"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."




Interesting piece on the Huffington Post about a new book, "THE MALE BRAIN," in which the author, Louann Brizendine, M.D., who also wrote "THE FEMALE BRAIN," writes this:

"You may not be surprised to hear that the male brain area for sexual pursuit is 2.5 times larger than the one in the female brain. But if you could spend a day experiencing things through 'male-colored' glasses, you'd probably be amazed by how men see the world. Small differences between men and women can make or break a relationship. If you've ever complained that your man doesn't 'get' you, it may surprise you to find out that you don't 'get' him either. And much as you may want him to be more like your best girlfriend, it's time to let go of that pipe dream and cozy up to the truth. He's different from you, but if you give him a chance to be himself, you're going to like what you see. The male brain is a lean, mean, problem-solving machine. That's why the man in your life tries to solve your problems instead of listening attentively while you vent. When he's faced with a personal problem, he uses his analytical brain structures, not his emotional ones, to find a solution. And it's frustrating to him when you don't let him try to help this way. It's time we stop bashing men for being who they are. Men and women have different brain realities--yours is designed to talk, bond and notice details, his is designed for sensing threats from afar and connecting by having sex. Each brain is like one half of a complete system. The new brain is two brains working together as one."


Here's A2Person:

Glad to see heterosexism is alive and well in the domain of neurobiology/brain-science-cology! "Each [male or female] brain is like one half of a complete system. The new brain is like two brains working together as one."???? Wow, I guess as a gay man I can look forward to 'an incomplete' relationship based off this logic. :-)
In issues where hard science, in this case neurology, and soft science, gender identity/construction here, are in dialogue with each other, it is critical that the researchers involved work through and examine their own heterosexist assumptions and conditioning. Don't get me wrong, there's great value to this study, but, c'mon people, scientific studies proclaiming the primacy of male/female sexual unions sounds suspiciously like the scientific studies justifying white racial hegemony. (See Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Men" about how great scientific work was clouded by unconscious (or not so unconscious) attempts to justify dominant power structures.)
My rant stems from a minor semantic point in this article, but it is emblematic of a pattern of similar lapses in judgment and omission quietly found in multiple essays and links here on the spirituality of sexuality -often exclusively concerning the spirituality of heterosexuality. Teachings detailing the union of male and female as the greatest form of spiritual completion are problematic, and, well, unnecessary. Please, straight people, I'm really happy for your success in attaining union between anima/animus with your partner and in transcending your egos through pleasure and bliss, and thanks your great empirical research: just don't claim an exclusive right on this stuff!
Okay, out of my system –otherwise great article!!!


Here's Auntlori:

There is no such thing as "playing God." There are no heroic (sp?) measures that can keep you alive, if it is your time to go. I believe our time here is predetermined, but what we do with that time, is entirely up to us. I learned this lesson first hand a number of years ago after walking away from a car accident that should have killed me, my dog and my cat!

My SUV spun out of control on a patch of black ice on a bridge. When the car reached the end of the bridge, it rolled 5 times down a wooded embankment. The car did not once strike one of the trees, every window was shattered except those where I was seated, and the car simply came to a stop, on its side, in the middle of the hill. All I suffered was a broken nose; the dog and cat, who were tossed all over and never went out one of the windows, were fine.

There is no reason I should have survived, except that "my number" wasn't up! So, ultimately, doctors and families can intervene; however, it won't change the outcome. You go when it's your time to go. "You do what you gotta do"-whether that be a fight to survive, a suicide, or some dramatic accident, and your families do what they "gotta" do.


"Why is the practice of art or entrepreneurship a vehicle for self-discovery? Because these enterprises are ours alone. They spring from the unfeigned gifts, joys and enthusiasms of our hearts. They are us at play and thus at our most authentic."
Steven Pressfield


Here's Hartkitt:

Uh oh, it's never good to zap me first thing in the morning. I'm not as nice as usual.

Nice and tidy as these sexist cliches are, scientifically it's necessary to remember that neat categorizations like this are all relative. While some men are all Manly Man brain-wise and some women are all Girly Girl there are plenty of people placed all along the continuum. General tendencies do not an absolute make.

So, since I've hardly had my coffee I'll leave it at that. Otherwise I might strain my emotional, illogical girly brain.

Here's PL:

Rock on, HK! I basically agree in this way - I think it is more a matter of the masculine and feminine energies that we each embody to different degrees that makes us different as individuals, moreso than what gender we are, especially today as we are seeing the rise of the "Omega Male" and the "Alpha Female." That being said, it probably is statistically still true that more men embody more masculine energy and more women embody more feminine. I'm with you, though, even early in the morning. We are surely evolving towards a more balanced place. Enjoy your coffee!


Yes, the accolades are rolling in for the most recent staged reading of our series for television: "CITY ROCK!"

After three amazing performances in staged readings thus far - one of the pilot episode in December, directed by Paul Michael Glaser at the Cherry Lane Theatre, and the other two episodes performed at Shetler Studios in March and April - we are expanding into a larger venue at The Players Theater for the next reading, which will feature an amazing ensemble cast of New York actors, and will be directed by the multi-talented Karen Giordano, who most recently worked as a creative consultant and acting coach with Lee Daniels on the Academy-Award winning film, "PRECIOUS."

One producer in attendance at the April 12th performance of Episode 3: "Ridin' That Train," at Shetler Studios in New York said this: "Look what you've created! A world of characters seems to have been born! There was some real energy and excitement in the room yesterday. I was struck by what a grand creation it was. By having these monthly readings you are willing this series into existence. It feels like it's inevitable that this show will happen, so people should get on board. Plus, the writing is really great! Great job, Peter! I'm excited to see what the next chapter will look like!"

The next one-hour episode of the CITY ROCK series, Episode 4: "Heat Wave" will be put up in a staged reading at The Players Theater (115 MacDougal Street) in Manhattan on Wednesday, May 12 at 8 PM.

Come inside the life on the gritty streets of New York City as it was in the early 1980's, a time of major transition, both in the city and in the country at large, a time that still is having ramifications for us all today. These characters, this amazing group of misfit warriors and working class heros will be remembered long after the Sopranos have faded into television history.

So, put on your Swatches, Jellie shoes or Gucci loafers, your Ra-Ra skirts, leg warmers or Members Only jackets, and, of course, your Ray-Ban Aviator sunglasses, and come enter the world of City Rock... before it gets to HBO!

See the CITY ROCK YouTube video HERE, and check out the synopses to CITY ROCK and Peter's other award-winning projects for film and television HERE.


"It was truly my pleasure..THANK YOU soo much for this wonderful opportunity. I look forward to Episode 4." See NARDIA in a very special appearance as "Alicia" in the upcoming reading of Episode 4 of City Rock: "Heat Wave," on Wednesday evening, May 12, at the Players Theater (115 MacDougal Street) in Manhattan at 8 PM.

"Elder Mentor" comments on PL's post: "YOU DON'T KNOW JACK! (ABOUT PAIN AND SUFFERING)"

Here's Elder Mentor:

I saw the movie about Dr. Kevorkian and I too, thought it was very well done. You gotta love Al Pacino...he's a method actor virtuoso!

I am intrigued by what you say in this post. I definitely think that people should have control over the way they choose to live and the way they choose to die. I also believe that it shouldn't be up to the government, or even other members in families if a loved one who is terminally ill and completely cognitively intact decides they wish to be euthanized. There was a scene in the movie when Jack makes a comment about how in our society the medical community, (and insurance and pharmaceutical companies for that matter) are trained to extend life at all costs. Except if the patient is poor, then not so much.

My take differs a bit from yours, however. While lifestyle choices can to a great extent contribute to our own eventual "suicides", I don't think that applies to all diseases. I do firmly believe though, that every disease, even dementia and Alzheimer's (my personal causes) have a lesson to teach us about what makes life worth living. And I like very much what you said about humans needing their pain. It's how we learn.

The real issue that irks me more than anything is the notion of imposing extraordinary measures like CPR, feeding tubes and other invasive procedures on patients who are already very frail and diseased. Why can't we let nature take its course? Why do so many people feel like its "playing God" if they DON'T put a feeding tube in their 90 year old demented mother who lives in a nursing home? Wouldn't the fact that she's not eating be a sign that her body is no longer in need of nutrition *because* its dying? I never understand how families think they're playing God if they don't consent to these measures. It seems contradictory...putting a tube in someone's body or hooking them up to a respirator to keep them living seems to me like that's interfering with the natural (and God-like) process of bringing one's life to a close.

Oh wow...I went on quite a tangent! :) Anyway, you wrote a very provocative post and I look forward to seeing what else you come up with in the future



Here's LOFF56:

It's an interesting point you make, and I have to say I definitely agree with your assessment of the importance of Captain Kirk's profound philosophy, "I need my pain!" So true!!! In fact as a side bar, as an artist, every time I go through a painful episode in my life, that's when I have the best inspiration and the most productive period of writing. I've always joked that if I were constantly miserable (or "in pain") I would be an artistic genius, but it's my relatively normal life that holds me back. Lol And there's some actual reality to this too. Think of all the brilliant artists in our history, most of them suffered from some sort of debilitating ailment or emotional pain. Beethoven was deaf by the end of his life!!!

Anyway, back to the point. I understand what you're saying about having the right to suicide versus artificially "dulling" the pain by having an assisted suicide. However, Putting it crudely - at the point in which you cease to live all physical pain ceases as well. It doesn't really matter whether or not you do it yourself or if you have someone else assist you to that end with drugs. For the individual the result is the same. And honestly, if you put a bullet through your head, you're not gonna' feel any pain either - the death will be pretty instantaneous. There are some other ways that people kill themselves that I'm sure would involve a lot more pain, hanging yourself, slitting your wrists. But you always have the choice to choose a more instantaneous method.

So I wonder what they really mean by "Mercy Killing"? Who's the mercy really for? My sense is that it's more for the family than anything else. I would imagine that it's pretty gruesome and traumatizing to witness the aftermath of someone shooting themselves through the head, or hanging themselves, or jumping off a building. So in that regard I do agree with Kevorkian's method of having it happen in a controlled, planned and dignified fashion. I'm sure the families that support this action by these individuals have felt a lot of pain, and will continue to feel the pain after the assisted suicide; ideally they would have sought counsel or therapy to help them through making this sort of decision with the individual. But in the end you're saving them the trauma of witnessing the violence of something like a gunshot to the head or the anxiety of not knowing if the overdose of sleeping pills will actually work.

So in that sense I don't totally agree with the problem you have with "dulling" the pain so to speak. I'd like to believe these people and their families don't make these decisions haphazardly, (then again, maybe they do), the pain is there for them to feel. I think I see it more as he's eliminating the trauma of the actual event itself.

I will say though, of what I remember of the controversy, the argument he made was one of easing the pain of the individual, so in that regard I think your point is correct. However, I think he was perhaps doing the right thing with the wrong reasoning.


There's an interesting soul-searching piece in today's NY Times by a psychiatrist, who like so many today, doesn't practice psychotherapy, but rather the dubious trade known as "psychopharmacology" (drug-dealing for short). You can read it Here.


BRUSSELS — Belgium's longest serving bishop resigned Friday, expressing sorrow for having sexually abused a young boy both as a priest and after becoming a bishop in 1984.

BUIZINGEN, Belgium - Rik Deville, Retired Priest: I Told Church About Pedophile Bishop More Than 15 Years Ago.

Look, I'm not making this up. No one is making this up. Part of "The Wave" is that false spirituality masking monumental pomposity and egotistical seeking and abuse of power is now being exposed. That's just part of it, folks. That's just part of The Wave.

Read all of my posts about the dismantling of the Church by The Wave and read LOFF56's dismantling of RICK's flimsy attempt to invoke the bad apple defense of the Church here.


Read this article by Mark Hyman, MD, entitled: "Why Antidepressants Don't Work for Treating Depression."

Then, you can read some blog pieces by me on the same subject here.


"Reach out. Touch others. Walk tall. In every essence of life, please grow. Time is with you. Tide is with you. Tomorrow is yours and you have to build that tomorrow with the strength of compassion."
Yogi Bhajan


"That's exactly what Octomom is, a carnival attraction."
Nadya Suleman (Octomom)


In a piece on THE DAILY BEAST, Liesl Schillinger challenges the pathetic premise of a new book by NPR commentator Lori Gottlieb, called: "Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough." Believe it or not, this book is actulally being made into a movie by Tobey Maguire.

Gottlieb, 42, writes that she wishes that back in her 20s or 30s she’d married one of the unexciting “scab-eating mouth breathers” whom she thinks she could have nabbed, rather than "squander her most nubile years on non-marriage-minded time wasters." She admits that, in her late 30s, when a married friend urged her to date "nice men," she thought her friend was kidding and couldn’t bring herself to heel. But half a decade on, furnished with a toddler (via donor sperm) and a U-Haul of regret, Gottlieb wishes she and others like her had taken her pragmatic friend’s advice and made finding a “solid, like-minded teammate in life” job-one from the outset. She writes, “I wish I’d entertained the possibility when the possibility still existed.”

This is one of the saddest wastes of paper since that other bestselling book by another woman author advising women to accept defeat in their love lives: "HE'S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU."

What gives?

Appropriately appalled by the mentally of Gottlieb is Schillinger:

"What of the misery of the sad, pathetic, partnered woman, stuck at home with a somnolent spouse or boyfriend who sits around watching TV and eating Chunky soup and won’t let her play her Netflix?"


When I was a kid, way before I ever considered that I might be advising people on their relationships when I grew up, I used to watch reruns of the "Honeymooners" with a morbid fascination. Here was a black and white depiction of a true living hell: a bloated, bellicose, egotistical, bus driver husband and a nagging, hands-on-her-hips (with apron and rolling pin) housewife - "the old ball and chain" - who were permanently glued together in co-dependent unfulfillment. I used to wonder if any woman could really be mollified in those circumstances simply by her dick of a husband barking: "Baby, you're the greatest!" after each of his latest narcissistic mishaps.

Well, I guess according to Lori Gottlieb, Ralph Kramden is better than nothing.

But is it really better to settle for a relationship without Eros than to not be in a relationship at all? And better for who? As one of the partners in such a relationship, you are dooming yourself to a permanent state of inner loneliness, which is the only true loneliness there is. Tom Hanks' character in "Castaway," alone on a deserted island for four years, was far better off than the wife he left behind (Helen Hunt), who settled for some square-jawed, paternalistic piece of meat with a checkbook for fear of being alone. Hanks, on the other hand, after his 4-year exile, goes off to meet the love of his life.

And as I've written many times on this blog, settling is certainly not better for the kids either. Children who grow up in divorced households, where at least one of the spouses has found gratification in love, fair far better in adulthood and in future relationships than kids who grew up in "intact" households without Eros between the spouses. It's a no-brainer. Ask any family therapist.

So, why do people do it? And why would a woman like Lori Gottlieb propose such resignation?

Because people who settle haven't done the necessary self-work to discover that we all create our own reality. No exceptions. We create our own reality. And those same settlers want to believe that resigning oneself to a life of half-baked, passionless cohabitation is the best that most people can aspire to in a relationship.

No way, folks. It's not true. Don't you believe it. There's no "bad luck" factor involved or time limit on being able to find true love, Eros and sex with a compatible partner. It's a matter of consciousness. Do what it takes to free yourself up mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually and the outcome is a given. You choose, you don't settle. It's a win-win scenario, and it's never too late.


"The body never lies."
Alexander Lowen


“Now under the attacks of the world, which speaks to us of our sins, we see that the ability to repent is a grace, and we see how it is necessary to repent, that is, to recognize what is wrong in our life.”
POPE BENEDICT (In his most "direct" reference to the sexual abuse crisis that has reached the Vatican)


That's the beginning of an e-mail sent to me from a producer-friend who was at the City Rock reading on Sunday, 4/11.

Here's the rest, with a picture she took of the fantastic ensemble cast working their magic:

"...a world of characters seems to have been born! There was some real energy and excitement in the room yesterday. I was struck by what a grand creation it was. By having these monthly readings you are willing this series into existence. Also, by creating an event which happens like clockwork it gives it the feeling of continuity, like a tv show. It feels like it's inevitable that the show will happen, so people should get on board. Plus, the writing is really good. Great job, Peter! I'm excited to see what this next chapter will look like for you."


In a surreal lyrical juxtaposition worthy of Lennon and McCartney, a movement, spearheaded by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, to have the Pope arrested is gaining some legal traction, while the Vatican has decided that The Beatles were, after all, a really great musical group!

Here's Dawkins:

"This man [Pope Benedict] is a leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence."

Here's Hitchens:

"This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalized concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment."

Meanwhile, here's Giovanni Maria Vian, the editor in chief of L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper:

"It's true, they took drugs; swept up by their success, they lived dissolute and uninhibited lives. They even said they were more famous than Jesus. But, listening to their songs, all of this seems distant and meaningless. Their beautiful melodies, which changed forever pop music and still give us emotions, live on like precious jewels."


I am so extremely grateful and awed this Monday morning at the generosity, talent and brilliant light bestowed upon me and our audience yesterday afternoon by the amazing ensemble cast, brilliant director (Karen Giordano) and one-man "crew" (Todd Younggren). It is special indeed to find one individual willing to share his or her gifts so freely, unbelievable to find a whole group of people so willing to do so. When they invent a phrase more emphatic than "Thank you," I will use it, but for now, I will humbly say: Thank you! Thank you!! Thank you!!!


"The Muse is like any other boss; she values talent, yes, but what she favors even more is devotion, dedication, perseverance. When she sees our butts in our seats, she can’t help herself; 'Okay, okay, I’ll give this poor sucker a couple of ideas today.”
Steven Pressfield (author of "The War of Art" and "The Legend of Baggar Vance")


4 PM at Shetler Studios in Manhattan (244 W. 54th Street, 12th Floor)

In this scene, Frank and G.C. attend the funeral of Otha Prescott, their late center fielder and rookie cop who killed himself in Episode 2: "Shooting Stars," over the wrongful death of an innocent man. Pete, league big shot and City Rock's nemesis, tries to control his racism while letting the Rock know that he's checking up on them.


The viewing room is full of blue uniforms paying respect to the deceased Officer O, grimly sleeping in his coffin. In the back of the room, G.C., Frank, and Larry stand together near Pete, Mitch and Vinny.

Kid got in over his head. Bad break. Having to pull the trigger so soon outta the academy.

Point is, they didn’t have to pull the trigger, Pete. The guy wasn’t armed. Otha was just following the lead of the older officers. He panicked.

G.C. rolls his eyes wishing Frank would shut up. Vinny smirks. Mitch stands stoic.

Ay. I been in the joint. I ain’t no badge-lover, but I respect a man doing what he’s gotta do.

In this case, they didn’t do what they had to do. Three armed men, two of them white, shot an unarmed black man in front of his home getting his keys out.

G.C. is dying to get out of there. Larry and Vinny are bemused. Mitch doesn’t change.

What’re you a...
(he catches himself)
(to G.C. and Larry) know, I don’t mean nothin’ negative, you know.

G.C. and Larry look at each other slyly, then at Pete blankly, allowing him to flounder a little before G.C. bails him out.

We know, Pete. Our buddy here just can’t control his mouth sometimes.

Anyway, I’m glad you didn’t bring that asshole shortstop of yours with you. That triple play he made against us, he coulda only made that play in his sleep... or luded out, eh?

G.C., Frank and Larry look at each other in concerned surprise.

Yeah, I know his deal. I been around and word gets around. I like to know who’s playin’ ball in my league, you know? Like that Marcel kid with the fastball... where’d he come from?

Parking lot, as far as I know.

I’ll find out.

See this entire episode performed live at Shetler Studios on 4/11!


In an article by Joe Lapointe, sports journalist, entitled, An Umpire Speaks Up About the Length of Yankees-Red Sox Games, the proposition is put forth that baseball games these days take too long, especially games between the NY Yankees and the Boston Red Sox. Joe West, the chief of the umpiring crew for this week's series between the two teams, called the length of Yankees-Red Sox games "a disgrace to baseball.'' Another umpire on the crew, Angel Hernandez, tried to speed up Tuesday's game when he worked behind home plate by refusing to call timeout when players requested it. "Angel did everything he could,'' West told The Record. "The players aren't working with us. This is embarrassing.''


The only sport I still watch with any regularity is baseball, and Yankees-Red Sox games in particular are must watch for me. Too slow? A disgrace?!

One of the beautiful, graceful, spiritual aspects of baseball is that there is no time clock. Baseball games could hypothetically go on forever. Baseball is not just about physical endurance or brute strength or militaristic stratagems, all while racing against time. Baseball is contemplative, meditative, subtle, not just for the strong of body, but for the strong of spirit.

And you know what else? When I watch a baseball game, I can doze off for a few innings. Yeah! And when I wake up, the game is still going on. It's like the game becomes part of my twilight consciousness and I can go in and out of it, along with my dreams, at will.

Here's James Earl Jones, as "Terrance Mann," in "Field of Dreams":

"The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good and could be again. Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come."


"A2PERSON" wrote the following in response to the FPL post "POLITICAL LEADERS CANNOT HEAL THE SOUL OF AMERICA!":

Peter, I'm a long-time reader of your blog and have valued your comments over the years -I've often had comments on the tip of my tongue but now it seems to have manifested in reality! Some background: I've been deeply engaged for the past 3 years in working through my character structures -schizoid, oral, and now narcissistic, and your blog has served as a consoling, not to mention entertaining resource to supplement my own self-work.

Regarding your sobering if apocalyptic stance on the devolution of the USA, much of it rings true to me, and, certainly, on a macro level I should be bursting with despair at the delusional self-destruction swarming about me. However, I'm a state in my spiritual life where I've never been more hopeful, more integrated and more enlivened -and I still have a long way to go before I 'hatch'! There's a paradox for me concerning the aughts: across a variety of dimensions, this last decade was stagnant, lost, possibly even regressive, and yet, personally I've undergone great awakening, healing and self-insight. Despair doesn't feel entirely organic to me now -a pervasive "fear of life", to cite one of Lowen's books, is losing its hold on my each day and my inner empowerment is incongruent with my outer disempowerment. In terms of the practical world, I'm currently pursuing a grad degree in public policy and am planning my next move; I'm not sure if I want to stick around the USA for such an "intervention." (Know any good bioenergetics therapists in Canada? ;-) but I also don't want to be overly reactive. Are you able to speak to this tension between the positive trajectories of individuals doing inner work and the societal descent into egoistic chaos? I'd like to be the so-called "100th monkey" AND be self-protective. Can this realistically be done?

p.s. just read your latest posting, after this one, and it seems you start to address my issue after all.

Here's PL:

Thank you very much, A2, for your readership and your very thoughtful comment and question, and especially for your dedication to your own self-work. More than anything else, it is what the world needs right now.

Yes, we are always creating our lives from two places, one personal to us, one en masse, and yes, it certainly is realistically doable to be experiencing personal harmony and growth in the midst of a collective "contraction," as it were. And what you create personally will always ultimately rule. No one is an island, it is true, but how that applies here is that while you are creating conscious harmony for yourself in your life, and so choosing not to contribute to the negative creations around you, you are helping to mitigate the negative effects of those creations in the human condition.

I addressed the question you are asking about individual versus collective reality in other words in my pre-New Year's post entitled: "THE WORST OF TIMES OR THE BEST OF TIMES: WHO'S DECADE FROM HELL WAS IT?!"

Here's an excerpt:

But... was it truly "the decade from hell?" The interesting thing is that the answer to that question depends on from where you answer it. We are always creating our reality at two levels - individually and en mass. In spite of it all, I know people who fell truly, deeply in love during the 00's for the first time, or who created a masterpiece in their chosen art form, or found abundance without cheating or stealing from anybody else, or who healed their minds-bodies-and-spirits in miraculous ways without the slash-and-burn mideaval methods of mainstream medicine. Yes, a lot of good most definitely happened to many individuals, all within the larger context of debacle after debacle at the public levels of reality.

So, can the best decade, personally, simultaneously exist within the worst decade collectively? Of course. As long as you're not thinking and living your life from a strictly dualistic place.

A concomitant question that arises is: Can we be evolving collectively as a species if as a species we are collectively doing so poorly? Well, I suppose that's like asking if an alcoholic is evolving when he's in the process of hitting bottom. The answer is to some degree unknown because it all depends on what is done at the bottom, what choices are made there, and then, what the follow-up is. As a country, we may certainly be at our bottom, although just when it seems that our degree of denial has brought us as low as we can go, Joe Leiberman and John McCain raise a toast and take another swig of single malt bullshit!

Nonetheless, folks, you create your own personal reality from the inside out, and our collective reality, just like the weather, is a manifestation of all of our personal realities combined. So, as we approach a new decade, my advice is to continue to be as conscious and loving and connected as possible in your life, and perhaps you will be the Hundredth Monkey.


Exactly four hundred years ago in 1610, Galileo Galilei published The Starry Messenger, a book that defined his monumental theory that the sun - not the earth - is the center of the solar system. Galileo's theory flew in the face of long-established Catholic dogma that the earth does not move. Eventually, Galileo would collide with the awesome power of the Pope.
In 1632, Galileo faced trial for heresy, a capital offense. During his trial, Galileo was threatened with the instruments of torture that were maliciously brandished in his face. Under duress of the dual threats of torture and execution, Galileo recanted - but he lived under house arrest for the rest of his life in a form of suspended animation rather like Aun Sang Suu Kii, and he became the Renaissance icon of injustice and the overarching powers of the Papacy. For these reasons, Galileo is indisputably the most iconic figure of scientific persecution, a genius whose ideas displaced religious orthodoxy with reason and fundamentalist fantasies with rational analysis.


"This year the religious symbolism of Easter could not be more resonant for the Catholic Church. What needs to die is a clerical culture that long fostered power, privilege and secrecy. What needs to die is an attitude that had placed concern for a priest's reputation above that of a child's welfare. What needs to die is mindset in which investigations of dissident theologians and American Catholic sisters were more swiftly prosecuted than investigations of abusive priests. What needs to die is, in a word, a certain pride. All of this needs to be surrendered."
The Reverend James Martin, S.J., a Jesuit priest


Confluence. Convergence. Cleansing. Healing. Transition. Transformation.

These are a few of the words that come to mind on this Sunday morning when I think of the events, both individually and collectively, that have swept across the inner and outer landscape of humanity in the first 13 1/2 weeks of this new decade.

If you've been opening up to your own inner life, your outer life has been changing at an accelerated rate this year. You've fallen in love, left a job you hated, found creative inspiration, discovered a new level of spiritual connection. If you've staunchly held your ground against self-revelation and change, you're getting slammed. You're going through a painful separation, a financial or health crisis, a natural disaster perhaps, or maybe you've left the planet altogether.

Now, these two paths aren't necessarily mutually exlusive. The purpose of the slam experience is no different than the purpose of the positive experience of the surge of energy. Either way, we are moved forward. I've often used the anology of a powerful river as representative of the current of life that is inexorably moving us towards a fuller connection with our higher, truer self. We, as swimmers (or rafters or surfers) in the current, have the free will to go against the current or go with the flow. In that sense, we always get to choose how we experience life. Easy. Hard. Flexible. Rigid. Surrendered. Willful. In the greater scheme of things, however, we are part of a larger body and regardless of our resistance, inevitably, we are heading downstream. The River is greater than our ego. That's just the way it is. Fortunately.

So, as we head fully into spring and on into summer, I say - let go, everyone! Take off your clothes (you can put on a swimsuit if you must!) and jump in the water. Ride the wave!

Come on in, Joe "The Pope" Ratzinger - It's easier than you think!!


"Why, that is not religion at all. It is the absence of God; the church is a place I should not go to. It is not life which is there, but death."
Carl Jung


Here's a clip from the news story first:

LOS ANGELES — The head of a Roman Catholic order that specialized in the treatment of pedophile priests visited with then-Pope Paul VI nearly 50 years ago and followed up with a letter recommending the removal of pedophile priests from ministry, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Associated Press on Wednesday.

In the Aug. 27, 1963, letter, the head of the New Mexico-based Servants of the Holy Paraclete tells the pope he recommends removing pedophile priests from active ministry and strongly urges defrocking repeat offenders.

The letter shows that the Vatican knew, or should have known, about clergy abuse in the U.S. decades ago, said Anthony DeMarco, a plaintiff attorney in Los Angeles who provided the letter. The accusation comes as plaintiffs in Kentucky are attempting to sue the Vatican for negligence for allegedly failing to alert police or the public about priests who molested children.

Yet the problem was very well-known to Rome well before the 1960s. The 1917 code of canon law criminalized sexual abuse of minors. Five years later, the Vatican penned a document outlining detailed procedures for handling such cases. In 1962, that document was updated and has been used in many of the lawsuits by victims against U.S. diocese and the Vatican itself.

Here's PL:

Okay, obviously there's no more need for me to slam any particular defenders of the church at this point. They are toast, and hopefully, they are reconsidering their blind allegiance to authority.

So, let's try and understand the why of the situation at hand in this ongoing travesty.

When a problem goes back centuries, when there needs to be a "special order" created to deal with it, it is obviously not a "bad apple" problem; it is a systemic problem. Clearly, the sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church has been rampant in many places for many, many years.

What is it, then, about this particular organization that leads to this kind of particular dysfunction.

Well, I've been writing for a while on this blog about sexual repression and the very serious damage it does across all aspects of our society. Sigmund Freud, of course, wrote extensively about the subject over a century ago. He illuminated not only the reality that human beings are intensely sensual beings by nature right from infancy, but he also wrote about how and why certain institutions, like the church, sought to inhibit sexual expression.

Freud understood that in order for the Church to maintain its hold on its followers, it must be seen as all powerful by its followers. The Church understood this very well, which is why it established the incredible "Infallibility Doctrine," which unabashedly states that the Church and the Pope are incapable of erroneous policies or dogma! Whew!!

And of all of the forces driving human beings, the Church understood that sexual desire was the strongest, and therefore, the one the Church must seek to dominate (excuse the pun!) at all costs. Thus, for parishioners, sex for any purpose other than procreation between a heterosexual man and a woman was prohibited. For priests, who could only be men, sex was completely off limits. Oh, and these orders were, of course, infallible!

Okay, so, who would be drawn to join such an extremist organization, one in which the most powerful urges in our species were deemed unacceptable under all but the most proscribed conditions?

Well, it's Psychology 1.0 folks. Only people who have major issues around sexual expression, extreme guilt and shame combined with a harsh, oppressive conscience and an attraction to authoritarianism would seek out the ludicrous and maniacal restrictions of such a regime. And Psychology 2.0 will tell you that eventually, the rubber band will snap and the full force of the repressed, festered and now extremely distorted sexual urges will explode out in compulsive, destructive behavior, and that doesn't just mean child abuse; it mean all kinds of acting out, including violence.

One last point. The Church, of course, didn't create the people who've joined it. The Church is a manifestation of human ego which won't allow there to be a force greater than itself. The sexual force is first and foremost a spiritual force. It channels directly through us from our souls. Great sex, connected with love and Eros, blows the ego away, knocks it out. But if we haven't done the work necessary to deconstruct our ego, the ego will fight for control over us, even establishing a vast corporation like the Church to do its bidding.

Ahh... well, sorry, it always comes back down to that, doesn't it? Working on yourself. You name the evil - and we can certainly label the Church that way - and the solution is in-depth, determined, individual self-work.


blogger templates 3 columns | Make Money Online