Geeze! Still MORE about this IQ stuff?

I’ve known Mike for better than twenty years. He is a good, decent, intelligent man who calls it as he sees it, and I’m glad for the comment he made on the blog. He pretty much represents what an intelligent white male of somewhat conservative leanings sounds like to me, and no pejoratives are implied in that. Here’s what he said. I offer this not as argument, or to educate or to change anyone's mind, but to document the WAY I think about these things. I'm not saying I'm right, just that this is legitimately the way things bounce around in my head, for those amused by such things. Mike's comments are italicized.
My replies are in brackets:


“What I don't understand is why everyone looks at the IQ question strictly from a "race" perspective. Why isn't it looked at more holistically? Let me touch briefly on several seemingly unrelated topics. I will do so in a decidedly un-PC way, but as we have known each other a long time I hope you will take this in context and not be offended.

It is true that it appears that blacks in the US have as a group an average lower intelligence. But is there more to this than just race?

[Here, read: “I agree with those who believe that blacks…etc.” There are arguments on both sides of this, and intelligent and educated adherents to both points of view. To represent this as a settled “fact” like gravity or something is to create a somewhat false base for your argument. However, let’s go on.)

The culture of poverty, where ever you go in the world, is one which does not care about education. For instance in inner city US it is considered acting "White" to try and get an education.

[ To say “in inner city US too many blacks consider getting an education to be acting `white’” would be accurate. To say “it is considered” is too broad a brush, and conceals as much as it explains]

Please notice I said the "culture of poverty" not the act of being poor itself. There are many groups which may be poor but believe they can rise out of their circumstances through hard work, hence the relative success of poor immigrants in America over the years.

The current classes of systemic poor in the US are overwhelmingly from parents who were poor and whose grandparents were poor and so on. Please note the work “systemic” as it relates to a persistence of poverty across multiple generations.

[sure. Most people remain in the social class in which they are born, rich or poor.]

There has been a higher birthrate among the poor in the US than among those in the higher economic classes. It is well known throughout the world that the poor have the highest birthrates while the wealthiest have the lowest.

Natural selection says that organisms will adapt to their environment. Those that adapt the best will have the most offspring and those that don't will have less.

Some people have posited that the reason that Ashkenazi Jews have a higher IQ is that restrictions on Jews in Medieval Europe made it harder for Jews without a good IQ to survive, or more importantly for their children to survive. That is "smart" Jews survived and were able to pass on their "smart" genes to their children.

Now, if this is true, then "stupid" genes can be passed on as well. If "stupid" people can have children who survive to have more children in turn, then their "stupid" genes will be passed on.

As mentioned above poor people tend to have more children than people who are better off. But poor people, on average, have lower IQ's than the rest of the population, so their children should do relatively poorly in school. That is their children should have on average lower IQ’s.

Starting in the mid-sixties the welfare system in the US made it easy for poor people to have children without too many (related to survival) negative consequences. Now you and I might say that being on welfare (as a way of life) is "stupid". It provides few real benefits and too many negative obligations.

[To say: “there is disagreement about the costs and benefits. I agree with the Right, which believes the benefits are minimal” would be accurate. Again, you’re making a statement as if there is no intelligent disagreement. By the way—I tend to agree with you about this!]

But for a “stupid” person welfare would be great. It provides a relatively easy way to get independence from one’s family without requiring much in the way of work. Yes it is a lazy person’s way to comfort but it worked. In addition all one had to do to get
In addition all one had to do to get more money was to have more children. So, here we see a situation where being “stupid” was rewarded and actually promoted the passing on of the “stupid” gene.

The beneficiaries of this scenario were overwhelmingly black.

[Very wrong, as I noted elsewhere. Disproportionately black, perhaps. Overwhelmingly, no. Numerically, far more whites benefited.]

With a higher birthrate, the simple math says that over time the increasingly larger numbers of “stupid” black people will lower the average intelligence for the black group as a whole.

So, basically what I’m saying is that perhaps it is true that American blacks on average are less smart than other groups. But this is not because a large percentage of the “stupid” (low IQ) blacks were encouraged to breed in larger number than the “smart” blacks.

So in summary, the process of natural selection (as helped by the Welfare program) may have had a large hand in the problem of lower average IQ in American blacks. By that thinking it isn’t being black that is the problem but rather being both poor and black which resulted in the problem. If true then we should see similar poor groups throughout the world who similarly have lower IQ’s vis-à-vis the general population. I believe that where ever you go in the world you will find in the local systemically poor populations both a high birthrate and a relatively low IQ.
##
O.K., Mike, well stated, and certainly plausible. You’re wrong though, if you think you’re the only one who’s ever said this. It gets said a LOT. Now let me point something out about this argument…

Stated broadly, you’re arguing (quite reasonably) that social context (like welfare) can lead to genetically “dumbing down” a group. Food for thought. But while I’ve heard this dozens of times, NO ONE who has ever presented this has been willing to take it to the end of the line. So, then…welfare and negative belief patterns (acceptance of welfare, and criticizing those interested in an education) are responsible for a genetic drift that leads to, on the average, lower intelligence among blacks in the US. Am I representing your POV accurately?

Hope so. Now, let’s go back. Social context can cause negative genetic drift. While I’ve heard this many times, it is curious to me that the only problem EVER stated by people who present this is caused by…well, let’s just say “them pesky Liberals.” It’s fifty years of welfare! Made ‘em stupid!

Well…might I ask a small question? If blacks are so malleable that fifty years of subsidized food and rent for a fraction of their population would trash their IQ, then what exactly did 300 years of rape, torture and murder (slavery), followed by another hundred years of Jim Crow, Segregation, legalized violence and substandard education do? According to the same people who tend to sling about the “genetic” argument—and I don’t know if you’re in this group, Mike, so there’s nothing personal here—the answer is “nothing.”

Wait. Let me add this up. I can quantify the damage done to blacks during slavery: approximately 150 million man-years of life extracted. (Do the math. Look up the average life expectancy of slaves, and then the average life expectancy of whites during the same period. Slaves: 24. Whites: 37. Kalahari hunter-gatherers, about 36. Freed slaves 20 years after emancipation: about 36. So multiplying 14 years of stolen life per slave across the total number of slaves ever held in America will tell you the approximate cost per slave. That’s due to overworking, malnutrition, beatings, and murder. Sorry, but the numbers don’t lie. Look it up.)

As I said—IF you were going to take the position that there is a genetic difference (debated, not proven) and were to say that 50 years of Welfare had done damage (certainly possible) it would be absurd not to think that 400 years of abuse had no effect. So…we were superpeople for 350 years, and then suddenly hyperimpressionable? Does that really seem reasonable?

I ask you: why do you think nobody on the “Genetic IQ” side of the argument ever made THIS observation. (If I’m wrong, and someone did, please point it out to me and link me to it.) I’ll give you my theory, Mike:

Almost any argument you will ever hear a healthy human being make is to the effect of “we rule, you drool.” That’s the way the ego is. So your argument is very popular among…wait for it…people who are neither poor black (and therefore not a member of the group who supposedly denigrates education) or Liberal (and therefore not responsible for Welfare.)

It is saying: Yeah, there’s damage…but WE didn’t do it. Nope.

Man, I’ve heard versions of this all my life. From the black side, the argument is: “White people are evil bastards who raped and murdered us for 400 years. We would NEVER have done anything like that. We are spiritually and mentally superior, and we’re just fine now. How DARE Bill Cosby suggest that some of our problems are of our own making!”
##
Am I suggesting that the conditions blacks find themselves in now are of White people’s making? If you’re talking about Kalahari hunter-gatherers, who basically never SEE white people, no. But colonized or enslaved peoples? Hell, yes. The familial and social dysfunction (fathers not caring for their children, etc.) you see too often in the inner-city is not found in ANY natural group of people. For one simple reason: it doesn’t work. In a few generations, such terrible behavior will wipe your people out. So, yes, I can see that Welfare both generated some bad behavior and protected people from the effects of it.

But we didn’t write our own software, Mike. Not in this country. Again, if you want to see what more natural black families are like, go study some pygmies, or blacks living in the mountains of Africa, somewhere where they weren’t conquered or colonized or enslaved. And then you’ll find the same family groupings, hunting behaviors and passing of knowledge intergenerationally that anthropologists find anywhere else in the world.

No, it is not the responsibility of white folks to “fix this.” Yes there are real problems that black folks must deal with. Yes, whites contributed massively to the problem—and profited mightily thereby. Yes, I can hold all of these things in my mind, with no sense of paradox. Most people cannot, whether they are white or black. Perhaps if I weren’t mixed, I wouldn’t be able to either, but I have no motivation either to demonize, or blame.

So…is there possible genetic damage? Of course. Is it possible that, even without factoring in slavery, the apparent IQ difference is genetic in origin? Of course it is possible. I never said otherwise. I just said that I don’t believe it’s true, and that I would never accept the sole judgment of the dominator group as to the reality of that genetic difference. I have never seen human beings to be that honest, impartial, unself-centered, and free of perceptual filters.
And that’s from a lifetime of being around both groups. I think that whites, born into black lives, would perform and test at the same level. Further, I think that those whites who display the least understanding in this arena (and I’m not talking about you, Mike) would, had they been born black, absolutely despise white people, considering them smug, lying, self-centered cultural rapists without any sense of shame for the damage they do.

Some say that the beginning of sin is treating another human being like a thing, rather than a person. The very definition of slavery. But for me, the far greater sin is to break someone’s legs, steal their wallet, piss on them, and then to claim it's a scientific fat that that it is this poor soul’s genetic tendency to be broke, crippled, and stinking. That is such a great sin that I actually fear for those descended from slave owners who hold the “genetic IQ” belief. I think they hold onto it for dear life. Because if they are wrong…and there is a hell…

They’ve got a very warm condo waiting.

Is the IQ debate racist?

Well, let's define our terms. The Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “racism” as follows: “the assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to domination over others.”

That’s pretty much the definition I’d agree with, while emphasizing that NOT ALWAYS is it coupled to a belief that the superior group believes it has the right to dominate others. Often, but not always. The rest? Sure. A discussion of racial I.Q. differences is then, by dictionary definition, a “racist” discussion. One who holds these beliefs is, again by definition, a “racist.” I don’t see how I can avoid that conclusion.

I’m not saying their beliefs are wrong—just that I disagree with them. I’m not saying they are bad human beings. That would be determined by their behaviors. But let’s call a spade a spade here (so to speak.) Don’t shoot the messenger. I never said people shouldn’t have these beliefs, or hold these conversations. If you can’t stand the label, maybe you should look at yourself more closely.

People who believe in racial IQ differences will say that the Left is blind, or dishonest, not to agree with them. Wow. Couldn’t it be that there’s more than one legitimate way to look at this? Considering that, to my knowledge, there ain’t much evidence that political leaning predicts honesty, intelligence or education, anyone who can’t deal with the fact that those on the other side might be just as smart, just as honest, and see things differently may themselves be perceptually crippled.

My answer? We’re not pristine intellects sorting reality. Our intellect is filtered through layers of perception and belief. Where do they come from? Well, that’s back to the nature/nurture split, isn’t it? Those who say “nature” can say that our souls come into this world with the inclination to believe one way or the other. Those who say “nurture” can say we’re programmed by our parents or societies. Whatever.

But those who have hurt feelings because I say this discussion is “racist” had better just get over it, or go somewhere else. I respect you, but apparently you don’t respect the dictionary. You want the right to say things that a reasonable person might consider incredibly hurtful, and simultaneously deny that it causes pain. I NEVER SAID NOT TO TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS. In fact, it's downright weird that we can be in the middle of the discussion, and someone will say "but we're forbidden to discuss this." Feh.

Whatever. Speak of whatever you wish, as long as it's polite. But don’t for an instant think you can get away with saying that it’s not racist, and not hurtful. I may believe that it is not your intent to hurt, but like they say…the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And regardless of your humanity and kindness, the David Dukes of the world are quite grateful to you for your support. Live with that. Stop hiding behind the notion of intellectual purity, or that one side of the political spectrum has “truth” while the other side is composed of deluded self-righteous children.

Being pretty much half white/half black, all my life I’ve heard hard-liners on either side assert that THEY know that whites, or blacks, hold the majority of the world’s positive attributes. And I’ve taken heat from both for not taking sides.

Here’s the deal, everyone: you have nothing I want. I don’t write this to sway opinions, or sell books, or make friends. Read it or don’t. Come here or not. This is written to work through my own stuff, and I use you guys as sounding boards. If you want to believe that one group—any group—is the arbiter of reality, and that your group sees clearly while the rest of the world is clouded…I’m going to laugh at you.

If you have top marks in relationships, career and fitness simultaneously, I’ll applaud, but still not put your opinion above my own (nor do I suggest you put mine above yours). But ladies and gentlemen—if you are lacking in two or more of those arenas, as far as I’m concerned your perceptual lens is seriously cracked, and you have serious work to do before you can even PRETEND to see the world clearly. Again…this is just my opinion, the way I sort things. Don’t believe me—balance these three arenas, and see for yourself. But you know something? The people I know who ARE balanced in all three rarely, and I mean RARELY buy into the “X group is better than Y group” business. And people who are REALLY imbalanced seem to have an almost pathological need to believe that because of political affiliation, racial group, religion or nationality they are better than someone else.

You really have to watch the human tendency to mistake insecurity for enlightenment.

If you want to believe that Christians, or Americans, or Muslims, or Republicans, or Homosexuals are the Chosen or Corrupted People, have at it. And I’m going to laugh at you. From where I sit, the show is mighty funny. From time to time I cry, but a good clown triggers that response, doncha know?

Send ‘em in.

2-8-07

I’m finally beginning to polish some of the rough draft on “Assassin’s Creed.” It’s dreadful, but that’s to be expected at this point, and I have to let my ego yammer at me, and just do the work. Do the work.
##
Interesting to note that any time we talk about the race/IQ issue on this blog, the stats go through the roof. That’s probably because there is almost nowhere that this issue is discussed pro and con politely, with members of both races represented.

Let me dive just a little deeper into my thought on the matter. When slaves first arrived in America, whites justified slavery by saying blacks were inferior mentally and morally, and slavery was good for everyone. As time passed, the percentage of whites who thought blacks were inferior shrunk, but there was always a core. These days, the percentage of whites who believe blacks are, on the average, inferior is probably smaller than its ever been. And believe me, they’ve been refining their arguments for 400 years. There is always evidence for any position you want to take—and what you accept or reject often says as much about you as it does the universe outside your perceptions.

Let me make it even clearer. To really measure this issue, the measurer would have to be outside it, devoid of cultural filters at the least. I’ve never met such a person, black or white. For me to believe whites are, on the average, smarter would force me to reject all my personal experience, and place me at the mercy of some external authority. And who are these authorities? Virtually 100% of them are composed of the same group who had massive reason to WANT to believe this conclusion: those descended from the slavers, those who believe in reduced government, those who believe in an hierarchical universe with “their” group at the top. (Note the slight-of-hand with “Ashkenazi Jews” being at the top, but, hey, they’re not white, so our research MUST be impartial and devoid of filters…bleh.)

To go even deeper, if I were to accept raw data from tests devised, administered, and interpreted by a sub-set of the group dealing with guilt over the triggering event above my own observations, I would have to do that across the board: my own observations are meaningless in the face of what others say. And you know where that would get me? The exact same mental process that would allow me to think “blacks are on the average less intelligent, and it is genetically based and immutable” would also come up with “whites are on the average less moral and decent, and it is genetically based and immutable.” While we’re at it, it would also conclude that “men are on the average less evolved and humane, and it is genetically based and immutable” and “women are on the average less intelligent and creative, and it is genetically based and immutable.” None of these things are in my mind, none of them match my world view, and you cannot present me with any amount of evidence GATHERED ONLY BY GROUP X that so denigrates group Y. When black scientists announce an IQ difference, when male scientists announce men inferior, or women scientists announce women inferior, I will find this far more interesting…but still unconvincing, unless it matches my own experience.

And in my mind, anyone who thinks differently, who puts the authority of others over their own experience, is a born slave.
##
I’ve been having fun at Moonview Sanctuary, even more now that I realize that my time with clients can be my own personal training/meditation time. Anything I discuss with others is actually an opportunity to clarify my own thinking. I go over the life triangle (body, career, relationship) and ask for clarity of goals. And I have to ask myself: how clear are my own?

I recognize that these three areas do NOT directly impact the question of “what is true?” or the approach to spirit. But the edge of a sugar cube looks like a square to a two-dimensional mind. In discussing spirit, we are trying to jump “up” one conceptual level, and the mind can’t do it. The mind doesn’t operate in that space without losing its tethers. Here there be dragons. So the “triangle” operates as safety rails as you leap for the divine.

Linking breathing to stress, and strain to dysfunction is another step. If I assume that we have all the resources we need to become whatever it is we are fated or destined to become, then what stops us is strain. This is why the yogic chakras (and Maslow’s Hierarchy) insists that we resolve lower problems before we advance to the next level.
I’ve noticed how frequently great spiritual teachers came from the middle class and higher. If the basic needs are not met, you’re going to spend a gigantic amount of your energy trying to meet them, and probably hold onto the illusion that satisfying them will lead to lasting contentment and happiness. The wealthy are less likely to have that illusion…they already know that having secure food, shelter, etc. doesn’t bring happiness. So they have the motivation and means to dig deeply.

Jed McKenna, whose “Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing” I’ve been enjoying, obviously came from money. Otherwise, his journey would have been even more difficult.
##
At any rate, we all have stress, and the trick is to keep it from becoming strain. Breathing properly keeps you in the eye of the storm: life is a battle, but you are peaceful within. So using Coach Sonnon’s Flow State Performance Spiral to describe the process, and then Flow Fit to force them to move through all six planes of motion while crossing the Neuro Immuno Endocrine response barrier, I can create a miniature “life stress” in completely controlled space, and allow them to SEE how their breathing interrupts, and how this relates to those pesky voices in their heads—and dysfunctional behavior.

It’s dynamite, and in many ways seems to be the core of the world’s spiritual teachings. Now, then…what else would be necessary to complete the voyage, once a firm foundation is reached? Well, something like the “I am” meditation, or McKenna’s “Spiritual Autolysis” would probably fit the bill. Viewed spiritually, you are burning away Maya (the world of illusion) and revealing God, or the true universe, or whatever. Viewed Neurologically, you are flensing yourself of the automatic programming you’ve received since childhood. What remains is kinda like your computer fresh from the assembly line, pre-installation of software. What you can do then is selectively install the software you choose.

This is pretty sensitive work. And it benefits society very little—which is probably why you find so few places that the real work is being done, or even discussed. Churches, schools, political parties, any kind of hierarchical organization you can name will function to improve its own chances for survival. That’s how they work. They’re only as good as the human beings who create them. At best. Frankly, organizations strike me as functioning one level down from the people who create them, so that most are kinda like amoebas, eating everything in their path…or maybe like one of those multi-nucleide slime molds that can grow to hundreds of acres, expanding and expanding until they weigh more than sperm whales.

You will never get truth from an organization. You will never get truth from a teacher, or from experts. The only truth you will ever find will come from aligning your physical experience with your emotions and your intellect. You have everything you need to be anything you need to be. The universe doesn’t cheat: what you must, you can. But most people never really say “I must.” They say: “I don’t like where I am” without clearly defining the alternative. They are trapped by fear, and fear cripples dreams more than anything else. More than everything else. It is the devourer.
##
All that is a way of saying: I will never accept outside authority over my own mind, heart, and body. Period. Yes, that makes me unreasonable. So be it. I am not a reasonable man. I can live with that.

Separate But Equal Lies

Why its so important to have a say in history books. Note the following image and story:

http://www.amazon.com/Defeat-Ethiopian-General-Surrenders-Italians/
dp/B000LM7W3K/sr=1-1/qid=1171561104/ref=sr_1_1/002-1749302-8485627?ie=
UTF8&s=home-garden

The above appears to be a deliberate distortion of an event in the 19th Century, the battle of Adwa, where Ethiopians handed a humiliating defeat to the Italians. This picture seems to lie, stating that it was the Ethiopians who were defeated. Shameful. History is filled with this kind of crap.
##
Someone mentioned that they "weren’t bothered by the fact that Asians and Ashkenazi Jews were above them in I.Q."—and I let them get away with that. Again, if you want to Lump “Asians” or “Blacks” into separate containers, and then separate out Jews…and worse than that, a sub-set of Jews…please sell it somewhere else. I’m not buying here. Bobby Fischer isn’t white? Oh, please.
##
I’ll say this: I think this attitude is in part the result of a century of racist, Nazi propaganda saying “Jews aren’t white. Eventually, even some Jews will buy into it, just as blacks eventually bought into the “One Drop” rule. One thing is certain to me: I would never trust anyone who has those filters on to make a “culturally neutral” IQ test. We simply don’t see the same world.
##
Here’s another way of looking at why the “Ashkenazi Jew” situation ameliorates the terrible damage of believing you’re 3 points shy of Asians (while blacks are supposed to be about 15 points lower!) Imagine three families living on the same block. Asian, Black, White. The Black family is the poorest—by a lot. Asians are richest. The White family is about 3% less well off than the Asians. You’re in the White family, so on AVERAGE you are less wealthy than the Asians…but your brother happens to be a millionaire, a good deal wealthier than the average of the Asians. Wow. That takes the sting out a bit, doesn’t it?
##
Someone else asked why having less intelligence would be a problem. After all, there are mentally disadvantaged members of our community, and they do pretty well. O.K….a retarded member of your family will be cared for by others of your family and community. But if blacks were sub-standard (as a group) where would their aid come from? The same group that enslaved and denigrated them? Would it really be reasonable to expect blacks to feel warm and fuzzy about THAT possibility? And by the way…the position that IQ is genetically determined seems to be a position primarily on the Right…and isn’t the Right the same group that rails about “too much social services, welfare, and race-based considerations?” So what exactly stops you from seeing that, if blacks were actually (on the average) inferior intellectually, it would be a disaster, and it is completely natural and predictable that the subject would trigger fear?

Any teacher knows that if you tell most parents “your child is sub-standard” you trigger fear and anger, even though you aren’t talking about the parent PERSONALLY. Just apply this near-universal reaction, and you’ll understand exactly why black people might be a tad touchy about this.
##
Another subject. Thank God. NPR asked me to look at an enraged essay about the movie “Norbit,” in which Eddie Murphy exploits every imaginable stereotype about fat black women. I’m boycotting the film, but if anyone out there has seen it, I’d love to hear comments. It looks horrible.
##
Has anyone heard of a gentleman named Jed McKenna? He wrote a book called “Enlightenment, the Damnedest Thing.” The book strikes me as being the clearest, sanest discussion of the process of Enlightenment ever written in contemporary English, by a modern American. I’m extremely impressed. His Spiritual Autolysis process is as powerful a tool as I’ve ever seen, and goes to the heart of what I’ve been doing in this blog: emptying out my psychological basement, allowing people to add, attack, or comment, bringing old damage and concepts up where I can see them.

Note how easy it is to get stuck on the lower Chakra stuff: survival, sex, tribalism and power. Every time I talk about these subjects, blog stats go through the roof. Hah! And we wonder why its so hard to move our culture forward…

And applied to each of us personally, it should be obvious why it is so hard to move forward as individual, conscious beings. We are greedy, and mask our greed as political theory. We take no responsibility for the damage we do, projecting that guilt onto others. We have deep, pervasive perceptual filters, and believe we are clear-eyed. We are driven by emotions, and believe that we are logical creatures. We satisfy our most basic needs for security, power, and revenge...and mask it in the name of God. We are asleep, dreaming that we are awake. And those who actually wake up? We call them heretics, and burn them at the stake.

Just keep taking the blue pills. That steak is delicious...

E-mail and other stuff

Aisha--

You can reach me at: lifewrite@aol.com
##
The "one drop" rule, saying that anyone with any black blood at all is black, was a part of American (esp. southern) culture since the 1700s.) Whites were trying to protect their status, and wanted to know who they could sell. It was incredibly damaging. My poor mother, who was about Cher's skin color, never recovered. Black, Mulatto, Quadroon, Octaroon...and then "a nigger in the woodpile." Blacks tried to turn it around by saying "black blood is the strongest in the world--one drop makes you whole." But emotionally, it was clear that light-skinned blacks (notice that there aren't "dark-skinned whites", just "light-skinned blacks" in this sense) were very aware of the vast divide they could not cross. Ah, the "tragic mulatto." Anyway, all of this was clearly crap, but it cut deep, and hasn't been cleansed from the psyche to this day.

Me personally? I use the label "black" for convenience. It reminds me how others see me, and helps me understand some of the areas of damage in my psyche. My sister calls herself "multiracial" which is probably more purely accurate in some ways. When I really think about myself, it's a joke. Race to me is like one of those pictures made from big dots. The closer you look, the less "there" is there. Of course, gender identity is similar, and so is the entire question of existence. I'm digging away at the question "what am I" these days, and that's WAY more basic and frightening than dealing with third-chakra racial issues. Bleh.
##
On the other hand, when you move past this stuff (which I can, at times) very interesting perspectives occur. I love it when people talk about race and I.Q.--and then are oblivious to how painful and insulting such discussions are. One of the things I love about Jerry Pournelle is that he and I disagree about this, but he is VERY aware of how sensitive it is. As a result, we have had many, many talks. If you want to grasp how painful this stuff is, don't have a discussion with me--I'm someone who believes that race doesn't matter in this except as social construct. Have the discussion with an Afrocentric who believes that WHITES are inferior. See how long THAT discussion stays polite. Then, just maybe, you'll understand how it feels to hear skin color, which was the standard used to strip away the humanity of millions of people, then blamed for the current status of those people. Here's another analogy: it's one thing to mug someone, break their legs and piss on them in the gutter. It's another, lower thing to then blame them for being broke, crippled, and stinking. That is an entirely different level of human evil--but completely typical human behavior.
##
But what lies beneath? For me, I could take no pleasure or comfort in being "black"--I was a green monkey like you wouldn't believe at my Jr. High School, and right about puberty, that really sucks. And I certainly couldn't be "white" despite my mother's light skin. So my mind turned inward at a very early age. I began to ask "who am I" or "what am I" which are far more interesting questions. I slogged through a ton of muck-- some of which still devils me--but if you've read my books, my quest to answer that one has been right out in plain sight for almost 30 years.
And I think I'm finally approaching an answer. Now, I wouldn't suggest digging into this too deeply if you have ANY clinical psychological problems, because the answer isn't comforting: there's nothing down there. The Emperor has no clothes. The deeper you look, the more emptiness you find, and it will shatter your ego, ultimately. People end up in the asylum over this. But if you can thread that needle, I believe it's possible to make the journey to awakening without destroying your family, your life, your community, even though in this context none of them are "real"--all of them are "in the dream." That's why at the Path seminar I referred to the subtext of the whole thing as "how to awaken without destroying your dream." I don't feel I have the right to stalk Enlightenment at the (perceived) cost of my son, daughter, or wife, who (perceive that they) need me. That's just me. It pleases me to fulfill those roles. If I ever make it, I may have a different perspective, but in the meantime, I 've done no harm.
##
And Obama? So far, while he is certainly a politician, he also seems to speak more honestly and directly than any main-stream politician I've ever heard. And I think that this is what attracts people to him. If he eventually begins to use the kind of doublespeak that his contemporaries use, it will be a shame, but right now, wow. I guy who talks publicly pretty much the way I think he speaks privately. Who speaks--dare I say it--the way I hope I'd speak were I in his position. I'm not flattering myself there: the guy is smarter than me. I have no illusions about that. But can he remain as HONEST as I try to be? That is a much more interesting question. And is America ready for that?
##
So, what of his race? It's important. It's never, ever NOT been important in this country. Maybe there's someplace on this planet where it isn't, but I've never been there, or been convinced. So we might as well talk about it, although it is uncomfortable to do so. Whatever happens, this next election cycle represents something utterly different. For the first time ever, it isn't just a bunch of white Christian heterosexual guys talking to each other as if it didn't matter that they were just a bunch of white Christian heterosexual guys. The elephant in the living room has finally taken a big steaming dump on the rug. And boy oh boy, is it ever fun to watch people forced to wake up after hundreds of years of comfortable sleep.

I'm giggling. Ultimately, what matters is that the hand on the tiller be smart, and strong, and moral, and honest. If it's a woman's hand, how very very interesting. If it's a dark hand, how very very interesting. The best part in all of this is the discussions we're having--discussions that have been postponed for four hundred years.

Dreaming is great. Wakefulness is better.

Back in Town: Barack Obama roundtable

5) Back in town after a successful PATH workshop in Portland, and also an NPR roundtable yesterday morning for the “On Point” show. I’ll post a link later when I find it—anyone who knows one could do me a solid by forwarding it to me…

##

The roundtable dealt with the subject “Is Barack Obama Black?”which seems to be fluttering around the American psyche these days. This was at least partially triggered by a Salon article which suggested that in America’s social and political reality, no he is not—because he is not descended from West African slaves. My attitude is that, viewed through that specific, narrow lens, I understand the position, even if I don’t agree with it. Before I went on the air, I jotted down a bunch of points I wanted to make, and managed to get most of them in. Thought you might like to see ‘em…
a) If an African immigrant is beaten or shot by white cops, I’ve always thought of him as black. Period. If he’d walked through the wrong Alabama neighborhood in the 50’s, believe me, he’d be black.
b) White racists would LOVE for blacks to splinter themselves like this. They must be licking their chops.
c) Many Africans don’t think American descendants of slaves are “black.” If I’ve rejected that, I also have to reject this.
d) Obama’s father was the product of Colonialization in Kenya—which ended much more recently than slavery, about the same time that Jim Crow and Segregation finally broke down. There is analogous damage.
e) All my life, people have tried to define for me what “black” is. Melanin count? Ability to dance? Speech patterns? Income? Education? I’ve got news for you: there is no Governing Board of Negritude, people. Get over it.
f) We are still living in the shadow of the social reality created by the “one drop” rule in the past.
g) It’s a big tent. There’s room for all kinds of clowns in this circus.

Just thoughts, of varying degrees of value and seriousness.

Honesty First

The entire Lifewriting approach is designed to
mine our own consciousness for creativity, and
then harness it to a practical set of skills for
submission to a public market. It’s an interesting
tightrope walk, believe me.

But the core of it all is the question of honesty in
your writing: do you really believe what you just
wrote? Would a real human being, in this situation,
really do or say what you just wrote? Even if it’s a
fantasy story, would a real being, evolved within a
universe of fantastic potential, behave in this fashion?

Nothing destroys “willing suspension of disbelief”
faster than a character behaving irrationally or for
“author convenience.” The classic example is the
horror movie trope of “let’s all stay together” followed
by the doomed teens wandering off in all directions
to be slaughtered. The audience laughs and eats its
popcorn, not believing this nonsense for a moment—
but that’s really part of the fun. But unless you have
implicit permission from the audience to do this, don’t.

And there is another reason not to. In Lifewriting, we
look at the 360 degree dynamic sphere of plot and
characterization, the way the two create each other.
This needs to be related to our own human “is-ness,”
the truth about our lives, our hopes and dreams and
actions. Every time you lie in your work, you take
yourself AWAY from your essence, and out into the
realm of technique, or craft, or cleverness. All well
and good, but isn’t that a waste of life? Shouldn’t
you, at every moment of your existence, be struggling
to learn what is true about you, about the world, about
the nature of life? And isn’t that the greatest gift you
can give your readers or viewers?

That doesn’t mean you can’t write escapist work. John
McClain in “Die Hard” is a perfectly believable character
within the context of that first film. He is motivated by
love, he bleeds, he feels fear and fatigue and
hopelessness, and covers them with wise cracks. We
all do that. He also happens to be a man of unusual skills,
the kind of man you’d want on your side when a dozen
terrorists strike. The film spawned a thousand imitations
and three sequels, and made Bruce Willis a star. Escapism
is fun—but the actions and feelings of the people must
make sense within the context of the world. You must
be able to put yourself in their place and say: yes. If I
were this person, with this history, and these skills, in
this situation, I would do this as well.

If you do, there is reverberating truth. There is also
increased probability of a sale.

Perceptual Filters and emotional convenience

White readers will probably catch, very quickly in the recent discussions of IQ, that blacks are certainly reluctant to admit the possibility of genetic IQ differences. They will rightly suppose that there are both personal and historical reasons for this. The question is: can you find the lesson for yourself and your group there? By generalizing, one can come to: "Members of a given group are loathe to admit that there are specific, painful aspects of their being or actions, currently or historically." All right, given this, can you be honest enough to see that there are plenty of whites who would be comforted by the idea that blacks are deficient in this arena? Not just "bigots", but those whose ancestors owned or trafficked in slaves, or those who believe in Conservative social economics (why spend money on expensive social programs that can't work anyway?). We are all eager to believe in things that make us look good, and loathe to believe in things that make us, our families or ancestors look bad.
##
After all--there are two (very broadly stated) points of view here. One that blacks are generally intellectually inferior. In which case, slavery was virtually a deliverance from their misery in Africa, and one might well believe that white America has done everything it can for us. Sniff sniff. The next is that blacks are generally equal, in which case you have to accept the possibility of a fantastic amount of damage done over 400 years, resulting in the inequal situation. I can understand how that would be hard to wrap the mind around. Another, of course, is that blacks are superior, triggering huge amounts of jealousy and fear--if we ever get a chance to catch our balance, BOY OH BOY are we ever going to even the score. And more. After all, sports performance used to be the measure of a man, and the way we kick ass disproportionate to our numbers would have to be mighty disturbing to someone who buys into genetic superiority...
No, I don't buy that, but could have great fun crafting an argument around it if I was that kind of A-hole. All I'm saying is that when you notice that black folks are reluctant to look at some things, look at it as a mirror: what are YOU missing? What do YOU believe because it is convenient or comforting? And if you think there isn't anything, boy oh boy are you in for an uncomfortable awakening one day...

Essence before Existence?

Remember I've said that I have a theory about the Conservative-Liberal split? It goes like this: there is such violent disagreement about certain social, political, economic and religious factors along the Conservative-Liberal divide. Since I have absolutely no evidence that there is greater or lesser intelligence, honesty or morality on either side, I started wondering what else could cause such a split. After years of observation, I came to the conclusion that there was indeed a factor that could explain it, and that factor is curiously associated with that old saying about "not talking religion or politics." It's associated because it is one of the roots of both: the argument about whether essence (the soul) proceeds existence, or existence (cultural and social programming) proceeds essence. In other words, does the soul which enters this world with your body create your life, or does the nature of the life you're born into create your soul? It was fascinating to me how many attitudes on each side could be clearly labeled one way or the other. Conservatives, (I argued) TENDED to be against abortion and in favor of the death penalty, both making sense if essence proceeds existence--the fertilized tissue is already a human being with a soul, and the criminal has expressed his basic nature and must be removed from the equation. Liberals (I argued) TENDED to be in favor of "a woman's right to choose" and against the death penalty. Again, it makes sense if the soul is like a reef, created by experience not pre-formed upon entry to this world. The criminal does what he does because of social conditions, not innate tendencies. Why execute a man for what society did to him? Or so, supposedly, the argument goes.
##
How does one arise at one POV or the other? Innate? Social conditioning? Hell if I know, but whichever way you view the world--IF you have a strong tendency one way or another, is a perceptual lens that colors a huge part of your subsequent experience, and causes people to delete that which does not align with those initial beliefs.
#
I bring this up because I realized that there is another piece of support for this little theory of mine: the IQ debate. Almost invariably, those who come down on the "IQ is genetic, and blacks have less of it on average" are conservative. The debate rages on Conservative blogs, and about 95% I've known who support it have Conservative politics in other arenas. Not all those who adhere to the "IQ isn't genetic, and the racial divide isn't caused by immutable biological forces" are Liberal--I know many conservatives who pooh-pooh the idea. But 95% of the Liberals I know definitely are in the "nurture" over "nature" camp on this issue.
##
So I'm not saying that, for instance, being a Hawk on Iraq means that you think black people have less gray matter. I am saying that if you think black people have less gray matter, you're more likely to be a Hawk on Iraq.
##
The basic argument has been raging so long that I suspect it is actually a trick question, sort of like "Is it heads or tails" when the actual answer is, "It's a quarter, idiot." That heads or tails are dependent upon one another, and dependent on point of view. And if you mistake your point of view for the truth, you step away from the light, and into comforting darkness. One of them there duality traps.
##
So here's the experiment: when you meet someone with strong opinions about one of these three arenas: abortion, IQ, the Death Penalty--do a quiet investigation of their attitudes on the other two. Tally it up. After you've done this about ten times, let me know the results, would you? I've been playing with this for some years, but I could use some other information gatherers.

How I know I am not enlightened

Listen carefully: this is the most important post I have ever made here.
##
This is an odd post, because in saying I know for certain that I am not enlightened, I am actually saying that I am closer to it than at any time in my life. I am most certainly not saying I am closer to it than anyone else. Just me. The reason that I am closer is that I now understand more clearly what it is. Why that is I may choose to elaborate upon another time. Let's just leave it at that, reject it if you wish, or accept it. It doesn't matter at all.
##
From my current understanding, Enlightenment is not mystic union, or God Realization, or the acquisition of special powers. It is simply being awake from the dream. It is Truth realization. Those other things are great things, but they are not Enlightenment. This maps over with core statements from every realized being who has ever left a paper trail of his or her path or perceptions. But even if it did not, my "Is-ness" knows it to be true, and this would be enough.
##
How do I know I am not there? Curiously, this came up three days ago, when a famous friend who is overly impressed by my mind asked me about Enlightenment, and I commented that it is reasonable to me that perhaps a couple of dozen Enlightened people live upon the earth at any given time. "Of course" he said, "you are one of them." I could only laugh.
##
Reading back over this blog for the last few days should give anyone all the evidence they need that I am not. An Enlightened being sees the things of this world as shadow-play, is not attached to winning or losing, or the rightness and wrongness of things. They would never find their emotions spiking as mine do on racial issues. The question of race and IQ would not engage them as it does me, and the question of black male images in film would be less important than whether a black or red ant gets that piece of sugar. I am caught in the dream, struggling to awaken. I'm still asleep.
##
Understand something: I will never accept white people's judgement, or calculation, that black people are, on the average, mentally inferior. It would make more sense for a cow to accept a butcher's arguments about why hamburger is good. When a group of black psychometrists sit me down and explain how they came to the same conclusion, I'll listen more carefully, and perhaps accept it. But if I was actually Enlightened, I would not care.
##
There is not joy in this realization, but there is relief, and a certain satisfaction. I know the direction ahead, or within--both terms are only substitutes for words that don' t exist. I know what has been pushing me all these years. I know which of my teachers have been "there" and which have only been "here" with some interesting ideas about what "there" is like. It's actually kind of funny.
I'll continue to report back. But watch me: any time I get caught up in these debates, shake your head and say: "O.K., Steve: not yet. Not yet."

God knows I will.

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

Wow. I just saw the best fantasy film I've seen since "Return of the King." This tale, from director Guillermo del Toro, is the story of a young girl who vanishes into a fantasy world to escape the horrors of war. It is filled with some of the most heartbreakingly beautiful imagery in cinematic history, and is impeccably cast and directed. The CGI effects and makeup are wonderful. Be warned: it has moments of genuine brutality and startling violence, and is NOT for children. This is a fairy tale for adults, in the best and darkest sense of the words. An A+
##
And by the way...someone said that I might be surprised at the amount of variance within sub-Saharan Africans. I doubt it. Like I said--there's more variance there than within either of the other major racial groups. I'm perfectly aware of that. My only point is that since "blacks" are lumped together, as are "Asians," it is a logical inconsistency to separate out a single group from the "White" category. If you're going to separate out "Jews" of any kind, you then have the obligation to differentiate between different groups of Asians and blacks. If you don't , you may be obscuring some freaky little group at the edge of the Sahara with a phenomenal average IQ--after all, Africans have the shortest and tallest people. It wouldn't be too surprising if they had the greatest IQ spread as well. But if you lump them together, (as is most reasonable given the lack of data) you have the obligation to do the same with the other groups.
##
And since there really is no agreed upon scientific definition of "race" other than "human race" I tend to go with the Big Three as "primary colors" of humanity. You can blend these to make anything else on the planet, but you can't blend, say, Asians and Blacks to make White people. On a sociological level, it seems that this is the way people REACT to race, that's for certain. Another factor, playing to my observations about race and sex is: whoever white people don't mind watching in bed with their women, they consider "white." In other words, Desi Arnaz could be married to Lucy. William Shatner got much nookie on Star Trek, no issue. Omar Shariff was considered a matinee idol. No problem. So--Latinos, Jews and Arabs are reacted to emotionally as "white." (as long as they are light skinned), But Asians or blacks, forget it. A curious case is East Indians, who seem to be reacted to sort of as "dark skinned white people" based on the reactions of movie audiences I've been in. But that's way unscientific, and I haven't seen more than a half-dozen East Indian/White woman love scenes total to compare to the dozens of times I've watched and listened to audiences squirm to black/white or Asian/white scenes. I might be wrong.

On I.Q

In reaction to my expression of distrust in I.Q. as arbiter of racial tendencies, a thoughtful reader posted:

"Two of your points appear to be at least partially inconsistent. You insinuate that Caucasians developed and administered the IQ test and that it therefore is not surprising that Africans (I actually prefer the terms White and Black) come out lower than Caucasians. You also note that Asians have higher IQs than Caucasians. If Caucasians rigged the tests (deliberately or otherwise)to favor Caucasians, then why do Asians score higher than Caucasians?

Next, Asians are not at the top of the heap. That honor goes to the Ashkenazi Jews."
##
My comment was not to suggest that whites necessarily "rig" the tests--I have no reason to think that whites are, per capita, more dishonest than anyone else. I say that I DON'T find it surprising that a non-Caucasian group scores lower. I DO find it surprising, and interesting that Asians score higher, and have yet to really speculate on that. But you're being inconsistent here: if whites created the tests, and Ashkenazi Jews are at the top, you're saying a group of whites tested highest aren't you? You may not see it, because this is a form of info-jiggering. Ashkenazi Jews aren't a group completely separate from Caucasians. They are a SUB-SET of Caucasians. Unless you are going to break down Africans or Asians into similar sub-groups, this is a boondoggle. Africans have more genetic variance than any other group, but no one ever breaks down "blacks" into the hundreds of sub-groups that you'd have to break 'em into in order to compare Ashkenazi Jews accurately not to a meta-group like "Asians" but to the appropriate sub-groups: there are dozens within Japanese alone, let alone the vast group called "Chinese." But this is natural: you know all the names of your own children, while the kids down the block are "the Joneses."
##
To my knowledge, the most accurate, non-culturally biased I.Q. test has to do with a light and color switch, and the speed of recognition. Supposedly, this measures "g", the underlying quality which expresses itself as various forms of intellect, more accurately than anything else. Sounds good to me--but I've yet to meet anyone who was given such a test. I've never seen one that didn't have strongly culturally determinant aspects, even if it was only "how many times have you taken such a test before?" The filters of culture are incredibly powerful, and the only way I'd believe this absolutely is if a Martian, completely outside the system, created a test for Earthlings. Or if you took blind kids, raised them without any visual cultural referents, had them mate, gave them all identical nutrition, and then tested THEIR kids. Or if the test was created by equal numbers of experts from each major racial group.

But saying that blacks have the same range of intelligence, but a different distribution, is just a polite way of calling us niggers. That "different" range boils down to "less intelligence on the average," otherwise it wouldn't be used to explain poverty and crime and lesser income. No one ever says this meaning "there are fewer unintelligent black folks, and more smart ones, relative to whites!" All my life, some whites--always Conservatives, by the way--have invited me to separate myself from other black folks, saying that "we're not saying all black people are unintelligent! Why are you taking offense? YOU'RE perfectly smart, Steve..." God, I have heard that, and variations on it, so often I want to vomit.

So please, please, know that phrasing it this way only makes the same terrible statement more polite and socially acceptable--it doesn't change what you're saying.

I hate Politics...

It's a dirty game, and a single misstep can trash an otherwise worthy candidate. Now, I know nothing about Biden, but this, just in the New York times...

"Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who announced his candidacy on Wednesday with the hope that he could ride his foreign policy expertise into contention for the Democratic nomination, instead spent the day struggling to explain his description of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat running for president, as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” "

Can obviously be explained as an attempt to say this:
"Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, is the first African American running for president with a chance to really compete in the mainstream of American politics. A terrific candidate, he is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

Now, if I'd heard him say that, I would still have a slight sense of condescension--white candidates never say things like that about each other. It's a little like the way white people love to rush up to me and say how "articulate" I am. I know where it's coming from, and am not insulted--it's hard to get over three hundred years of brainwashing saying that black people are mush-mouthed (especially when too damned many athletes and rappers in the public eye seem all too eager to prove the stereotype right). But you can be certain that Biden's campaign just died, before it could flap a wing. Pity. I would have enjoyed hearing his ideas. And by the way--when I first heard this, I assumed he was a Republican, and had the identical reaction, and would have posted this just as quickly.

Predictions about "Black Snake Moan"

Coming soon is a rather lurid-looking piece about a black man helping to "cure" a little white nymphomaniac. I haven't seen "Black Snake Moan" yet, but I'm putting in my bets: the black guy, played by Sam Jackson, won't be sampling Christina Ricci's succulent young body. They will taunt and tease the audience, but in the end, the perennially unlaid Jackson will do another Spiritual Guide routine. More disturbing is that, if I'm not mistaken, Craig Brewer, the director, was behind "Monster's Ball" where he whored Halle Berry to Billy Bob Thornton...and he's black. I really don't know what to say about this, except there is one brother who really really knows how to play the system. He obviously has his finger on the pulse of white America. I would have no idea at all how to do that. Maybe I should be glad I don't.
##
When I said "last gasp of the patriarchy" I didn't mean worldwide. Absolutely, Islamofascists (especially in Afghanistan) are sexist to a level hard to even imagine here. In Bush's case, I mean the tendency to believe that if you have a hammer, it should be able to handle any "nail" and if it doesn' t work, hit it again, harder. And then harder. And we don't need to talk to our enemies. And anyone who disagrees with me is a mindless traitor or coward. This is, in my mind, all very "male" behavior (although there are certainly women with such tendencies.). the balancing overly-feminine behavior would be to open arms and just believe if we gave 'em all a hug, it would be all right. In women's political power, abortion rights, and workplace advancements, I'm seeing more female empowerment, and it seems to drive certain types of men right up the wall. Personally, when it comes to abortion and such issues, I'd love to let ONLY women vote on the question. but that's just me.

Disney's "Litterbug" Question

In 1961, the very last Donald Duck short subject was called "The Litterbug." In that short, there was a song that started "Litterbug, Litterbug, shame on you. Look at the terrible things you do..." does anyone know the rest of this song?
##
I really do think that most problems among human beings arise from relatively universal principles. Just had a discussion with a friend about whether "peace is impossible in the Middle East, because Muslims are culturally or genetically frozen in the past, or set into a warrior mind-set and prefer battle to peace." Brrr. This same person drops lotsa comments about "group X having this negative tendency, and group Y having this other negative tendency." Not surprisingly, they never generalize this way about white people. Sadly, this person is not white, and is of mixed blood, and in my opinion has some real confusion on these issues. At any rate, a gigantic amount of problem arises from the assumption that people who behave differently are reacting to the same stimulus with a different response. The Arab world has a pretty decent set of reasons to think the West is out to get 'em. The history of the Crusades, combined with British Imperialism, combined with the creation of Israel...I doubt seriously that we would react differently. That said, there is no EXCUSE for terrorist bombings against civilian targets, although there may well be reasons for it. I also loath dropping A-Bombs on civilian targets, but we did it. We may well have had excellent reasons, but there is no way to say that that was one of our finest MORAL moments, however tactically or strategically appropriate it may have been.
##
However vital it may be to hunt down and slaughter Al Queda (and I think it certainly is) to suggest that the actions of Arabs are somehow different than the rest of humanity is to blind yourself, to make an "us/them" dichotomy that leads to such absurdities as bombing cities in the name of "Christian" values, and asserting, on the one hand, that we invaded Iraq for the sake of the Iraquis, while on the other hand saying that its better for us to fight terrorists "over there" than over here. And never seeing that these positions, while fitting under the same political tent, can't really be held in the same mind without a certain degree of cognitive dissonance.
##
In my mind, the answer lies in a meld of Male and Female approaches: devastatingly surgical violence combined with real open-hearted understanding and compassion. The combination creates new life, new potentials, new perspectives that cannot be grasped by those frozen into either polarity. It is through uniting Ida and Pingala along the Chakra line that energy grows, rises and evolves. I suspect that what we are seeing in the Bush administration is the last gasp of the Patriarchy before a cycle of more feminine energy washes through the world. That, too, in time will become stifling and corrupt, and it'll be time for another male cycle. But I kinda suspect we're at that kind of precipice right now--and it is morbidly fascinating to watch.

Screw both sides. I just hope our grandchildren win this one.

"24" and racial images

Someone asked me my take on "24" and the Presidents Palmer. Hmmm. You know, I love that show, but it also disturbs me just a little bit right now. The question of the black presidents touches on the question of why they are black. Now, Keifer Sutherland implied in a "Larry King Live" interview that there was some deliberateness about this from his point of view, that he liked the interjection of that racial image into the American culture. But then, I don't believe he was part of the original casting decision for Dennis Haysbert, so the suspicion comes that Haysbert was cast initially for his gravitas, and they explored the racial aspect later.

"24's" love of killing popular characters led to a real shocker last year, when Palmer was killed. All right, I accept that. But one of the things that made it tolerable for me was the presence of the black CTU agent Curtis Manning, who had tremendous presence and physical grace, to the point where white guys on the "Aintitcoolnews" 24 talkback referred to him as "the black Bauer." Pretty funny, but on an ethnic level that gave me something to identify with. This season, Wayne Palmer, David's little brother, is introduced as the new president. Shortly afterwards, they kill Curtis.

There are a couple of things that disturb me about this. One is the sense that black characters are being manipulated SPECIFICALLY according to their race. Another is the fascinating, and even odder fact that both Palmer and Manning were killed with shots to the throat. And both episodes were broadcast on...Martin Luther King's Birthday. King, of course, was shot in the throat in a sniper hit that definitely mirrored Palmer's assassination. For the second character to die the same way, on the same day, is just too much for coincidence. No. The writers are definitely white, and they are definitely at some level thinking of these men as "black" even before they think of them as "men." Wayne Palmer is a bit of a weenie compared with his brother, although I'm quite certain he will "grow up" over the course of the season, I can't help but feel he is a black pawn being pushed around the chess board by a white finger, for the sake of evoking strong emotions from the white audience, without any real sense of how all this would feel if one had more melanin. Fair enough. I've had to deal with this my whole life, and I struggle to find a place within myself where I feel less manipulated. But frankly, it sucks a bit of my pleasure out of the show. The manipulation of racial images--and specifically the killing of powerful black men to jigger the ratings, suggests something unpleasant about the men who thought this was an appropriate way to conduct creative business. I'm sure they consider themselves racially enlightened and yada yada yada.

But meanwhile, it's getting just a little harder to ignore that this is all playing out on Fox Network, if you know what I mean.

Skin Tone and Earnings

http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/study-says-skin-tone-affects-earnings
/n20070126165509990002?cid=403

A recent study suggests that, for immigrants from around the world, one skin shade lighter makes the same difference as one year of additional education: about 8-15% increase in salary! For goodness sakes, people: look at the utter viciousness of the last political cycle. People of the same nation, race, religion etc. were absurdly venomous to those in the opposite camp. You are, in my mind, extremely naive if you think that human prejudice doesn't leap out even more strongly when differences are visually based. Black people, gays, women, the obese, the very short--will understand instantly that this is true. White straight lean-bodied males will have much more difficulty believing--not because of any innate perceptual flaws, but because when you are on the winning team, you tend not to question the referee's calls. This is human nature down at the 3rd-chakra level. The cure is to open the heart space.
##
I can understand why Conservatives often rail against attempts at social engineering through the law. But considering the persistence of these apparently innate and intractable tendencies, it should be obvious why those who are at the effect of these psychological tendencies would try to use the legislative process to compensate for the negative pressures they experience just by getting out of bed in the morning with the wrong skin tone. Perhaps that isn't the way we want to run our society, but please don't think you wouldn't feel the same way, in their place.

Again, the basics...

The basics of the technology I'm looking at can be approximated by anyone who does the following:
1) 20-30 minutes of meditation, three times a week. Consider your goals in all three major arenas
2) 20-30 minutes of some progressively intense exercise that moves the body through all major planes of flexion (ashtanga yoga, Bikram yoga, Tai Chi, FlowFit, etc.) three times a week.
Goals in all three major arenas.
##
These need to be deepened with practise and instruction, the idea to slowly make the daily work more and more intense. Let me tell you something--this isn't a game, and it isn't for the timid. If you do this, I promise you that every negative aspect of your subconscious will rise to the conscious level, every self-destructive habit will rear its head, every negative associate will show his true colors. You will hit the dark night of the soul in ways you may not currently believe. More on this later...

DSL Finally up...

We've been in the new house a week, and just today got our DSL in. Wow...I am so darned happy. Wasn't really aware of how important my internet has become.
##
Lots of things going on, including the fact that I can finally talk openly about the new project I'm doing for Ubisoft, three novels based on their upcoming "Assassin's Creed" game. This is research on the fly, trust me, and I have to work very very hard to keep the stress from becoming strain.
##
My work at Moonview Sanctuary in Santa Monica is fascinating. I'm embracing the opportunity to experiment more deeply with the technologies I've been studying and teaching over the last decades. There is a simple basic premise to everything I'm doing: we are beings designed to evolve. We can heal and complete ourselves, given proper resources, and faith. The physical body is a fantastic metaphor for the entire body-mind complex, and a perfect entry point: you can't fake the body. Relaxation, balance, and focus under pressure can all be used to reveal psychological and spiritual states. Cuts through the B.S. with great speed. The professionals at this institution are absolutely top notch, and it is a profound honor to be in their presence...
##
Saw "Primeval" an old-fashioned monster movie dealing with a rogue crocodile in Central Africa. Actually a good deal better than I thought, even though it came within a hair of getting a rousing Sambo Alert. Ultimately, I give it a pass, although I get real, real sick of black characters dying so that white people can find love and redemption. Still, lotsa good scares, and I really, really needed to turn my brain off and just enjoy! Give it a "B-", or a solid "B" if you're into Creature Features.

Back on track...

Wow. Was moving all last week, and now in the new house. Don't have the DSL up properly yet, so communication will be a little spotty. Please bear with me!
##
I've been experimenting with the Lifewriting technology at a high-end wellness facility out in Santa Monica. The most important aspects for helping these super-achieving clients seems to be:
1) Self-forgiveness.
2) Heartbeat meditation
3) Linking the "child" self and the "elder" self.
4) Moving the body through the six degrees of freedom (yoga, tai chi, FlowFit, etc.)
5) Balanced goals in all three aspects.

These are people who have accomplished everything most of us think would make us happy, but have often "externalized" their "Self"--that is, created an external image that allows them to accomplish their dreams by evoking powerful responses from the public. Internally, there can be a sense of emptiness that is really quite profound.

But one thing I'm learning from them is the degree to which they are super-clear on the end results they initially desired. The flaw seemed to be that they didn't have a goal to be happy and healthy as well. Their shields are formidable--as they have to be. They are surrounded by predators. But by linking them up with their own memories of their younger selves, it is possible to help them clarify their values and true needs. It is an awesome responsibility, and I absolutely love it! What an honor...

Letting Go

And another note from a reader:
##

Dear Mr. Barnes,

Just a quick note.

I don't always read this list, because I have a lot going on, and some of what you have to say doesn't really connect with me.

But then you write, and I read, a message like this one. I haven't been reading the list of late, just letting the emails accumulate. Then I decide to read today's message.

For me, it is *all about* my inability to write fiction precisely because I cannot give myself permission to let go and write crap. How does the Lifewriting course address this? Could you please elaborate on this subject (the specific one of letting go, and the general subject of your email) on this list?

Thanks for doing what you do, and for writing these messages and sending them for free. Sometimes, they hit directly home.

Regards,
Mitch S.
##

Mitch—

There are a thousand ways that the LIFEWRITING YEAR LONG addresses this. Some of them are conscious and intellectual (assignments, philosophical positions, examples of other artists) some are purely emotional (working with dream diaries, meditating and journaling) and some are actually physical/kinesthetic (the constant encouragement to exercise and move the body). Fear, especially fear of not reaching our potential as human beings—or fear that our potential is not sufficient to reach our goals—is crippling, and real, and affects artists and human beings at all levels of life. It is a constant companion. Learning to separate yourself from the “voices in our heads” is one of the most important things we can do.

The LIFEWRITING YEAR LONG came out of thirty years of searching for a way to get past my own blocks. I always sensed that however high or wide the social barriers might have been, my personal demons were far more damaging to my dreams. So I searched places that most writers don’t—Shamanism, hypnosis, martial arts, psychology, mythology, yoga…I literally couldn’t list all of the places I studied and struggled. And finally, I hit a kind of “critical mass” where I just UNDERSTOOD. And I also understood that the ultimate truths of these things cannot quite be put into words. If it could, wiser men and women than I would have done so by now. But what CAN be done is the delineation of a Path…a road. No matter what your block, if you work your way through the LIFEWRITING YEAR LONG, you will find yourself a different, better, healthier, more successful writer on the other side of that journey, and you will understand yourself, and your art, on a level it may currently be difficult to believe.

Just remember: your writing is an expression of your Self, and you are an expression of the divine. Remove your ego from the equation, and all the wisdom of the universe is yours. Learn to channel your energy and intelligence through the patterns of myth that have worked for twenty thousand years, and you join the community of storytellers who have helped men and women understand themselves and their lives through the greatest struggles imaginable. “Success,” however you define it, is only a by-product of the daily commitment to discover who and what you really are, and the ultimate meaning of your life.

The LIFEWRITING YEAR LONG is my expression of this. It is as close to truth as I can get at this point in my life, after receiving the wisdom of countless teachers, writers, and role models. Unifying the artistic and personal worlds holds the promise of enormous growth and phenomenal joy. Stop waiting. Life is not a dress rehearsal, Mitch. Don’t you deserve your dreams?

Fear, again...

Here's a note from a student:
###

Good Afternoon Steven,
I have the question of the year for you, its right up your alley;

How do you control fear? Better; how do you get rid of fear?

All of my life I have wondered what it is that inhibits me from accomplishing great things.
It cant be just my environment and upbringing.
Gender may play a part as well as race, but in the end it is up to me to kick those aside. Logically I know this but theory and action are not melding.
I have read your topics related to fear from postings and they help, but I think I need an anti-fear injection (lol)

All joking aside, I need to get a handle on fear and make it work for me at the very least, if not eliminate it.

The most challenging and difficult part of being alive is controlling your thoughts, at least for me it is.

What do you think would help?
Thank you
M
######

Dear M—

There are numerous techniques that might work. Let’s put a little frame of reference around it first, though, shall we?

Fear is generally a sign that some aspect of your personality considers the situation or required behaviors to be dangerous or reminiscent of something dangerous—a risk to life and limb, a chance for rejection or humiliation, a reminder of some past failure or catastrophe. Remember that your subconscious is just trying to protect you.

Often, though, you are being “protected” from your own path of growth. And this is no joke. If you complete a cycle of the Hero’s Journey, your ego is in very real risk of shattering, or at the least, expanding. Going through the Dark Night of the Soul is always terrifying and humbling. The “real” you will survive it, while your self image rarely does.

With this in mind, remember that the forward path in life should be taken with deliberate speed, slowly and certainly, a jog or walk rather than a sprint. You’re in this for the long haul. It is wise to have a meditation practice to help you work through the emotional gunk that will inevitably bubble up.

Here are a couple of very specific things that you can try to deal with fear:

1) Visualize a glass tube filled with water. Glitter is suspended in the water. Watch the glitter until it settles to the bottom. Practice this for twenty minutes at a time, minimum. This may take weeks.

2) You don’t need to erase fear from your life (in fact, that is damned near impossible). Instead, get SUPER clear on the value and benefits of your desired goals. In other words—put your fear behind you, your love in front of you, and run like hell!

3) The “Godzilla” of fear-coping mechanisms is Scott Sonnon’s Fear Removal technique, sometimes called the “Spider Exercise.” You need an aerobic exercise (running, walking, rowing, etc.) where you can go into “second wind”—usually about 15-17 minutes of steady state exercise. Here’s what you do: spend 10 minutes visualizing or mentalizing the fear-inducing stimulus. Do this until you are shaking and crying. (BTW—if you are dealing with serious abuse or other issues, consult with a councilor or therapist before doing this!). The way I quantify the desired state of emotional arousal is “crying out of my nose.” Then IMMEDIATELY perform the aerobic exercise until second wind is reached. That’s all. The next time you are confronted by the stimulus, you should feel a 15-25% reduction in fear levels. You can perform this exercise about once a week—no more often than that!

Remember that fear is a normal part of life. The more important and powerful the goal, the more likely you are to experience discomfort. Forgive yourself for being human!

Oprah and other thoughts...

Read quite a few bits of praise and criticism of Oprah's school for girls in South Africa. Much of the controversy seemed to center around the supposed opulence. I just wanted to throw my two cents in. My thoughts are this:
1) its her money.
2) The woman is (financially, at least) inarguably the most successful and powerful black woman in American history. She just may know a thing or two about the mental and emotional foundations for success.
3) And success is the key word. This is specifically a school for leaders. She's not trying to create middle-class girls, or a secretarial pool. Leaders.
4) All over the world, when successful people have children, they spoil them. I suspect that, while this tendency can lead to excess, it also works in terms of creating an expectation. And that expectation drives them the rest of their lives.
5) Poverty isn't ennobling. Been there, done that. The reason we love stories of people who rise from poverty to great wealth is that they are so rare. Africa has been trying poverty for a long time. Let's try something else, shall we?
##
So…this morning I hit a very nice level in my meditations, and I think it was because of what I did last night going to sleep. I’m under considerable stress (moving to a new house while in crunch mode on a project. Ouch.) and three nights ago I could barely sleep. So I used a Tim Piering modification of a zen meditation technique, and with each breath repeated silently to myself “I am.”

That worked nicely, so last night I combined it with the breath and heart work I’ve been doing: heartbeat meditation at the same time that I do a subtle Be Breathed pattern (just feeling the abdominal muscles contract with each breath, and slightly pulsing the anal sphincter).

Now, when I did this at the same time as the “I am” exercise, some interesting things started happening. I found that, rather than being overwhelmed, my mind seemed to deepen, and I had additional attention left over even as my body became heavier, warmer, and unmistakably began to sink toward sleep.

So I visualized a triangle at my third eye, and concentrated the “I am” sense there. A visualization of myself, sitting in full lotus, appeared (even though I was lying down at the time) in the center of the triangle. I felt myself pulled into the triangle in the IMAGE’S head. Falling through into another “me,” each one nested in the middle of the previous one’s triangle. Strange.

And then it was like a flow, rather than a series of discrete images, and I felt the flow moving both forward from the level of my eyes, and “up” along my spine simultaneously. About this time, when I slightly contracted my anus and pelvic floor, I felt something open beneath me, and light shot up. Not the most powerful experience of this that I’ve had, but the only time its ever seemed in direct relationship to specific visualizations or efforts on my part.

End of the Week thoughts...

I've known compulsive gamblers: just one more pull, one more card. One more lottery ticket. I can get even, I can earn it back...
I've known cocaine addicts: one more line and I'll "be there." I can quit whenever I want. It's my decision. I'm not hurting my family.
I've known abused women: he needs me. I made a commitment. He loves me. He's sorry. He promised not to do it again...
Bush's speech the other night, asking to send yet more Americans into the jaws of death based on his opinion that it would be catastrophic if we pulled out.
Here's the sad thing: he might be right. But I no longer believe a damn thing he says. That is so freaking dangerous, I can't begin to tell you. Now, I'd only believe someone who WASN'T on-board from the beginning. Someone who opposed the original invasion, but now believes that we must stay--and there are such people. Needless to say, they seem to be outweighed by those who think this entire misadventure is the worst foreign policy blunder in American history. And now he wants us to double down...

So I'm asking: is there anyone out there who DISAGREED with the decision to go to Iraq, who now believes we must send 20,000 more troops..?
##
So far, the opinions on the "way out" of a dire economic or social circumstance revolve around:
1) Taking personal responsibility
2) Accepting the need to work long and hard to raise yourself up
3) Surrounding yourself with people who can help you reach your goal.
##
The above are, in my mind, absolute truths. A question might be asked: how do you attract people who are (in Dan Moran's words) "smarter than you"? Well, smart people have needs, too. You can offer them your energy, enthusiasm, honesty, friendship, emotional support.
Another implicit need: a clear goal. After all, you can't know what kind of people can help you to your goal if you don't know your goal!
Remember the "Piering Principle": to succeed you need clear written goals, and the ability to take action despite the voices in your head.

One of the reasons I harp on weight issues is that if you look at the three major arenas of life (body, career, relationships), body is the one where you have the most control. You can literally be alone in your house, never talk to another human being, and get into great shape. The other two pretty much DEMAND interaction with others, and that is when chaos creeps in. So working with the body is a great microcosm of the skills necessary to succeed anywhere else. It's simple--just physics and a bit of physiology. It ain't EASY, though--because of all the brain chatter, avoidance mechanisms, and social programming. It also doesn't have to take much time. The "Enter the Kettlebell" program over at Dragondoor has a terrific workout that takes only 34 minutes a WEEK. No joke, folks. So...what's your excuse?
##
"24" is about to start again. Oboy, oboy, oboy...just can't wait, and wrote another NPR piece on the subject--hopefully it will be broadcast next week. Meanwhile, in and around watching the Jack Bauer Power Hour, I'm gonna be moving. And writing 1000 words a day, minimum, on the "Assassin's Creed" project. And pitching "The Pack" at Jamie Foxx's company. Oh, and doing author photos for "Casanegra" and revving my martial arts practise back up for the New Year. I HAVE to meditate every day, or I'll tear myself apart...

Orgasms and relationships

I have a good friend, a lady in her fifties, who is exiting a loveless, sexless marriage and beginning a new relationship. Almost accidentally, I discovered that she has never had an orgasm in her life. Needless to say, I suggested that she invest in some toys, and begin to discover her body. My question: what do you think about this situation? Guys, how does it impact you if your lover cannot or does not climax? Ladies, I would just bet that you have some thoughts on this one. Love to hear them...
##
One of the comments about "Children of Men" touched on the cultural difference between American and British blacks. The thought was that the average British black person is descended from people who wanted to be there. The average American black person is descended from someone who was dragged kicking and screaming...and it is easy to imagine that there is a real difference.

But the real question is one of the difference between our innate abilities and those that are programed or developed along the way. And if you look deeply enough into that question, it is an inquiry into the soul itself. What are we? How shall we make our way in the world? How can we find a path with heart? It is so terribly easy to lose our way. Here is a short list of factors I've seen damage lives massively:
1) Rape. Oh, my God. Damages future relationships, body image (lots of obesity in this group), self-worth and anger issues.
2) Sexual abuse. Very very similar. When a child is abused by a trusted adult, the result I've seen is a ferocious implosion of esteem. Despite high intelligence and energy, their efforts to move forward in their lives are often sabotaged on every side.
3) Lack of family support. People who are the butt of the family joke can be over-achievers, or drastic under-achievers.
4) Lack of community respect. Combine this one with #3, and you're sleeping on the street.
##

Like I said, a short, short list. Our job as adult human beings is to clearly define the path leading to a life of contribution, joy, and growth, and then to walk it. Whatever damage we have sustained, we are not alone--others have walked the Thousand Mile Road with similar, or worse, challenges. I remember a Conservative friend challenging me about the education system. What would I do if I was given the money to renovate it? I said that the first move would be to spend a year studying every example of teachers or schools that have performed above expectations, have corrected negative behaviors and grade trends. Those who have taken disadvantaged minority or poverty-challenged students, and produced unusually positive results. I would get those people in a room together, and create a list of the common elements in their successful programs. And then I would replicate that.
#
The same thing is true in individual human beings. What are the things in common in that group achieving beyond the average? True, some of these things are innate, probably genetic or prenatal. Others have to do with early childhood development. Well, that's too late for us adults, but we can choose our mates carefully, and give our children every advantage in the home. But some of the differences will be things we CAN control. And if you turn yourself in to a student of such differences, and then look at your own life and see where you are out of alignment with them, it is possible to change your life.

So here's another question: what have you seen to be the most important qualities or habit patterns that have helped people from negative or disadvantaged backgrounds achieve despite their environments?

More thoughts on “Children of Men”

You know, I was really kind of stunned by the movie, truth to tell. I was expecting something a little more effects-driven (there are some excellent, subtle digital effects, but “Children” could have done without them) and perhaps more action based. Don’t get me wrong: the action scenes are absolutely superb, but it’s all so well integrated that I never found myself thinking “here’s an action scene.” I occasionally noticed that the director was showing off a bit—doing an incredibly complex scene in a single shot. This creates a sense of sustained tension that is impressive, but in terms of clarity of depiction, well, the one-take approach suffers in comparison to more traditional methods.

Still, I simply have no complaints that are as important as the message this film had. At the core of life, of society, of our mental and spiritual health, it suggests, is the continuation of life, and that continuance takes the form of our children.

A world without children’s laughter is a dying world, and the spiritual malaise infecting Cuaron’s world is palpable, infects every frame, drains the joy from scenes and lives like a force of cosmic suction. This is a horror film about the death of hope on a global scale. If I had seen it last year, it would be on a very short list of “Best ofs.”


The pregnant woman at the core of the film is black, and if this was an American film, I think my antennae would have twitched at that. Ah, another spiritual guide, an opportunity for white folks to ennoble themselves.

But this is a British film, and I have noticed that Brits seem to have a slightly different relationship with their former Colonials than Americans have with their former slaves. The 2003 film “Love Actually” has a more matter-of-fact approach to interracial relationships than I have ever seen in a U.S. film, and quite disarmed me. So I was willing to look at the plight of pregnant Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) as that of a woman, not a symbol. Yes, it was irritating that she didn’t know who the father was, but that actually fits with a world in which there is no pregnancy. Meaningless, anonymous sex would be the norm, bonded loving relationships the exception. And the fine, fine Nigerian actor Chiwetal Ejiofor is on hand, avoiding the horrific “John Coffey” syndrome where a single black character somehow becomes an abstraction, not a human being with hopes, dreams and needs.

No. Kee is childish, wise, weak, strong, and a whorish Madonna. She is confused about what is happening to her, and exquisitely perceptive about her own path—she wants to have her child. She wants to find someone, somewhere she can trust, and when she places her faith in Clive Owen’s dispirited civil servant Theodore Faron, we are pulled along with her decision: there seems no one else in the world more appropriate to her plight. And if he is redeemed by his efforts, by her trust, it does not diminish her.

And when other people finally are aware of what is among them (I don’t want to be too specific), the way she is saluted and regarded was one of the most powerful scenes I have ever, ever seen in a movie. Believable to an absurd degree, and in an odd way echoed “The Pursuit of Happyness” in its statement that children are our life, that we are capable to doing things for them that we could not, would not do for ourselves.

As science fiction goes, it simply doesn’t get more relevant than this. There may or may not be tremendous climatic or biological threats in our future. But the risks associated with not remembering that our grandchildren are watching us, that our descendants two hundred years from now will judge us for what we do here, in the first hundred years of the new millennium…well, they are simply too high to ignore.

“Children of Men” is a terrific piece of filmmaking, and the first great film I’ve seen in 2007. The year is off to a very, very good start indeed.

NY Sexuality Workshop

Many of you know that I spent years studying sacred sexual traditions, partially as book research, and partially because I could sense that this was another pathway to the same energy I'd been seeking all my life.  The two ladies who are teaching this workshop in New York are among the few I would endorse heartily--their knowledge of the traditions is impeccable, and their personal energy is excellent.  If the following notice calls to you, and you live in the New York area, you wouldn't be disappointed!

Steve
#####
Men's Night:
Cultivating Your Masculine Sexuality


Thursday, March 8: 7 – 10 pm. $35

One Spirit Learning Alliance, 330 W 38th St, Suite 1500, New York, NY 10018


With Mukee Okan and Kristin Viken
        
How can you transform sex from the dutiful, familiar, mundane into a potent form of expression as a man?
 
Sex is the strongest force within and the foundation of existence. When you block your sexual expression
you create imbalance in many forms — including depression, illness and disease.
 
Sex can increase your pleasure, aliveness, vitality and health, prosperity and abundance.

An evening of practical men’s sexuality teachings from the tantric traditions and shamanic ceremonial lineage.
Experience your infinite sexual energy more powerfully as a man.
The evening will encompass specific teachings on the qualities of the masculine.
And how a man can seed his vision and gift to the planet through his balance in all aspects — including his sexuality.
 
Both Mukee and Kristin have worked individually with many men over many years to inspire, support and encourage full sexual expression.
 
MUKEE Breezes Love is a sacred sexuality teacher and tantra artist. Her foundation is in the essence of Tantra, since 1984, shamanic spiritual sexuality since 1990 and as a surrogate partner therapist in the Western medical model for sexual healing since 1995. Mukee loves to share what works. http://www.spiritfireproductions.com <http://www.spiritfireproductions.com/>

 

KRISTIN Golden Ring Snake is a sacred sexuality teacher and an international authority in dearmoring the blocks to full orgasmic expression in the body. Kristin leads recapitulated shamanic de-armoring intensives in the United States, Canada, Norway and Australia. http://www.shamanicdearmoring.com <http://www.shamanicdearmoring.com/>
 
 
 
To register and for more information

Call Yael: 718-388-3382 antelopedreamer@yahoo.com
Or Mukee: 602-482-961 mukee@spiritfireproductions.com

Happy Sunday!

I'm testing the new password--been hacked a couple of times recently, darn it!
##
"Children of Men" (2007) is the first movie I've seen this year, and it is superb. Set in England twenty years from now, after all human beings have become infertile, it deals with the collapse of hope, and the rebirth of dreams. While the performances are great, it is the direction (by Mexican auteur Alfonso Cuaron) that is astounding. There are action sequences here, done in a single take, that simply defy belief. Wow. And ultimately, the film is deeply affecting, and life-affirming in a way I haven't seen in a very long time. A superb science fiction film set in a fully realized world. Don't expect a lot of flashy effects--"Children of Men" doesn't need them.
An "A-"

Thursday January 4th

Almost as if it knows that I’m juggling massive stress, my internet is acting funky…sorry about the spotty posts.
#
Let’s talk a little about the real reason I discuss racial issues.  Beside working to “clean out” my own emotional basement, a lot of this has to do with the nature of the little demons that hold us back: on the individual level it cripples relationships, keeps us from our dreams of success, damages our connection with our physical bodies.  Note that people generally blame their environment or upbringing for these troubles. And they are right—and they have to get over it if they are to live happy lives.

Note that on a social level, groups thrash around patting themselves on the back if they’ve done well, blaming others if they do poorly.  There is a flip-side to that one, though—note the recent comments by Conservative pundits that “The Democrats didn’t win—we beat ourselves.”  This is a line recognizable to anyone who ever played team sports, a coach stealing power from the other team’s efforts, shaming his players and trying to left-hand complement them at the same time.  Wow. As if the other team didn’t half-kill themselves with drills and practice into the small hours, and flay themselves on the field.  Or as if the Democrats didn’t pull out all the stops stirring up their base, and raising money.  You can ALWAYS take or deny credit or blame.  It’s a game, and people play it to what their ego considers the best advantage.

By looking at the different levels, moving back and forth between groups and individuals, seeing the excuses they use to disguise their greed, guilt, shame, or whatever—it is easier to understand the conversations in our own minds.
##
I’ve thought that it might be possible to condense the basic requirements of forward motion in life to just three aspects: Breath, Heart, and balance. 
1)     If you work on the thread of breath connecting mind and body, using yoga, tai chi, FlowFitor some other body-mind discipline to raise and coordinate your energy, this is great.  Twenty minutes a day minimum, three times a week.
2)     If you will spend time meditating (say, Heartbeat med, working from there to the chakras as a visualization), it helps to clear out the emotional and spiritual garbage that is stirred up as the energy begins to “move.”  (These are metaphors, not literal statements of physics).  Again, twenty minutes three times a week minimum.
3)     Balance.  Remaining aware of your three major goals for the year, month, week, day. 

It seems to me that with these as a minimum, you can begin to collect methods of refinement and intensification.  Over time, you’ll find your own way…but never back off these minimums.  It is uncomfortable, and damn near everything in the world will conspire to stop you from maintaining such a simple program---excellent evidence that something important is happening here.

Wednesday, January 3rd

Well, the post today is brief—can’t believe how much there is to do!
##
Irritation…someone I’d asked to read one of my projects for specific technical feedback.  This person just couldn’t make the time.  Now, they’re finally reading it, and pointing out errors with a certain “know it all” attitude, as if I hadn’t begged them for help BEFORE it was published.  Sigh…
##
Watching “DreamGirls” at the boxoffice.  It has an excellent chance of crossing the 100-million dollar mark.  There are a couple of mildly sexy scenes…I wonder if it should be considered to have crossed that special threshold when and if it crosses the 100-million mark.  Would anyone who has seen it please offer an opinion?  Does or does “Dreamgirls” not qualify as a blockbuster with black love scenes? 
#
Suggestion for the New Year: every day, 20 minutes of meditation and/or FlowFit or Yoga.  Re-commit to your goals daily, in each of the three major arenas.  Remember that as you move toward them, you will be tested in every arena of your life.  If there is internal (or external!) work you’ve been postponing, it will hit you like a ton of bricks, no kidding.
#
Remember  also that any conversations about race on this blog are “in the family” so to speak, observations about attitudes, and expressions of my own internal voices.  None of them are excuses to blame others for your life situation.  Conversely, it is important to understand that there are very real historical factors that influence the behaviors, emotions, and perceptions of different groups.  Not to understand this is (in my mind) willful blindness.  Our hope of creating a better world is dependant BOTH on individual responsibility, and a social commitment to provide both opportunity and safety to our citizens.  Swinging too far toward either pole is potential disaster—the only legitimate argument is “how far is too far?”  Remember that the natural tendency of people is to hold those beliefs that support their own group—whatever they perceive that to be.  And then they will try to justify that position intellectually.  Whether the person leans to Left or Right, remember this: they came to their emotional position first, and then rationalized it afterward.  While not always true, this perspective makes mucho sense  out of the frantic, vile argumentation in our political process.

Emotions first, logic second.  Of course, they won’t see it that way…