halos and the missing link. You got it wrong, in my opinion, because you're listening to propaganda, to secondary hostile sources. You are not listening to what scientists are actually saying. If you do, you'll see that we are completely right on those two points, and you're completely wrong.
"And if you think that that's incorrect, please explain to me in detail, without gratuitous reference to your conclusions. Explain to me why those arguments debunk evolution. We'll be happy to go a round with you on that.
"And that was the real reason why I wanted to talk about this news item."
Rogue: "Throw down the gauntlet."
Rogue: "Yeah!"
Rogue: "Poor guy."
(Then the Rogues went on to discuss an interview with someone)
My resonses:
1. I don't know what "radio halos" are. My question is, why do creationists conclude that they prove a young earth theory.
2. Do skeptics/scientists rightly conclude that because so many gaps in the fossil record have been filled by discoveries over the years, that therefore ALL gaps could be filled if we had unlimited access to the complete fossil record? Or might there be gaps purposely left by a Creator so that people would necessarily have to rely on their faith for answers?
I don't know what I believe about these questions. But I do know that, AS AN EVOLVED & CREATED BEING, I must necessarily take into account that I'm part of this "system" before I can honestly assess what is really going on here. (Q problem?).
IOW, how can the created know the whole story of creation? And how can the evolved know the whole story of evolution?
Of course, my analysis above is, in turn, subject to this same dilemma: Would it be different (or worse? or better?) if it were written from a completely objective point of view?
I'm led to complain, "Who set this up, anyway? Why is it so completely impossible to be sure about anything?" I have often recently awakened with the thought that the only sure thing is that I awaken each day, wondering if there's anything else I can be sure of.
There is nothing.
*sigh*
And now I go through my day, hoping for a call or email from David about the mine.
Saturday, November 28, 2015
DONE
It's the 3rd of a 4 day weekend, which happens every year at Thanksgiving time. I recall the feelings I've had in prior years, when I've spent these four days mostly alone. I like the "luxury" of having almost 4 whole days to do absolutely nothing.
It's not that I'm all that busy the rest of the year/week/my life..... but this feels good.
I should really be elated. The last call I had from David regarding the mine deal is that the arrangements for the finally payments of the money are..... DONE.
David says this is a word his colleagues have never used before when describing the status of the deal.
David expects the first money to be wired to him on Monday or Tuesday, November 30/December 1.
We shall see.
I've taken the positive nature of this status seriously enough to formulate a plan for the appropriation of the money I get. I still don't know how much it'll be, and David doesn't know either.
If it's enough to divvy it up, I plan to do so according to my spreadsheet called "WINDFALL."
So anyway, I like the DONE feeling.
I happen to be watching Princess Bride right now. Others have quoted from the movie, but of course I don't recall the quotes or why they were important to them. But soon after I turned it on, the cute blond lead replied to the princess (who said something about life being difficult - I really don't remember) with this statement:
"Life is full of pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something."
I reasoned when I heard this that there must be SOMEone who enjoys life without pain, and is not really selling anything. I think about two people who seem to be living in opposition to this movie quote: My father, who enjoyed a lot of his life, and my ex-wife Teresa who, in the wake of our divorce, declared that she was still happy.
But viewed from another perspective, the message of religion (specifically Mormonism) is that we "are that we might have joy." Are they under an illiusion? Are we really under a life of pain, and are we deluding ourselves if we think we can be truly happpy?
I don't know. But perhaps we can be inherently happy in spite of the pains of life, and without thanks to any religion. Perhaps religion is faking the message - SELLING the message - that happiness can only be found within their message, and by living their recommended way of life.
Perhaps..... EVERYthing. Dammit.
Well, I have to anticipate a possibly "NOT DONE" status on Monday/Tuesday. I've been disappointed almost every week for the last 2 years.
And by the way..... YES, the money will help me in a lot of ways.
BUT HEAR THIS, READERS: (lol - that's funny)
READ THIS, READERS:
I cannot WAIT to work with David. Because what he has told me about the nature of the work we'll be doing is A GODSEND to me. I have never liked corporate America. Yes, I bought into it to varying degrees along the way. But it was so REFRESHING (there's a better word, I'm sure) to hear about being on the GIVING end of transactions, rather than the SELLING end.
And I can do some good to others. Help them realize their dreams. Take some first steps. Move with them. I think this will be SO VERY GOOD for me as I wind down my career in this life.
I'm 65. I might have done it earlier in some way. But as I evaluate my life, I don't see any other solution.
I'm willing to work.
I'm excited about the nature of this work.
David believes in me.
I can do the work, earn the money, and enjoy the nature of the work.
Sigh.
I have to wait at least until Monday, maybe until Tuesday.
Stay tuned.
It's not that I'm all that busy the rest of the year/week/my life..... but this feels good.
I should really be elated. The last call I had from David regarding the mine deal is that the arrangements for the finally payments of the money are..... DONE.
David says this is a word his colleagues have never used before when describing the status of the deal.
David expects the first money to be wired to him on Monday or Tuesday, November 30/December 1.
We shall see.
I've taken the positive nature of this status seriously enough to formulate a plan for the appropriation of the money I get. I still don't know how much it'll be, and David doesn't know either.
If it's enough to divvy it up, I plan to do so according to my spreadsheet called "WINDFALL."
So anyway, I like the DONE feeling.
I happen to be watching Princess Bride right now. Others have quoted from the movie, but of course I don't recall the quotes or why they were important to them. But soon after I turned it on, the cute blond lead replied to the princess (who said something about life being difficult - I really don't remember) with this statement:
"Life is full of pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something."
I reasoned when I heard this that there must be SOMEone who enjoys life without pain, and is not really selling anything. I think about two people who seem to be living in opposition to this movie quote: My father, who enjoyed a lot of his life, and my ex-wife Teresa who, in the wake of our divorce, declared that she was still happy.
But viewed from another perspective, the message of religion (specifically Mormonism) is that we "are that we might have joy." Are they under an illiusion? Are we really under a life of pain, and are we deluding ourselves if we think we can be truly happpy?
I don't know. But perhaps we can be inherently happy in spite of the pains of life, and without thanks to any religion. Perhaps religion is faking the message - SELLING the message - that happiness can only be found within their message, and by living their recommended way of life.
Perhaps..... EVERYthing. Dammit.
Well, I have to anticipate a possibly "NOT DONE" status on Monday/Tuesday. I've been disappointed almost every week for the last 2 years.
And by the way..... YES, the money will help me in a lot of ways.
BUT HEAR THIS, READERS: (lol - that's funny)
READ THIS, READERS:
I cannot WAIT to work with David. Because what he has told me about the nature of the work we'll be doing is A GODSEND to me. I have never liked corporate America. Yes, I bought into it to varying degrees along the way. But it was so REFRESHING (there's a better word, I'm sure) to hear about being on the GIVING end of transactions, rather than the SELLING end.
And I can do some good to others. Help them realize their dreams. Take some first steps. Move with them. I think this will be SO VERY GOOD for me as I wind down my career in this life.
I'm 65. I might have done it earlier in some way. But as I evaluate my life, I don't see any other solution.
I'm willing to work.
I'm excited about the nature of this work.
David believes in me.
I can do the work, earn the money, and enjoy the nature of the work.
Sigh.
I have to wait at least until Monday, maybe until Tuesday.
Stay tuned.
Saturday, October 3, 2015
AN HONEST EX-MORMON BOY
Don’t get me wrong. I
still lie. I try not to, but sometimes it’s
really hard. When I do lie, it’s about
small stuff.
In a movie I saw once (I forget the title), an older man
teaches a young boy that of the Ten Commandments, the most serious one to
violate is “Thou shalt not steal.” Violating
any of the other 9 is a form of theft.
For example, if you kill, you’re stealing someone’s life. If you commit adultery, you’re stealing
faithfulness and perhaps love from your partner. And if you lie, you’re effectively stealing
the truth from yourself and others.
I’m not sure who taught me to lie. I can remember being a very small child, and
lying about a lot of things. The paradox
is that while I was learning to tell lies, I was also being taught to be “an
honest Mormon boy.” I quickly learned
that it was better to pretend to have a testimony than to admit to not having
one. And as a gay boy/young man, I was
only too willing to present myself as straight.
What a “tangled web” I wove for 35 years! UNtangling it has been a life-long
pursuit. When I finally began the
process, I began to feel better. I started
admitting to myself and others within Mormonism that I did NOT in fact have a testimony. And eventually, I woke up to my true sexual
identity, and admitted to myself and others that I was NOT in fact a straight
man. Coming out of both those closets
around the same time in my life was certainly no easy task. But man! was it WORTH it!
I’m not what you’d call an ecstatically happy person, but I’m
a helluva lot HAPPIER now that I once was.
And learning NOT to lie is a huge part of the reason.
For the past 18 months, I’ve been retired from my career
job, and have been working part-time for a psychologist, Dr. P. Although he’s well passed retirement age, he still
has, and regularly sees more than 50 patients.
But he himself is not well physically.
He has difficulty finding the energy to get out of bed in the morning,
and sometimes can hardly walk without great pain and effort. He needs
an assistant to help him with his monthly billings, and to carry his heavy
brief case, and to just help him get around.
I’m quite willing to do all that for him, in large part because it makes
me feel so very young!
A few months ago, a former employee and long-time friend of
Dr. P accompanied him when he went to buy some new computers. While at the store, the employee apparently
stole a $2,000 laptop. When Dr. P
confronted him, he claimed that the store had “given” them the extra laptop. Dr. P was suspicious and later called me to
ask if I thought this could be the case.
I replied that no, I did not think so.
And further, I said, Dr. P would likely be complicit in the theft, since
he had paid for the other equipment. So,
at great physical effort, Dr. P went back to the store and returned the extra
computer himself. In the next few days,
Dr. P confronted his friend with the theft, and this unfortunately has led to
the dissolution of their friendship.
I told Dr. P that nowadays, I’d have trouble being a thief
for $2, let alone $2,000. Dr. P knows my
“ex-Mormon, ex-Straight” story, and he often comments on how I’m such an honest
Mormon. “No,” I correct him. “I’m an honest EX-Mormon boy.”
But what I’d really like is to be known as: An honest gay man.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
THEISM v AGNOSTICISM v ATHEISM
(Transcribed from Scathingatheist.com podcast dated 20141023, Episode 88 titled "Oh Danny Boy")
Sectioned labled "Diatribe" narrated by Noah Lugeons
"So I got the whole 'You atheists are as bad as religious people' speech the other day.
"It's not the first time I've encountered it, of course.
"And I'll admit that many moons ago, I fell for that same intellectual seduction.
"It's so tempting to just wipe away the whole debate with the same 'They're all full of shit' dismissal that we use for politicians.
"You got Group A that says there's a God in some other dimension that made the universe.
"You got Group B saying there isn't.
"Neither of them can prove it.
"So fuck it - I'm agnostic.
"And sometimes, especially in politics, that's a completely justifiable position.
"You got Group A saying that raising the minimum wage will destroy the economy, and leave our nation a zombie-ridden shell of its former self.
"And Group B saying that raising the minimum wage will eliminate poverty and cure puppy cancer.
"Probably you're better off planting your flag somewhere in the middle.
"But when Group A is saying God exists, and Group B is saying God doesn't exist, there is no middle.
"One Group is, in accordance with logic, WRONG.
"Now let me clarify two points, because I feel like I just pissed off everybody that identifies themselves as either Atheist or Agnostic.
"So first of all, I know that the Agnostic position ISN'T that God is somewhere between existing and not existing, but rather that the answer is unknowable.
"We'll get back to why that is a stupid position in just a second.
"But I also get the feeling that the formal logic is standing up on the backs of the necks of the Atheists, too.
"So secondly, let me address the whole Agnostic/Atheist thing.
"Now, I'm not going to dive too deep into this since I've talked about it before, and so have plenty of other people.
"But yes, if I was in a formal debate, the position I would be defending would be
THE BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED FOR THE BELIEF IN GOD HAS NOT YET BEEN MET
"It would be the same way I'd phrase things if I were in a formal debate with somebody who believed that Big Foot or Atlantis existed.
"But if I'm just chatting with a group of people about Big Foot, I'm going to assert that Big Foot does not exist, and then I'll offer the logical reasons why the evidence is insufficient to sway me.
I'll tell them about the evidence that should be there, and isn't.
"In other words, I'm not going to introduce myself as a 'Big Foot Agnostic, with a tendency toward "A-Sasquatch-ism" '
"Insomuch that a thing can be proven not to exist, this thing has been proven not to exist.
"Now I'm not trying to downplay the importance of Burden of Proof here.
"That's how thinking works, after all.
"But the basic Atheist instinct here..... you know, you hear, 'you're just as bad as the Theists;' .... your instinct is to dive into that distinction between Agnostic and Gnostic Atheism.
"I'm not saying I KNOW there is no God. But I'm saying I don't BELIEVE there's a God based on the evidence that I've seen so far.
"And like I said, that is correct.
"But in most circumstances, I feel like we can defend a position that is way higher up the chain of knowledge.
"I'm unable to refute the claim of God to precisely the extent to which God is undefined.
"As soon as you attribute a property to God, I can show why that's at least logically unnecessary, and at most logically impossible.
"Any claim that you make about a God can, if not be refuted, at least be dismissed with Occam's Razor; or - hell - Occam's Butterknife."
"So sure, it's not incorrect to offer these militant Agnostics a quick lesson on Burden of Proof.
"But I also don't think it's the most effective direction to take most of the time.
"When you're dealing with a believer, sure. May-be.
"But generally that non-committal Agnostic holds their position because they think it's the most logically tenable one.
"And THAT is incorrect.
"So when I was accused as being intellectually inflexible as a Theist, I point out to the accuser that I was every bit as inflexible on the subject of GRAVITY.
"If we're applying the same standard to all claims, the spoon falling the last 6 billion times doesn't tell us anything about the spoon falling this time I drop it, does it?
"Now his first attempt to escape this was through a meaningless distinction.
"He says 'Gravity, unlike God, can be directly tested.'
"And as tempting as it is to point out that that's probably because Gravity, unlike God, EXISTS, I instead pointed to the fact that Gravity CANNOT in fact, be directly tested.
"We can test the EFFECTS of Gravity on an object, but we don't even know how the spoon knows that there's an earth below it.
"We can detect Gravity in a number of ways, but we can't look at "a Gravity."
"If God existed, we should be able to test his effects on the world in the same way.
"Now apparently I was prepared to dive a lot deeper into this argument than my opponent, because the only effort at refutation I encountered from that point on was of the 'I know you are, but what am I?' variety.
"He said, and I believe this is verbatim, 'Forgive me if I withhold judgment on one of the most difficult questions in the Universe.'
"So I forgave him.
"But then I asked for some clarification.
"What question exactly are you calling one of the most difficult in the Universe?
"Is it 'Does God exist?' question?
"Or 'Which is the right God?'
"Or 'Where does the Universe come from?'
"Because none of those are very hard.
"No, none, and insufficient information. There you go. Done.
"But particularly, what question are you withholding judgment on?
"And of course the real question was the same question that's ALWAYS the real question:
IS THERE AN AFTER-LIFE?
"The fear of death is almost certainly the primary driver when it comes to religious belief, because all of us are tempted to believe in our own immortality.
"But that doesn't make the question difficult.
"Is there an after-life?
"No. There's no reason to think there is.
" This is a pretty damn easy question.
"There's absolutely no evidence to support the notion of an after-life.
"An after-life would be fundamentally unlike anything ever observed in nature.
"Even the most desperate effort to provide a shred of evidence for life after death have consistently failed.
"But not wanting the obvious answer to be true doesn't make the question difficult to answer.
"What happens to barns when they rot?
"What happens to computers break down?
"What happens to leaves when they crumble?
"They break down into their constituent parts and cease to exist as a whole.
"There's nothing at all challenging about that question.
"Believing in an after-life for leaves and barns would strike us all as silly.
"But it's actually less silly that there's only an after-life for the one being that you happen to be.
"When it comes to the after-life, or any God question, really, it's not the question that's hard.
"It's the answer.
"Agnosticism, when used in the sense of withholding judgment on the God question, is not the intellectually honest position.
"It's just the nominally less cowardly answer than the religious one.
"Rejecting an unprovable hypothesis in the absence of evidence isn't rash or intellectually inflexible.
"But failing to reject an implausible, un-evidenced hypothesis because you don't want to rule it out, IS."
Sectioned labled "Diatribe" narrated by Noah Lugeons
"So I got the whole 'You atheists are as bad as religious people' speech the other day.
"It's not the first time I've encountered it, of course.
"And I'll admit that many moons ago, I fell for that same intellectual seduction.
"It's so tempting to just wipe away the whole debate with the same 'They're all full of shit' dismissal that we use for politicians.
"You got Group A that says there's a God in some other dimension that made the universe.
"You got Group B saying there isn't.
"Neither of them can prove it.
"So fuck it - I'm agnostic.
"And sometimes, especially in politics, that's a completely justifiable position.
"You got Group A saying that raising the minimum wage will destroy the economy, and leave our nation a zombie-ridden shell of its former self.
"And Group B saying that raising the minimum wage will eliminate poverty and cure puppy cancer.
"Probably you're better off planting your flag somewhere in the middle.
"But when Group A is saying God exists, and Group B is saying God doesn't exist, there is no middle.
"One Group is, in accordance with logic, WRONG.
"Now let me clarify two points, because I feel like I just pissed off everybody that identifies themselves as either Atheist or Agnostic.
"So first of all, I know that the Agnostic position ISN'T that God is somewhere between existing and not existing, but rather that the answer is unknowable.
"We'll get back to why that is a stupid position in just a second.
"But I also get the feeling that the formal logic is standing up on the backs of the necks of the Atheists, too.
"So secondly, let me address the whole Agnostic/Atheist thing.
"Now, I'm not going to dive too deep into this since I've talked about it before, and so have plenty of other people.
"But yes, if I was in a formal debate, the position I would be defending would be
THE BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED FOR THE BELIEF IN GOD HAS NOT YET BEEN MET
"It would be the same way I'd phrase things if I were in a formal debate with somebody who believed that Big Foot or Atlantis existed.
"But if I'm just chatting with a group of people about Big Foot, I'm going to assert that Big Foot does not exist, and then I'll offer the logical reasons why the evidence is insufficient to sway me.
I'll tell them about the evidence that should be there, and isn't.
"In other words, I'm not going to introduce myself as a 'Big Foot Agnostic, with a tendency toward "A-Sasquatch-ism" '
"Insomuch that a thing can be proven not to exist, this thing has been proven not to exist.
"Now I'm not trying to downplay the importance of Burden of Proof here.
"That's how thinking works, after all.
"But the basic Atheist instinct here..... you know, you hear, 'you're just as bad as the Theists;' .... your instinct is to dive into that distinction between Agnostic and Gnostic Atheism.
"I'm not saying I KNOW there is no God. But I'm saying I don't BELIEVE there's a God based on the evidence that I've seen so far.
"And like I said, that is correct.
"But in most circumstances, I feel like we can defend a position that is way higher up the chain of knowledge.
"I'm unable to refute the claim of God to precisely the extent to which God is undefined.
"As soon as you attribute a property to God, I can show why that's at least logically unnecessary, and at most logically impossible.
"Any claim that you make about a God can, if not be refuted, at least be dismissed with Occam's Razor; or - hell - Occam's Butterknife."
"So sure, it's not incorrect to offer these militant Agnostics a quick lesson on Burden of Proof.
"But I also don't think it's the most effective direction to take most of the time.
"When you're dealing with a believer, sure. May-be.
"But generally that non-committal Agnostic holds their position because they think it's the most logically tenable one.
"And THAT is incorrect.
"So when I was accused as being intellectually inflexible as a Theist, I point out to the accuser that I was every bit as inflexible on the subject of GRAVITY.
"If we're applying the same standard to all claims, the spoon falling the last 6 billion times doesn't tell us anything about the spoon falling this time I drop it, does it?
"Now his first attempt to escape this was through a meaningless distinction.
"He says 'Gravity, unlike God, can be directly tested.'
"And as tempting as it is to point out that that's probably because Gravity, unlike God, EXISTS, I instead pointed to the fact that Gravity CANNOT in fact, be directly tested.
"We can test the EFFECTS of Gravity on an object, but we don't even know how the spoon knows that there's an earth below it.
"We can detect Gravity in a number of ways, but we can't look at "a Gravity."
"If God existed, we should be able to test his effects on the world in the same way.
"Now apparently I was prepared to dive a lot deeper into this argument than my opponent, because the only effort at refutation I encountered from that point on was of the 'I know you are, but what am I?' variety.
"He said, and I believe this is verbatim, 'Forgive me if I withhold judgment on one of the most difficult questions in the Universe.'
"So I forgave him.
"But then I asked for some clarification.
"What question exactly are you calling one of the most difficult in the Universe?
"Is it 'Does God exist?' question?
"Or 'Which is the right God?'
"Or 'Where does the Universe come from?'
"Because none of those are very hard.
"No, none, and insufficient information. There you go. Done.
"But particularly, what question are you withholding judgment on?
"And of course the real question was the same question that's ALWAYS the real question:
IS THERE AN AFTER-LIFE?
"The fear of death is almost certainly the primary driver when it comes to religious belief, because all of us are tempted to believe in our own immortality.
"But that doesn't make the question difficult.
"Is there an after-life?
"No. There's no reason to think there is.
" This is a pretty damn easy question.
"There's absolutely no evidence to support the notion of an after-life.
"An after-life would be fundamentally unlike anything ever observed in nature.
"Even the most desperate effort to provide a shred of evidence for life after death have consistently failed.
"But not wanting the obvious answer to be true doesn't make the question difficult to answer.
"What happens to barns when they rot?
"What happens to computers break down?
"What happens to leaves when they crumble?
"They break down into their constituent parts and cease to exist as a whole.
"There's nothing at all challenging about that question.
"Believing in an after-life for leaves and barns would strike us all as silly.
"But it's actually less silly that there's only an after-life for the one being that you happen to be.
"When it comes to the after-life, or any God question, really, it's not the question that's hard.
"It's the answer.
"Agnosticism, when used in the sense of withholding judgment on the God question, is not the intellectually honest position.
"It's just the nominally less cowardly answer than the religious one.
"Rejecting an unprovable hypothesis in the absence of evidence isn't rash or intellectually inflexible.
"But failing to reject an implausible, un-evidenced hypothesis because you don't want to rule it out, IS."
Monday, August 17, 2015
LIBERTARIANISM? WHY NOT?
(Ideas from the Skepticrat Podcast - Response to a listener - Mark - who is a Libertarian & wrote to them)
When all the reasonable people you know disagree with you, you should back off and think about it, not "dig in."
It might be that they've already thought it through and still disagree with you.
Striving toward a L ideal is a reasonable goal in many cases; we should want as many freedoms of choice and guarantee of civil liberties as we can have.
But those don't get protected without taking away the freedom to choose, say, not serving Black people in restaurants. Telling someone to go start a "no whites allowed" restaurant is not a solution to that.
But if you talk to these ideologically committed Libertarians, they act like there can never be market forces in favor of discrimination. Either that, or worse, they just don't care that there are.
Well, you don't see a lot of L's coming from minority populations, or people who have missed meals in general.
So yes, it's very logical to consider L principles as PART of one's political philosophy. But taken as a full blown ideology, it's absolutely ridiculous.
It's like saying "I think No" is generally the correct answer. The logical extreme is an impossible fantasy.
So L ism should be treated like a "zoo" type of thing. It's okay to look at it, to think about it's significance in history, and even take pictures. But no touching.
When you're a kid, you want to get right up next to it. That's fine, I understand that. But when you grow up, it becomes a lot less compelling for most people.
I get the appeal of L ideology because I'm white, I'm college-educated, it would probably kick ass for ME.
And it does make sense when applied to say, theoretical microeconomics, and hypothetical universes with nothing but guns and butter. It's great for that.
But when you stop thinking of a single person trying to make money, or a single firm trying to make money,
and consider the principles of MACROeconomics, like monetary policy for example, it's clear that central organization of some sort is at least sometimes necessary, or maybe even always.
But when you're sitting in a dorm room shitfaced on micro brews and doing the "I've never been fucked in the ass by life" map, there aren't any starving old people on the ledger. You can set aside this data and plausibility shit in favor of well-armed utopianism and an irrational belief in the inherent goodness of The Free Market.
Okay, and that's fantastic for you - The Free Market. But... just a quick review: The free market still trades in human beings. Despite the fact that we have regulatory efforts to the contrary. (We TRIED to stop it!)
The free market is not very good. It can't, say, build an efficient road system. Or electricity grid. Or a water delivery system. Or create the Internet. The Free Market can't educate a society. It can't protect the environment. It can't put out fires very well. It can't protect against theft of property, or enforce contracts, or any of the stuff rich people need for being wealthy to matter, and for them to stay that way.
And the key here is, even a little bit of L'ism is the wrong direction in most situations. The reason the regulations and laws were there in the first place is because somebody found a loophole in the legal contract, and started fucking it. We don't add regulations because everything is just doing spiffy.
Yes. The market often sucks. Invisible hands caused the Depression. Yes. And real hands fixed it. The worst economic crashes in American history were immediately preceded by highly DEregulated banking sectors, and a speculative bubble. (hmmm) And they were immediately followed by a government coordinated solution that absolutely had to happen. (well.... maybe not "immediately"). Like "The New Deal." Or, more recently, when the government saved the entire banking sector from completely collapsing. Had the market been allowed to continue on its "natural path" of sometimes wildly volatile equilibria, that would have meant complete meltdown of US financial institutions. And therefore an INTERNATIONAL financial meltdown as well.
And all that would have been so much worse, if we had stuck with Lism completely in our government.
Which is why Lism arguments are so quick to retreat to the theoritical, to get out of the real world.
But as soon as you start layering in reality, all you have left is a snappy slogan.
What Snappy slogan? You mean, "Everyone do whatever they want, and it'll work out" - ? Why would you ever think that was a good idea?? (Micro brews and "not being fucked in the ass by life")
So Libertarians, they kind of want the world to operate like a perfectly fair game of monopoly, and they seem to think it actually does, in some cases. And everyone tries to win. And that's great. But in reality, every time someone loses, they starve to death. If the penalty for going bankrupt in Monopoly was dying in real life, there'd be a lot more collectivist sharing strategies going on in that game. (a lot of "just in cases")
And if one asshole started winning by too much, everyone would be very much justifiably ganging up on them, and forcing them to share.
Right. And it's worth pointing out that in order for this game to work at all, there have to be losers, right? So the penalty for losing has to be concilliatory enough so that the losers don't say, "Fuck this game!" and take the other guy's share. (and tip the board over eventually).
And most importantly, at the core of it, Lism, in its pure form, is blatantly self-contradictory. Society can't maximize their liberty units without making sure the resources are allocated somewhat equitably. Laissez-faire markets don't lead to that solution. That's two of the fundamental tenants of L'ism.: a) Maximum Liberty, and b) Lack of Market Interference.
And they directly conflict.
And the appeal is that sometimes our policy is just so shitty that doing nothing looks good in comparison. You know, if the choice is leeches or praying to Shaman, the Shaman may be the better choice, but that doesn't make his magic real.
When all the reasonable people you know disagree with you, you should back off and think about it, not "dig in."
It might be that they've already thought it through and still disagree with you.
Striving toward a L ideal is a reasonable goal in many cases; we should want as many freedoms of choice and guarantee of civil liberties as we can have.
But those don't get protected without taking away the freedom to choose, say, not serving Black people in restaurants. Telling someone to go start a "no whites allowed" restaurant is not a solution to that.
But if you talk to these ideologically committed Libertarians, they act like there can never be market forces in favor of discrimination. Either that, or worse, they just don't care that there are.
Well, you don't see a lot of L's coming from minority populations, or people who have missed meals in general.
So yes, it's very logical to consider L principles as PART of one's political philosophy. But taken as a full blown ideology, it's absolutely ridiculous.
It's like saying "I think No" is generally the correct answer. The logical extreme is an impossible fantasy.
So L ism should be treated like a "zoo" type of thing. It's okay to look at it, to think about it's significance in history, and even take pictures. But no touching.
When you're a kid, you want to get right up next to it. That's fine, I understand that. But when you grow up, it becomes a lot less compelling for most people.
I get the appeal of L ideology because I'm white, I'm college-educated, it would probably kick ass for ME.
And it does make sense when applied to say, theoretical microeconomics, and hypothetical universes with nothing but guns and butter. It's great for that.
But when you stop thinking of a single person trying to make money, or a single firm trying to make money,
and consider the principles of MACROeconomics, like monetary policy for example, it's clear that central organization of some sort is at least sometimes necessary, or maybe even always.
But when you're sitting in a dorm room shitfaced on micro brews and doing the "I've never been fucked in the ass by life" map, there aren't any starving old people on the ledger. You can set aside this data and plausibility shit in favor of well-armed utopianism and an irrational belief in the inherent goodness of The Free Market.
Okay, and that's fantastic for you - The Free Market. But... just a quick review: The free market still trades in human beings. Despite the fact that we have regulatory efforts to the contrary. (We TRIED to stop it!)
The free market is not very good. It can't, say, build an efficient road system. Or electricity grid. Or a water delivery system. Or create the Internet. The Free Market can't educate a society. It can't protect the environment. It can't put out fires very well. It can't protect against theft of property, or enforce contracts, or any of the stuff rich people need for being wealthy to matter, and for them to stay that way.
And the key here is, even a little bit of L'ism is the wrong direction in most situations. The reason the regulations and laws were there in the first place is because somebody found a loophole in the legal contract, and started fucking it. We don't add regulations because everything is just doing spiffy.
Yes. The market often sucks. Invisible hands caused the Depression. Yes. And real hands fixed it. The worst economic crashes in American history were immediately preceded by highly DEregulated banking sectors, and a speculative bubble. (hmmm) And they were immediately followed by a government coordinated solution that absolutely had to happen. (well.... maybe not "immediately"). Like "The New Deal." Or, more recently, when the government saved the entire banking sector from completely collapsing. Had the market been allowed to continue on its "natural path" of sometimes wildly volatile equilibria, that would have meant complete meltdown of US financial institutions. And therefore an INTERNATIONAL financial meltdown as well.
And all that would have been so much worse, if we had stuck with Lism completely in our government.
Which is why Lism arguments are so quick to retreat to the theoritical, to get out of the real world.
But as soon as you start layering in reality, all you have left is a snappy slogan.
What Snappy slogan? You mean, "Everyone do whatever they want, and it'll work out" - ? Why would you ever think that was a good idea?? (Micro brews and "not being fucked in the ass by life")
So Libertarians, they kind of want the world to operate like a perfectly fair game of monopoly, and they seem to think it actually does, in some cases. And everyone tries to win. And that's great. But in reality, every time someone loses, they starve to death. If the penalty for going bankrupt in Monopoly was dying in real life, there'd be a lot more collectivist sharing strategies going on in that game. (a lot of "just in cases")
And if one asshole started winning by too much, everyone would be very much justifiably ganging up on them, and forcing them to share.
Right. And it's worth pointing out that in order for this game to work at all, there have to be losers, right? So the penalty for losing has to be concilliatory enough so that the losers don't say, "Fuck this game!" and take the other guy's share. (and tip the board over eventually).
And most importantly, at the core of it, Lism, in its pure form, is blatantly self-contradictory. Society can't maximize their liberty units without making sure the resources are allocated somewhat equitably. Laissez-faire markets don't lead to that solution. That's two of the fundamental tenants of L'ism.: a) Maximum Liberty, and b) Lack of Market Interference.
And they directly conflict.
And the appeal is that sometimes our policy is just so shitty that doing nothing looks good in comparison. You know, if the choice is leeches or praying to Shaman, the Shaman may be the better choice, but that doesn't make his magic real.
Friday, July 10, 2015
NOW THAT I'M 65
So many things to write about, and till now in my life, my writing has been sporadic, and mostly uninteresting, sometimes even to me.
So anyway,
My "silent gold mining" could pay off today. I might get a call (or text, or email) from David telling me that I now have a full time job giving his money away, since the money has come in. We shall see.
I fell upon a wonderful saying yesterday (from the Netflix series SENSE8) about relationships between two people: A man is asked what is the basis for his loyalty to his friend to whom he refers to as his brother, and he replies, "It's nothing so accidental as blood. It's a choice."
Of course, I immediately thought of my biological brothers, and then David. It IS a choice for David and me. I will use the line/thought in a future communication with David, perhaps in a poem on HIS birthday.
These days, I'm wondering why it is that my children have not made more of a fuss over me.
Pity-alert!
On Father's Day, a few weeks ago, I received no card, and no gift, and no cake from either of my children. I recall when my father was celebrated, year after year, he got all of that, and more. Nevermind that his birthday, June 17, was sometimes the same day (when we gave him a "double dose" of cards, cakes and gifts). MY birthday is today, July 10, about 3 weeks apart from Father's Day.
This year, Joe called me, and as an afterthought, he had each of his kids who happened to be around get on the phone and say "Happy Father's Day, Papa!" It was very sweet, and I love them, and I'm glad they did it.
This year, Lisa texted me, saying that I'd be coming to babysit in a few days, and that she'd do the "Father's Day thing" then. That was also nice.
BTW, Lisa, you never mentioned Father's Day to me again, not when I was there, and not at any other time since when we've talked or texted.
I'm guessing that the other fathers in the lives of my kids received better recognition. Joe, Dan, Tom, Rodney, Paul...... they probably all got special recognition.
Well, what do you want, PapaKen? You left the family in 1988, and since then, there's a huge gap between you and "tradition."
And, you're gay. So you don't deserve anything special. In fact, it's ALWAYS awkward when you talk to family, and Teresa avoids talking to you.
But today's my birthday. I'm 65. And today's a chance for "them" to redeem themselves. HA! We shall see.
I'll likely get more recognition on fucking FACEBOOK from casual acquaintances than from family. And sometimes when others ask, "What did you do for your birthday?" I'll be forced to tell them (I'm inseparably attached to telling the truth at any consequence). Reminds me of the time a girl I was dating (Jody something) asked me "What did you get for Christmas?" - and I lied, saying I got nothing, because I was embarrassed about having gotten so little compared to her. I told her I got "nothing" since my parents wanted to teach me the "true meaning of Christmas." She was speechless, until I told her that I was kidding - that I really DID get stuff for Christmas. Her next response: "You're weird!"
What a stupid dumb life I've led.
So anyway....... back to reality.
This morning when I woke, I felt very rested. I decided to do my routine. But I shifted to a sort of "next level" regarding my physical exercise routine. Because I'm 65, I'm now going to do
34 regular crunches
34 bicycle crunches
34 push-ups
Why 34? Well, I was doing 32, and doubling 32 is 64. But I'm now 65.
So, if I double 34, I get 68, which is MORE than 65. And of course, I have to do an EVEN number so both side of my body get equal treatment.
So now, my routine is called "ROUTINE 34." I wonder at what age I'll no longer be able to do even the 34. Well, no matter. I can do it today. And today is possibly the only day I have left in my life.
SILENT GOLD MINE
It's been a struggle to know how to "be" lately. I'm expecting David's call (or text or email) and it seems more likely every day. Perhaps this will become a very memorable birthday for me. Perhaps not. In keeping with the "balancing act" of my life, I've tried to consider all possibilities:
a. Today
b. Someday soon
c. Someday later
d. Never
In each case, what would I do?
With a. Today and b. Someday soon, I've already created a sort of "budget" based on percentages which I'll use to "divide up" the money.
It's hard to dwell on that, because I don't know for sure how much to even estimate it will be.
With c. Someday later and d. Never, I won't have to deal with it anytime (or anytime soon).
If the amount is minimal, it will be a non-issue.
Likelihood: A minimal amount (a few thousand, perhaps), and not for another 30 days.
So...... so it could be.
But David DID say I should plan on meeting his colleagues (about the "Charity" leg of their enterprise) when I come to SLC next week. He even referred to the office they've leased as "our office" - meaning David & Ken's office - which we'll have access to. So there's that.
Meanwhile, I'm focusing on HOW to live each day.
Haircut or no haircut?
More skin cream?
Gym membership?
Dental work?
Charmin or cheap brand?
Repaint car or replace car?
Say something to Dr. Pruitt or keep quiet for now?
Say something to ANYONE or keep quiet for now?
etc. etc. etc.
Well, no matter WHAT the "Silent Gold Mine" status is, I'm still turning 65 today.
I'm well on my way to being "old" and "older" and "elderly."
It's trite and strange, but true that I don't "feel old." I feel the same as I always did. Wonder why it was set up or evolved that way. Maybe it's to keep us from getting too depressed about being old. Maybe that's better than feeling your age, and giving up too soon. Who knows?
I know...... NOH--THINK! (as Hogan's Heroes' Schultz would say.)
But it's true - I DO know nothing. Nothing about why I'm here, and why things have gone/are going they way they are in my life.
Am I in control? REALLY? I think not.
At the very least, I'm not in control since I've chosen not to control, but rather to float on the raft of life, not thinking too much about the past or the future. Merely, "Let's see what today might bring."
Well, that's my "legacy" and the honest truth about my life to date.
Yes, turning 65 is just another day. The earth rotated and the "sun came up" and now it's light & I'm awake and alive.
But here's why I don't think I'm in control. No matter the plans I might make for a "revolutionary change" (etc) in my life...... I'm still me. I'm Ken Taylor. I'm not going to sing or change the world or become a heart surgeon or play the piano well. I'm just going to be Ken Taylor.
And yes, there are new paths ahead, and changes that will occur. Perhaps even financial ones.
But I'm still me, and today is a beautiful new day, the next in a long series of days when I've died at night, and been reborn the next morning.
In that regard, today is no different.
Oh, how my heart wishes it could be. But so far, it's no different.
On we go.
So anyway,
My "silent gold mining" could pay off today. I might get a call (or text, or email) from David telling me that I now have a full time job giving his money away, since the money has come in. We shall see.
I fell upon a wonderful saying yesterday (from the Netflix series SENSE8) about relationships between two people: A man is asked what is the basis for his loyalty to his friend to whom he refers to as his brother, and he replies, "It's nothing so accidental as blood. It's a choice."
Of course, I immediately thought of my biological brothers, and then David. It IS a choice for David and me. I will use the line/thought in a future communication with David, perhaps in a poem on HIS birthday.
These days, I'm wondering why it is that my children have not made more of a fuss over me.
Pity-alert!
On Father's Day, a few weeks ago, I received no card, and no gift, and no cake from either of my children. I recall when my father was celebrated, year after year, he got all of that, and more. Nevermind that his birthday, June 17, was sometimes the same day (when we gave him a "double dose" of cards, cakes and gifts). MY birthday is today, July 10, about 3 weeks apart from Father's Day.
This year, Joe called me, and as an afterthought, he had each of his kids who happened to be around get on the phone and say "Happy Father's Day, Papa!" It was very sweet, and I love them, and I'm glad they did it.
This year, Lisa texted me, saying that I'd be coming to babysit in a few days, and that she'd do the "Father's Day thing" then. That was also nice.
BTW, Lisa, you never mentioned Father's Day to me again, not when I was there, and not at any other time since when we've talked or texted.
I'm guessing that the other fathers in the lives of my kids received better recognition. Joe, Dan, Tom, Rodney, Paul...... they probably all got special recognition.
Well, what do you want, PapaKen? You left the family in 1988, and since then, there's a huge gap between you and "tradition."
And, you're gay. So you don't deserve anything special. In fact, it's ALWAYS awkward when you talk to family, and Teresa avoids talking to you.
But today's my birthday. I'm 65. And today's a chance for "them" to redeem themselves. HA! We shall see.
I'll likely get more recognition on fucking FACEBOOK from casual acquaintances than from family. And sometimes when others ask, "What did you do for your birthday?" I'll be forced to tell them (I'm inseparably attached to telling the truth at any consequence). Reminds me of the time a girl I was dating (Jody something) asked me "What did you get for Christmas?" - and I lied, saying I got nothing, because I was embarrassed about having gotten so little compared to her. I told her I got "nothing" since my parents wanted to teach me the "true meaning of Christmas." She was speechless, until I told her that I was kidding - that I really DID get stuff for Christmas. Her next response: "You're weird!"
What a stupid dumb life I've led.
So anyway....... back to reality.
This morning when I woke, I felt very rested. I decided to do my routine. But I shifted to a sort of "next level" regarding my physical exercise routine. Because I'm 65, I'm now going to do
34 regular crunches
34 bicycle crunches
34 push-ups
Why 34? Well, I was doing 32, and doubling 32 is 64. But I'm now 65.
So, if I double 34, I get 68, which is MORE than 65. And of course, I have to do an EVEN number so both side of my body get equal treatment.
So now, my routine is called "ROUTINE 34." I wonder at what age I'll no longer be able to do even the 34. Well, no matter. I can do it today. And today is possibly the only day I have left in my life.
SILENT GOLD MINE
It's been a struggle to know how to "be" lately. I'm expecting David's call (or text or email) and it seems more likely every day. Perhaps this will become a very memorable birthday for me. Perhaps not. In keeping with the "balancing act" of my life, I've tried to consider all possibilities:
a. Today
b. Someday soon
c. Someday later
d. Never
In each case, what would I do?
With a. Today and b. Someday soon, I've already created a sort of "budget" based on percentages which I'll use to "divide up" the money.
It's hard to dwell on that, because I don't know for sure how much to even estimate it will be.
With c. Someday later and d. Never, I won't have to deal with it anytime (or anytime soon).
If the amount is minimal, it will be a non-issue.
Likelihood: A minimal amount (a few thousand, perhaps), and not for another 30 days.
So...... so it could be.
But David DID say I should plan on meeting his colleagues (about the "Charity" leg of their enterprise) when I come to SLC next week. He even referred to the office they've leased as "our office" - meaning David & Ken's office - which we'll have access to. So there's that.
Meanwhile, I'm focusing on HOW to live each day.
Haircut or no haircut?
More skin cream?
Gym membership?
Dental work?
Charmin or cheap brand?
Repaint car or replace car?
Say something to Dr. Pruitt or keep quiet for now?
Say something to ANYONE or keep quiet for now?
etc. etc. etc.
Well, no matter WHAT the "Silent Gold Mine" status is, I'm still turning 65 today.
I'm well on my way to being "old" and "older" and "elderly."
It's trite and strange, but true that I don't "feel old." I feel the same as I always did. Wonder why it was set up or evolved that way. Maybe it's to keep us from getting too depressed about being old. Maybe that's better than feeling your age, and giving up too soon. Who knows?
I know...... NOH--THINK! (as Hogan's Heroes' Schultz would say.)
But it's true - I DO know nothing. Nothing about why I'm here, and why things have gone/are going they way they are in my life.
Am I in control? REALLY? I think not.
At the very least, I'm not in control since I've chosen not to control, but rather to float on the raft of life, not thinking too much about the past or the future. Merely, "Let's see what today might bring."
Well, that's my "legacy" and the honest truth about my life to date.
Yes, turning 65 is just another day. The earth rotated and the "sun came up" and now it's light & I'm awake and alive.
But here's why I don't think I'm in control. No matter the plans I might make for a "revolutionary change" (etc) in my life...... I'm still me. I'm Ken Taylor. I'm not going to sing or change the world or become a heart surgeon or play the piano well. I'm just going to be Ken Taylor.
And yes, there are new paths ahead, and changes that will occur. Perhaps even financial ones.
But I'm still me, and today is a beautiful new day, the next in a long series of days when I've died at night, and been reborn the next morning.
In that regard, today is no different.
Oh, how my heart wishes it could be. But so far, it's no different.
On we go.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
DOWN TO THE WIRE
My "silent gold mining" is coming to a crisis mode. If the mine doesn't pay off (for me) soon, I'm going to have to make some major changes in my life.
Sell my house
Refinance my house
Cash in some of my 401K
Get another higher paying job
Wait - I don't want to advertise to all my readers that I'm in trouble. If I do, they'll stop reading.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
As if.
Sell my house
Refinance my house
Cash in some of my 401K
Get another higher paying job
Wait - I don't want to advertise to all my readers that I'm in trouble. If I do, they'll stop reading.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
As if.
Monday, April 20, 2015
SILENTLY MINING FOR GOLD
Well, so, nevertheless.... etc.
Listening to the latest "Infants on Thrones" episode about "The Lost Book of Mormon" which is a book written by Avi Schonberg (?), the episode ends with one Infant allowing a fellow Infant to "wallow" in his forgetfulness (he had lost track of the point he had been making), and the first Infant referred to his silence (i.e., allowing the 2nd Infant to "wallow" in his forgetfulness) as "silently mining for gold."
Ya see.... the first Infant is the editor of the episodes, and the 2nd Infant accuses him of "never editing anything out." Hence, "silently mining for gold."
And that's what I'm doing with David's Nevada Mine. Waiting until someone else moves forward with the actual mining process.... to mine the gold, and save me from my bankruptcy.
But I can't dwell on that too long, or I'll get even more depressed. So I'm going to re-listen to the episode. After all, these geniuses admit to listening to various podcasts 2nd and even 3rd times... apparently so they can "get it" better. Or analyze it better. Or converse about it better. Or maybe even learn something of value and permanence... better.
Here goes.
Listening to the latest "Infants on Thrones" episode about "The Lost Book of Mormon" which is a book written by Avi Schonberg (?), the episode ends with one Infant allowing a fellow Infant to "wallow" in his forgetfulness (he had lost track of the point he had been making), and the first Infant referred to his silence (i.e., allowing the 2nd Infant to "wallow" in his forgetfulness) as "silently mining for gold."
Ya see.... the first Infant is the editor of the episodes, and the 2nd Infant accuses him of "never editing anything out." Hence, "silently mining for gold."
And that's what I'm doing with David's Nevada Mine. Waiting until someone else moves forward with the actual mining process.... to mine the gold, and save me from my bankruptcy.
But I can't dwell on that too long, or I'll get even more depressed. So I'm going to re-listen to the episode. After all, these geniuses admit to listening to various podcasts 2nd and even 3rd times... apparently so they can "get it" better. Or analyze it better. Or converse about it better. Or maybe even learn something of value and permanence... better.
Here goes.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
WRITING IN GENERAL
Here we go.
JOURNAL WRITING
Listened to podcast featuring Bob McCue, who says that telling one's story is important and key to a difficult transition in life:
1. Coming out as a gay man
2. Leaving Mormonism
3. Growing into maturity
I've felt for years that it's important, but I haven't developed a long-term habit of journal writing, nor have I become a writer of any kind.
PREVENTING TRUTH DECAY
I love this title I read on Cary Harrison's website. I wonder if he coined it, or if he borrowed it. But I love it. I think that if I tell my story, it HAS to be the TRUTH.
However, there are some problems with this.
a. I can be assured that what I think now, I can record truthfully.
b. I'm not so sure that I can record accurately what I've experienced since I was born. I can probably come close.
c. I'm quite embarrassed to tell the 100% truth about my life, since if this becomes a public journal, my children and other relatives will have access to it. I HATE that I can't tell the whole honest truth, and that has been the most detrimental factor in NOT regularly writing my story.
I've considered two journals - one for me personally, and one for the rest of the world. But that seems quite disingenuous of me. And not 100% honest.
This morning as I thought about c. above, I actually cried at what a dilemma I've created for myself.
It could be that I should not write anything, and begin today. Or it could be that I should tell 100% everything to myself, WITHOUT the idea of anyone else reading it ever. I wonder if doing that would have the same effect. I'm guessing that it wouldn't.
I wish I had been taught to tell the truth when I was young. It's so very hard to write even one sentence right now without wondering if it is 100% true, or not.
FINANCES & CAREER
Life is not easy for me right now. I'm feeling so much angst over money. Or lack thereof. Some feeling surfaces now and then that "everything will work out." But most of the time, I'm either dreading financial ruin, or I'm in denial of it. HELP! I pray every morning for help on how to move forward, and nothing in the way of a divine message ever becomes evident. I think about what I should do regarding income, and always trace my earlier "arguments" about what I should do: I want to avoid "corporate america" since it would require me to be less than honest about my product (e.g., software). I want to work with people who accept me as a gay out man. I want to focus on DGT's potential offer, since it offers me the opportunity to
a. Get out of debt (hopefully fairly quickly)
b. Work with someone who loves me & wants me
c. Gives me the chance to use my financial & people skills
d. Help less advantaged people pursue their dreams.
FAMILY & MORMONISM
I really, really HATE the situation right now that does not "allow" me to speak my mind 100% to my children. I know the LDS church is a fraud, and I hate that they are "in it" and are continuing the inter-generational succession of Mormonism with their kids.
Well, this post has been 100% true. I don't know myself 100%, but I'm closer than I ever have been before. I've considered talking again to a counselor of some kind, but it costs money, and I don't have any extra right now.
LATER THIS SAME DAY.....
Listening lately to several podcast places:
1. Infants on Thrones
2. Mormon Expression
3. Mormon Stories (although I'd listened to many of these about a year ago or so)
It's filling up my time, which is majorly flexible and full of availability for the last 2-3 years, while I wait for the call from David Timpson. It's been hard to do nothing (essentially nothing; I do work a few hours a week for Dr. Pruitt, and I volunteer even less for The Lavender Effect).
I'm also eathing both healthy & not healthy: Eating celery & apples a lot, and fruit smoothies every other day.... but also ice cream & M&Ms & cookies. Sigh.
It's hard to stay on a healthy diet when my roommate is much heavier, so I feel "ok" about eating fattening foods.
AND, I'm now doing my exercise routine fairly regularly..... it's not a fat burner, but it does give me agility:
flexing hands & feet, shoulder wheels, sit ups and pushups.
So..... here I am, writing again. Don't know what to write.
JOURNAL WRITING
Listened to podcast featuring Bob McCue, who says that telling one's story is important and key to a difficult transition in life:
1. Coming out as a gay man
2. Leaving Mormonism
3. Growing into maturity
I've felt for years that it's important, but I haven't developed a long-term habit of journal writing, nor have I become a writer of any kind.
PREVENTING TRUTH DECAY
I love this title I read on Cary Harrison's website. I wonder if he coined it, or if he borrowed it. But I love it. I think that if I tell my story, it HAS to be the TRUTH.
However, there are some problems with this.
a. I can be assured that what I think now, I can record truthfully.
b. I'm not so sure that I can record accurately what I've experienced since I was born. I can probably come close.
c. I'm quite embarrassed to tell the 100% truth about my life, since if this becomes a public journal, my children and other relatives will have access to it. I HATE that I can't tell the whole honest truth, and that has been the most detrimental factor in NOT regularly writing my story.
I've considered two journals - one for me personally, and one for the rest of the world. But that seems quite disingenuous of me. And not 100% honest.
This morning as I thought about c. above, I actually cried at what a dilemma I've created for myself.
It could be that I should not write anything, and begin today. Or it could be that I should tell 100% everything to myself, WITHOUT the idea of anyone else reading it ever. I wonder if doing that would have the same effect. I'm guessing that it wouldn't.
I wish I had been taught to tell the truth when I was young. It's so very hard to write even one sentence right now without wondering if it is 100% true, or not.
FINANCES & CAREER
Life is not easy for me right now. I'm feeling so much angst over money. Or lack thereof. Some feeling surfaces now and then that "everything will work out." But most of the time, I'm either dreading financial ruin, or I'm in denial of it. HELP! I pray every morning for help on how to move forward, and nothing in the way of a divine message ever becomes evident. I think about what I should do regarding income, and always trace my earlier "arguments" about what I should do: I want to avoid "corporate america" since it would require me to be less than honest about my product (e.g., software). I want to work with people who accept me as a gay out man. I want to focus on DGT's potential offer, since it offers me the opportunity to
a. Get out of debt (hopefully fairly quickly)
b. Work with someone who loves me & wants me
c. Gives me the chance to use my financial & people skills
d. Help less advantaged people pursue their dreams.
FAMILY & MORMONISM
I really, really HATE the situation right now that does not "allow" me to speak my mind 100% to my children. I know the LDS church is a fraud, and I hate that they are "in it" and are continuing the inter-generational succession of Mormonism with their kids.
Well, this post has been 100% true. I don't know myself 100%, but I'm closer than I ever have been before. I've considered talking again to a counselor of some kind, but it costs money, and I don't have any extra right now.
LATER THIS SAME DAY.....
Listening lately to several podcast places:
1. Infants on Thrones
2. Mormon Expression
3. Mormon Stories (although I'd listened to many of these about a year ago or so)
It's filling up my time, which is majorly flexible and full of availability for the last 2-3 years, while I wait for the call from David Timpson. It's been hard to do nothing (essentially nothing; I do work a few hours a week for Dr. Pruitt, and I volunteer even less for The Lavender Effect).
I'm also eathing both healthy & not healthy: Eating celery & apples a lot, and fruit smoothies every other day.... but also ice cream & M&Ms & cookies. Sigh.
It's hard to stay on a healthy diet when my roommate is much heavier, so I feel "ok" about eating fattening foods.
AND, I'm now doing my exercise routine fairly regularly..... it's not a fat burner, but it does give me agility:
flexing hands & feet, shoulder wheels, sit ups and pushups.
So..... here I am, writing again. Don't know what to write.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)