Threshold

"To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. 

To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day."

 - Winston Churchill 

You only have to build one block tower and have an older brother wreck it to know what daily life is to someone who has been abused. Seems like no matter what you attempt to build there's some immature prat gleefully waiting in the wings to destroy it and make himself feel like an all powerful godzilla in the process. It could be a family member, a friend, or a coworker, but someone that delights in seeing you fail. You get to the point where you don't want to build anymore, because what's the point? Because in the process of destroying that which was built, the destroyer destroyed the piece of the builder's self put into what they built.

There was an experiment done with a barracuda where it was put into a tank with a large piece of glass between it and live minnows on the other side. In water glass is virtually invisible, so the barracuda saw its lunch swimming unsuspectingly. The hungry barracuda flung itself again and again against that pain of glass until it gave up. The barracuda's spirit was broken and it floated there motionless even when the glass was removed and minnows were swimming all around it, even touching it. The barracuda died of starvation.

Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can break your spirit.

Regardless of how you may interpret things in your own life, everyone has their limit, and none of this "God doesn't give you more than you can handle" BS, or else you wouldn't have had Biblical kings throwing themselves on their swords. Everyone has a threshold when enough is enough. Pushing people to that threshold is the greatest pleasure of the power hungry destroyer or the unconscious act of the obliviously ego-centric. Regardless of the source, the outcome is the same for the person on the receiving end.

In psychology they say that it takes 10 positive comments to make an impact as powerful as one negative.  But sometimes the math of that multiplied force of negatives can be a heavy burden. There comes a time when the emotional bank account is so overdrawn, and you feel so underwater, that you wonder where your next breath will come from. This doesn't help when often these targets are sensitive from the start.

Sensitive and empathetic people are often targets of their polar opposites. In prison studies showed the victim was the one with low self esteem, and the victimizer who thought that he was above others and above reproach. Sociopaths often target empathetic people because they are the first to realize something is wrong and speak out, so they try to control them. And now you know why bad things happen to good people.

It can be a hard thing to relate to if you've never been there. Just like it's hard to fully understand someone being sick if you've been mostly healthy your whole life. It's hard to empathize and put yourselves in another's shoes, and even if you do, odds are you still won't get the full experience. Even empathy can go only so far, but you should try. Because the abused has been exposed to the callous lack of empathy of someone, and needs to be reminded that it does still exist. It may seem like your contributions don't do much because it takes 10 positive words just to equal one of the negative. And that's not even including the negative actions of abuse. Still, every little bit helps to rebuild a builder, who will eventually want to build again. It's not easy to start over.

This is brought to mind because I had been collecting Breyer model horses from a young age. I got one for my birthday each year and often one for Christmas.  Since I started young, I had quite a collection by the time I was an adult, even after giving some up. Still they were such a huge part of my childhood that when they were stolen from the old house while we were moving to the new one, it was a huge hit. I burst into tears in front of Morgan who cried too, not knowing why mommy was crying.

The insurance money didn't cover any of it, and most were antiques and collector's items that had increased in value that you cannot even find anymore. So slowly I've been trying to rebuild my collection, but I don't have a lot of money to spare replacing that which was lost.  And really it gave me the feeling of even more things that I've been trying to rebuild that were taken from me by others.  However I keep having people come along and knock my blocks down. Sometimes it's just clutzy and sometimes cruel, but it always makes it harder to even want to attempt to rebuild again.

The Negative Side of Positivity

So I understand people wanting to be "positive" and such, but all too often I find that it's becoming an excuse for denial and lack of responsibility for their actions. When faced with the consequences of their actions, they demand that the other person be positive or complain that other people are being "negative", and thereby they completely disassociate themselves as the causation in the equation. The fact that the other person responded naturally to their self-seeking behavior becomes the "problem", instead of the self-seeking behavior that actually caused it. Actions have consequences, and you cannot expect people to tolerate asinine behavior and still have healthy relationships. In the words of Ayn Rand — 'You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.'

There is a big difference between unrealistic forced optimism and real synergy. You cannot fix a problem if you ignore or deny that there is a problem.  And I find that those who perceive themselves as positive can't comprehend that they might possibly be the problem. But all too often they cause more problems than they solve. They become a smiling blockade to all real progress using platitudes to give the illusion of motion and support without ever getting their hands tainted with down and dirty reality.

Being positive and confident can be a boon to other skills, but it cannot supplant them. For real progress to be made, a person has to be able to tackle the full scope of a situation, including darker aspects that the "positive" would rather avoid. All too often the "positives" are more than happy to ride on the coat tails of those doing the actual work, and gathering credit to themselves.  However their methods are not as productive as they might think, and more damaging than they would like others to think.  

Spiritual Superiority?

During the Spanish Inquisition, informants were the main source of information, and people were encouraged to watch, observe, and report their neighbors to the church for possible heresies, a list of which grew over time. It began with the suspicion of converted jews, but once the inquisition took hold, it spread invasively into people's personal lives, torturing men and women alike. Previously peasants had no problem with premarital sex between two consenting adults, until the inquisition started pressing down on them, and set the stage for truly evil application of supposed religious superiority, while devising and employing torture devoid of anything remotely good or spiritual. "The denunciations were anonymous, and the defendants had no way of knowing the identities of their accusers. In practice, false denunciations were frequent. Denunciations were made for a variety of reasons, from genuine concern, to rivalries and personal jealousies." - Wiki

I can't help but feel that some remnants of the inquisition still remain today, but then the sense of spiritual superiority has always run deep from the Old Testament Pharisees, later to monks looking for status and wealth by starting brothels. We like to think that we are superior to the people that lived in those times, but the truth is that people haven't changed much. There will always be those who are cruel, and those who are kind. There will always be people who use religion and spirituality as a club to abuse others, whether it's the nosy church lady or the authoritarian husband how justifies abusing his wife and children. I've never met someone who was abusive who didn't think that they were higher evolved, better than others spiritually, and most disturbing, these abusers were well received socially. It's only one step from believing you are spiritually superior to thinking that you have some divine dominion to criticize and control others.

The very essence of the egocentric notion of spiritual superiority negates such assertions. It's not that they people in this role think they are saints, so much as they use their spirituality or religion as more than a source of pride, but proof that they are better than others. It comes with a tightly controlled and monitored exterior representation of who they think they are, but more importantly who they want people to think they are. As Stephen Covey noted in the 7 Habits of Highly Effective people, it's usually the people at home, when the mask comes off, that see the real person, which is often very different. 

There is power in being perceived as spiritually superior. Look at TV Evangelists who have a voice that reaches millions or even the religious leader who has the power to define what is right or wrong. They control the consciences of a good portion of their congregations, and therefore have a great deal of influence on the congregation's actions. In medieval times, Monks were given money and land to pray for knights and nobles, because they were perceived to be more holy and therefore their prayers were considered more affective. Meanwhile the monk life of sacrifice was far from it at times. Saint Benedict, the source of the Benedictine monks tried to change that, but like those who are intent on true spirituality, he was not well received. He imposed rules, and the other monks tried to kill him for it. Miraculously he survived 2 attempts on his life.

In reality the most beautiful people I've ever known spiritually never made assertions of spiritual superiority, divine insight, or any other form of spiritual pride. They were too busy helping others and proving their spirit with their life. And if confronted with these notions, they avoided competitive comparisons. They just kept on doing good, even when people looked down on them, criticizing their spirituality because of minutia. But true spirituality tends to be less socially acceptable than the bombastic narcissism that has infected society where self esteem has become lauded more than personal responsibility. Good people often get walked over and disrespected by self proclaimed spiritual people, who are too in love with themselves to think of others. The self proclaimed spiritual often are attaining something by their acts, either in attention in a form of narcissistic supply, or for some self-serving reason. The quiet acts of the truly spiritual are less spectacular, and often go unnoticed. Their sacrifices get glossed over in the wake of the dramatically spiritual.

"It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." - Ayn Rand

In general people like to judge others and look down on people to make themselves feel better about themselves. If they didn't, we wouldn't have reality TV. All humans are flawed, but those who are honest about their flaws are not as well received as those who use excuses or hide their flaws. You can't see into another's heart or soul, but you can get a glimpse by what comes out of them, and if it's self importance, it can't be very spiritual. Even Jesus said, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." - Mark 10:18

How do I know this? Cause I see myself fall into this pit at times. How many will be honest with themselves and admit it? How many are thinking that they are spiritually superior and yet are unsure of their soul or just afraid of death? How many find themselves alone and still blame someone else? How many are helping because they know best or because they really care about the person? Are you willing to empathize or are you too busy criticizing? Are you being honest about what you are really getting out of situations?

It's not a fine line. It's a tight rope. You lean too far one way or the other, and you are going to fall. But some people are too busy telling themselves that they're flying to get back on the rope and keep walking to the other side. 

Gay Marriage

Recently an Oklahoma judge did his job and did it right. What do I mean by that?

Many people today want the government to be this all sustaining entity in their life.  They want to blame it for all their woes, and feel entitled for the government to take care of them.  In short, people are wanting the government to be their god.  This can be seen by those wanting the government to take on responsibilities that fall strictly in the domain of the church. 

By nature of the separation of church and state, the government is to preside over legal matters that concern property and infringements on the rights of its citizens, ergo any human regardless of cultural or religious differences that is considered a citizen of the United States of America by birth or oath. 

Morality and ethics are not the domain of the government but of religion and philosophy. Therefore the government separated itself to leave those concerns to the discernment of the various religions within its citizenry. If gay marriage is a religious issue, its validity would be up to each church and each religion to decide it's own stance within that congregation. Just as the government cannot dictate a religious stance to change and allow a marriage, a church cannot vote morality into governmental law, only its own church law, and only to those who willingly submit to put themselves under the law of that church. Should the church and those willingly joined in that church decide against it, then they are allowed to proceed as they see fit, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others, which would be illegal and the government's domain to protect a citizen from lasting damage.  But if there is a church that wants to marry gays, then so be it. It is the prerogative of that church, and It's still not the business of anyone outside their congregation.

However the courts can only address marriage so far as it is a legal contract willingly entered into by two adults of sound mind. It is an agreement between two individuals to follow the terms of the contract and contracts are of legal government concern to enforce, so long as it is valid within the law and has an exit clause.  Two people willingly participating in a contractual agreement are not a religious concern, because they have submitted it to the governing body of the legal system as opposed to the governing of the church, and "the government shall make no law concerning religion". That means FOR OR AGAINST. If it's religious, then government cannot make a law against it. If it's not, then the government has to treat all citizens equally under the law. PERIOD

Law is not about feelings. It's not about morality or ethics.  It is not a god to declare what is right and wrong, morally or ethically. It can only judge what is in accordance to its laws, and presently the denial of a section of humanity rights is violation of their basic human rights.

The history of marriage is not one of just the Bible, but of humanity. Marriage is a universal concept that crosses many cultures, religions, and beliefs. Those beliefs existed long before Christianity.  In fact it was Christianity in the time of Constantine that brought kindness to a contract that was not considered as sacred as it is today. In Rome, should your wife displease you, you could sell her to a whore house. Before that, the invention of the wedding ring was a symbol of the chain a man used to tie his wife to his home until Stockholm syndrome set in and she became his.  Even Charlemagne who was one of the driving forces of Christianity had Pope approved multiple concubines. I am glad that marriage has changed, because it was at one time akin to slavery, which is illegal now. So perhaps all marriage is illegal by that merit? Hmmm... At least by Biblical law slaves could be released after 7 years if they wanted, although some chose to stay with good masters. That was a point of pride at that time to have slaves that wanted to stay. Wives didn't have such freedom.

The point is that things are very different now, and much of our perceptions of marriage are modern constructs that are far kinder than their original version that has been spun in the best light. Do we really want to go back to a time of oppression?

Myself, I am straight, married, Christian, and have a daughter. Every one of those things is a choice that I had the freedom to make, because we don't live under a Theocracy with a state religion that oppresses those who worship differently.  Being that many Americans came here because of that very freedom, it's one of the freedoms that I treasure and so did the Founding Fathers. Oh look!  Even America had more than one dad! 

If you don't like it, then don't do it. It's that simple. It's just not right or just to force others to adjust to your preferences, regardless of what they are. The government is not a god. You are not a god. And those who submit to one are answerable to their own god. Make your own choices and unless it affects you personally, it really is not your concern. One of my favorite Bible quotes is "Mind your own business" in reference to a church that started meddling in people's affairs, which is what's happening today.

Democrats want the government to be their mom.

Republicans want the government to be their dad.

Libertarians want the government to treat them like adults.

Spiders

View from the house we stayed in outside the city.

I was talking to a friend yesterday about why I think I've never been afraid of spiders.  When I was a child, my dad would take a hand and move his fingers like a spider as a game.  The objective was for me to hit the spider.  I believe that's one of the reasons I've always had really fast reflexes by playing this game from the time I was a small child, until later in fencing when a friend said I was "fast like a freak." But in general, it taught me what to do if I saw a spider, and I was not afraid of them. Ironically I didn't feel the need to kill them either, because I was armed with a sense of preparation.  So they never really bothered me ... except once.

When I was in the Philippines in the Summer of 1996, my cousin and I stayed with my Uncle in Tagbilaran on the island of Bohol. While in the city, we had no hot water heater so showers were either cold or you ladled water to clean yourself and basically had a sponge bath.  Some rather extreme circumstances later, and a threat to kidnap my cousin and myself, and we were moved to a new location where we stayed, 2 girls alone in the jungle in this house.

The house like many in the Philippines was open to allow the tradewinds to blow through the structure and cool it. In the temperate climate, those winds did an excellent job keeping us cozy.  However, this also meant that it was open to the encroaching jungle as well.  In fact before we could stay there, they had to remove the dead pythons hanging from the rafters.  They would climb up to try to eat the eggs out of birds' nests and the birds would peck holes in the snakes' skulls, leaving their limp bodies as a ghastly decoration. We had not had any game growing up to deal with snakes, so they did scare me.

The one thing about this new location though is it had a hot water heater, and neither of us girls could wait to get a real shower.  It was glorious and steamy as I bathed in what felt like luxury and is commonplace here in the US. I remember washing when I saw a huge spider, bigger than my father's hand climb down the wall in front of me. It was brown and hairy, and nothing like I had ever seen.  As if it wasn't bad enough to be alone and naked in a shower with the most monstrous spider I'd ever scene, but it was just then that the island had a "brown out".  A brown out is when the electricity for the entire island goes out.  I was plunged into darkness, wet, naked, and alone with the spider.  This I was not prepared for in the least as I yelped and groped in the darkness for my towel and raced to get as much clothing and distance between myself and the spider.

Although that one summer had many stories that came from it, and some unsettling, it was an experience I won't forget. I wish that more young people had a chance to visit a third world country and realize the things they take for granted on a daily basis. Perhaps the next time you take a shower, you'll think of this story and be thankful for something as simple as hot water.

Tolerance

tol·er·ate
verb - allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. synonyms: allow, permit, condone, accept, swallow, countenance;

tol·er·ance
noun - the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

The key to understanding tolerance is that by sheer definition it is what you do in regards to something that you are innately opposed to; however, lots of people who demand tolerance of others, are often unwilling to extend tolerance to those who disagree, which in general goes against the very definition. You cannot be tolerant of people who agree with you, only those who disagree. Therefore to label someone tolerant who attacks those who disagree is a misnomer. 

For example, while a person may be pro gay marriage and therefore think that they are tolerant because they are straight, it is a concept that they are actually advocating. Therefore it is not tolerance, for them to advocate for gay marriage. Tolerance would be for those of the opposing viewpoint, which is not often seen as proved by the canceling of Duck Dynasty for expressing what is presently an unpopular opinion. This is not a display of tolerance. This is not advocating a system of peaceful coexistence, which I do not think is the same thing as "tolerance".

Personally I am not a fan of universal tolerance, because there are some things that should not be tolerated. Abuse, bullying, and ignoring the rights of others are all intolerable acts and I don't care what banner you are flying at the time. Bullying people who believe different than you is intolerable. Pressing your beliefs onto other people is intolerable. It is just as bad for people to attack conservatives as it is to attack people who are liberal. It is extremely hypocritical to demand tolerance and not be willing to afford it to your opposing viewpoint.

I'm Libertarian so I ruffle feathers on both sides of the fence; however, while debating with conservatives, I tend to get far less personal attacks than with liberals, who have had a habit of passionately demonizing opposing views. And these were people who advocated "tolerance". What they are really doing is standing in judgement and making the social rules for everyone else by picking and choosing what should and should not be tolerated. Their personal bias becomes the status by which all others must adapt. It sets them up for a mindset of aggressive moral superiority, not peaceful coexistence. This isn't good either, when some feel perfectly justified to bully others because they are Christian or conservative by labeling them intolerant by assumption. That's not tolerant. And it's hypocritical to demand that their opposition respect them without giving the same respect.

I don't claim tolerance, because that would presume that there is something to be tolerated, when as a matter of fact, unless that behavior is directly impacting myself then it's not a matter of tolerance. It's a matter of "not my business". You can only tolerate that which affects you, and the sheer word also lends more validity to one side than the other, a sense of superiority and rightness to tolerate the wrong. The difference are the people who attack others for thinking differently, and those who realize that how another person thinks does not affect them.

That comes with abstract reasoning, being able to separate yourself from others. When you make choices for your own life, and realize that you don't have the right to make choices for other people's lives unless they affect yours, what they do is of little consequence.  If it doesn't affect you, then you don't need control over it. That's freedom of choice, and allowing other people freedom of choice ... which is more than tolerance.  It's better than tolerance, because it doesn't come with a judgement.  It doesn't come with an aggressive undertone.  It's not making a character judgement of right or wrong, it's simply respecting others enough to let them make their own life decisions without someone else having to "tolerate" it.

The Sword and the Truth

Truth is compared often as a sword and its usage treated in much the same way. I'm not advocating lies, but truth should be tempered with mercy and tact.  It should be used in specific ways, much akin to a sword as it cuts to the heart of things.  It pierces through the veil of darkness that obscures and distracts.  For this reason one should live by truth as they live by the sword.

Truth, like a sword, should be carried with you, ever ready to be wielded.  However if you do not know how to wield truth or a sword by drawing it, you have issued an invitation to be attacked. It makes you a target, a threat, to be taken down by those it threatens most. If you are not able to handle truth, it will ultimately cause you much damage despite having truth in your possession. 

Truth, like a sword, is used to not only attack but to block the attacks of others. It must be sharpened and honed with provable facts and not emotions or opinions. 

Carrying truth with you constantly, presenting and demonstrating that you are quite capable with it, is enough to scare away the cowardly who prey on the weak and defenseless, but it will draw to you the extremes of those who are arrogant and enjoy battle, the competitive, those who are too cowardly to stand for themselves, those in actual need, those who only think that they are righteous, and those who actually are, who love honor and all things good. 

If you are with a friend who is hurt and down, knowingly ashamed, it is not wise to draw your sword on them to beat them down further. A sword is a tool.  In times of mercy it is not always needed, unless it is to cut out the sores and poisonous bites that taint someone.

Truth is a weapon used to defend honor and fight injustice, but it is only as good as the person who wields it, and best used in the presence of armor or thick hide to defend against the reposts of the enemy.  Most are not agile enough to simply not be there to avoid those attacks, but then it is near to impossible to have your truth heard to defend against attacks to which you did not bear witness.

In essence, the best way to wield truth is to practice using it regularly, to learn all you can about it, and to be ever ready to use it to its fullest extent. 

One of my favorite quotes of all time is "To be a warrior is to be genuine in every moment of your life" by Chogyam Trungpa. It sums up the general concept that a life of honesty is a hard life of conflict. People fear and fight truth at every turn. It does not tell them what they want to hear, it tells them the truth. Often, people who think they are honest and genuine lie to themselves the most and convince themselves of things that simply are not so. It is a constant battle against external and internal forces to be genuine and honest with yourself, others, and the intent behind your actions. Perception is not always the same as truth, no matter how much we may wish it so. We are either leaves blown about on the wind at the whim of others, or we are trees rooted in truth.

"Every man has three characters - that which he exhibits, that which he has, and that which he thinks he has." - Karr, Alphonse


A Warrior of Light works to ensure that all three are the same.