"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. I do not believe in a personal God. I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
Albert Einstein
LOFF56 & PL ON ALL THINGS BEING RELATIVE & GOD! OR NOT!!
Here's L56:
"For starters, I do hope that Obama turns out to be the Adult Supervision that we need. But realistically speaking I'm not convinced that he'll be more than just a little bit of that Adult Supervision. As you state, (correctly in my opinion), we need a lot. I'm just not convinced that he'll be able to provide all of what we need. There's a lot of Government disfunction that's built into the system and no matter what he does, he's just not going to be able to root it all out. But I'm hopeful that at least some things will improve.
Regarding relativity... again... You said so yourself that for Reaganomics to work, 'the private sector would have to be operating from their healthy, enlightened first nature.' Hypothetically, what if that were true? Wouldn't Reaganomics be correct then? By your own definition the success of Reaganomics is relative to the enlightened nature of the private sector. If the private sector were in fact enlightened in the manner which you speak, would you then consider Reaganomics to be Truth with a capital 'T'?
Clearly, the bulk of the private sector achieving this state of enlightenment is a far fetched prospect at this point. On a more practical level, I believe at one point you mentioned the likes of Bill Gates, who does in fact donate a lot of money to charity. For him, Reaganomics is a completely successful construct for the benefit of all of humanity. Let's cut taxes for Bill Gates, because he actually WILL use that money for good. So relatively speaking Reaganomics is effective... for him...
In the Bill Gates scenario, it's a truth with a lower case "t" because it only applies to him and his likes. For the vast majority of other wealthy private sector people the truth is just the opposite. I believe that you confuse Truth with a capital "T" with an overwhelming majority of one truth versus another truth. In this case let's arbitrarily say it's like 50 million versus one thousand. It's quite a lopsided victory for the truth against Reaganomics versus the truth of Reaganomics. But for Truth to possess a capital 'T', (by my definition), it has to possess complete, one hundred percent compliance.
I'm not about to make a similar defense of relativity out of all of the issues you stated, (though I probably could), cause it would just take up too much space, and I'd start to feel my soul deteriorate because my personal opinion sides with the "correct" side of the issues, obviously. But let me tackle one just to prove the point...
Genocide. Clearly, there was at least one person, Hitler, who decided that genocide had a benefit to the greater good of humanity. No matter what we do, we can't change the truth (with a lower case "t") that Hitler felt this way. We can all shout out for eternity that he was wrong... clearly... but for whatever reason it was his truth. Using the same logic that Truth with a capital "T" must possess complete 100 percent compliance we can't mathematically assess that genocide being wrong is a Truth with a capital "T". Despite the fact that it's probably 500 Billion to one in favor of that. It's still relative. It's very lopsided, but it's relative.
I do believe that the truths when stated in the quote, "We hold these truths to be self evident", is much better defined by the degree of lopsidedness in this truth v. truth battle. It will be self evident when one truth dominates another. I don't think the authors of the Declaration of Independence had in mind the truth that slavery was wrong when they wrote it. In fact many, if not all of them, had slaves at the time. Their truth was that slavery was just fine. By proxy of lopsided victory over time against slavery, they turned out to be wrong. But their Truth with a capital "T", if that's what they were espousing, turned out to be anything but definable, extremely fluid, and ultimately, relative.
Thank about it... 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal,... Really? Except black people apparently. Self evident truth better be fluid and relative for all our sakes.
Relatively yours,
loff56"
PL:
Okay, here's the thing, L56 - if you are talking at the personal level only, then yes, truth, with a small "t" is relative as is reality, small "r." What I am saying on this blog is that while there are personal and relative truths and realities, which we may believe in and create on a day-to-day basis, there is also Truth and Reality that is absolute. The fact that our founding fathers understood the absolute Truth about humanity's inalienable rights, but couldn't themselves live up to it, yet, doesn't mean it was relative. That's why we kept struggling with slavery and its derivatives through the years, because there was an absolute Truth (oneness) driving us to end the enslavement of our fellow human beings. That Hitler thought his genocide was justified only means he thought it was, not that genocide's violation of the Reality of our oneness with other living beings was relative.
It's the age-old religious "mystery" I'm talking about here, L56 - how can we be doing "God's" will at all times ("Thy will be done"), yet still have free will at all times?
I've posted this a few times before, but here's how I visualize it: God's will is like a powerful river that we're swimmers in, and as such, we can choose to swim with the current or against the current. In either case, someone watching from the banks of the river would see that however we exercise our individual will, we are being taken downstream. In other words, going against the current or going with the flow will determine our relative experience of reality, but nonetheless, the absolute Reality is we're all heading in the same ultimate direction - back towards our oneness with All That Is.
Regarding Obama and his provision of adult supervision for the greedy-needy children in grown-ups' clothes who've wreaked havoc on our country, yes, I agree, it is a daunting task, but hopefully, other true adults will be inspired to join the president and stand up to the crooks and liars until they stand down.
Thanks, L56.
L56 FOLLOW-UP:
"AHA!! So it seems we're defining our positions very simply as the difference between Agnostic and Atheist. Agnostic in the sense that although you may or may not believe in an actual God, you do believe in an absolute will or Truth of some sort that guides us in a direction. And an Atheist in the sense that I believe that there is no entity, God-like or not, and that WE have absolute and total control of 100% of every outcome personally and more broadly based as humanity on the whole.
Your question: '...how can we be doing 'God's' will at all times ('Thy will be done'), yet still have free will at all times?'
My simple Atheist answer is: We Can't. It's one or the other. To me free will is completely free, 100%. If it's tempered by the will of a 'God' or a 'Truth' with a capital 'T' even in the smallest amount it's not 'free'. 'Free' is an absolute term. If something cost one penny, it's not free.
The advantage of my point of view is that your differing view of there being a capital 'T' Truth is 100% compatible with my view of there not being. Because I believe every single person has their own lower case 't' truth which is of equal validity to my truth and of everybody else's truth.
The disadvantage to your belief is that my very rejection of a capital 'T' Truth is completely in conflict with the very capital 'T' Truth that you believe in. According to your absolute Truth, I'm one of those Salmon that keeps swimming aimlessly up stream.
Well, I don't feel like a Salmon. But in the end it's no skin off either of our backs. You can continue to think I'm a Salmon, and I can continue to think that it's totally fine that you think I'm a Salmon."
PL:
You reveal something about where you're coming from, L56, when you talk about the "advantage" of your "point of view" versus the "disadvantage" of what you perceive to be my "belief."
Points of view and beliefs are created by our egos to seek advantages and manage our lives when problems feel too difficult to resolve through ordinary intellectual efforts, especially in childhood. From a place of egolessness, however, one can attain access to the Truth, as I've said before and in so doing attracted some ire. Nonetheless, we have all had the experience, even if just for moments, when we transcend our egos, our intellect, even our bodies to a certain extent, and suddenly just know something to be True.
My efforts to evolve my consciousness in this lifetime have taken me to a place where eliminating beliefs and opinions in myself is the goal, so that I may seek and connect to what is actually True. It is surely a process that I will be in for the rest of this lifetime, and one that at times feels to have advantages or disadvantages. Even so, as I discover more Truth, rest assured sure that I will reveal it!
Oh... and the reason that it seems contradictory to you that one can be taken by the current of God's will while simultaneously having personal free will is because you are caught up in thinking dualistically, the only way in which the ego can think.
Thanks again, L56!
"For starters, I do hope that Obama turns out to be the Adult Supervision that we need. But realistically speaking I'm not convinced that he'll be more than just a little bit of that Adult Supervision. As you state, (correctly in my opinion), we need a lot. I'm just not convinced that he'll be able to provide all of what we need. There's a lot of Government disfunction that's built into the system and no matter what he does, he's just not going to be able to root it all out. But I'm hopeful that at least some things will improve.
Regarding relativity... again... You said so yourself that for Reaganomics to work, 'the private sector would have to be operating from their healthy, enlightened first nature.' Hypothetically, what if that were true? Wouldn't Reaganomics be correct then? By your own definition the success of Reaganomics is relative to the enlightened nature of the private sector. If the private sector were in fact enlightened in the manner which you speak, would you then consider Reaganomics to be Truth with a capital 'T'?
Clearly, the bulk of the private sector achieving this state of enlightenment is a far fetched prospect at this point. On a more practical level, I believe at one point you mentioned the likes of Bill Gates, who does in fact donate a lot of money to charity. For him, Reaganomics is a completely successful construct for the benefit of all of humanity. Let's cut taxes for Bill Gates, because he actually WILL use that money for good. So relatively speaking Reaganomics is effective... for him...
In the Bill Gates scenario, it's a truth with a lower case "t" because it only applies to him and his likes. For the vast majority of other wealthy private sector people the truth is just the opposite. I believe that you confuse Truth with a capital "T" with an overwhelming majority of one truth versus another truth. In this case let's arbitrarily say it's like 50 million versus one thousand. It's quite a lopsided victory for the truth against Reaganomics versus the truth of Reaganomics. But for Truth to possess a capital 'T', (by my definition), it has to possess complete, one hundred percent compliance.
I'm not about to make a similar defense of relativity out of all of the issues you stated, (though I probably could), cause it would just take up too much space, and I'd start to feel my soul deteriorate because my personal opinion sides with the "correct" side of the issues, obviously. But let me tackle one just to prove the point...
Genocide. Clearly, there was at least one person, Hitler, who decided that genocide had a benefit to the greater good of humanity. No matter what we do, we can't change the truth (with a lower case "t") that Hitler felt this way. We can all shout out for eternity that he was wrong... clearly... but for whatever reason it was his truth. Using the same logic that Truth with a capital "T" must possess complete 100 percent compliance we can't mathematically assess that genocide being wrong is a Truth with a capital "T". Despite the fact that it's probably 500 Billion to one in favor of that. It's still relative. It's very lopsided, but it's relative.
I do believe that the truths when stated in the quote, "We hold these truths to be self evident", is much better defined by the degree of lopsidedness in this truth v. truth battle. It will be self evident when one truth dominates another. I don't think the authors of the Declaration of Independence had in mind the truth that slavery was wrong when they wrote it. In fact many, if not all of them, had slaves at the time. Their truth was that slavery was just fine. By proxy of lopsided victory over time against slavery, they turned out to be wrong. But their Truth with a capital "T", if that's what they were espousing, turned out to be anything but definable, extremely fluid, and ultimately, relative.
Thank about it... 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal,... Really? Except black people apparently. Self evident truth better be fluid and relative for all our sakes.
Relatively yours,
loff56"
PL:
Okay, here's the thing, L56 - if you are talking at the personal level only, then yes, truth, with a small "t" is relative as is reality, small "r." What I am saying on this blog is that while there are personal and relative truths and realities, which we may believe in and create on a day-to-day basis, there is also Truth and Reality that is absolute. The fact that our founding fathers understood the absolute Truth about humanity's inalienable rights, but couldn't themselves live up to it, yet, doesn't mean it was relative. That's why we kept struggling with slavery and its derivatives through the years, because there was an absolute Truth (oneness) driving us to end the enslavement of our fellow human beings. That Hitler thought his genocide was justified only means he thought it was, not that genocide's violation of the Reality of our oneness with other living beings was relative.
It's the age-old religious "mystery" I'm talking about here, L56 - how can we be doing "God's" will at all times ("Thy will be done"), yet still have free will at all times?
I've posted this a few times before, but here's how I visualize it: God's will is like a powerful river that we're swimmers in, and as such, we can choose to swim with the current or against the current. In either case, someone watching from the banks of the river would see that however we exercise our individual will, we are being taken downstream. In other words, going against the current or going with the flow will determine our relative experience of reality, but nonetheless, the absolute Reality is we're all heading in the same ultimate direction - back towards our oneness with All That Is.
Regarding Obama and his provision of adult supervision for the greedy-needy children in grown-ups' clothes who've wreaked havoc on our country, yes, I agree, it is a daunting task, but hopefully, other true adults will be inspired to join the president and stand up to the crooks and liars until they stand down.
Thanks, L56.
L56 FOLLOW-UP:
"AHA!! So it seems we're defining our positions very simply as the difference between Agnostic and Atheist. Agnostic in the sense that although you may or may not believe in an actual God, you do believe in an absolute will or Truth of some sort that guides us in a direction. And an Atheist in the sense that I believe that there is no entity, God-like or not, and that WE have absolute and total control of 100% of every outcome personally and more broadly based as humanity on the whole.
Your question: '...how can we be doing 'God's' will at all times ('Thy will be done'), yet still have free will at all times?'
My simple Atheist answer is: We Can't. It's one or the other. To me free will is completely free, 100%. If it's tempered by the will of a 'God' or a 'Truth' with a capital 'T' even in the smallest amount it's not 'free'. 'Free' is an absolute term. If something cost one penny, it's not free.
The advantage of my point of view is that your differing view of there being a capital 'T' Truth is 100% compatible with my view of there not being. Because I believe every single person has their own lower case 't' truth which is of equal validity to my truth and of everybody else's truth.
The disadvantage to your belief is that my very rejection of a capital 'T' Truth is completely in conflict with the very capital 'T' Truth that you believe in. According to your absolute Truth, I'm one of those Salmon that keeps swimming aimlessly up stream.
Well, I don't feel like a Salmon. But in the end it's no skin off either of our backs. You can continue to think I'm a Salmon, and I can continue to think that it's totally fine that you think I'm a Salmon."
PL:
You reveal something about where you're coming from, L56, when you talk about the "advantage" of your "point of view" versus the "disadvantage" of what you perceive to be my "belief."
Points of view and beliefs are created by our egos to seek advantages and manage our lives when problems feel too difficult to resolve through ordinary intellectual efforts, especially in childhood. From a place of egolessness, however, one can attain access to the Truth, as I've said before and in so doing attracted some ire. Nonetheless, we have all had the experience, even if just for moments, when we transcend our egos, our intellect, even our bodies to a certain extent, and suddenly just know something to be True.
My efforts to evolve my consciousness in this lifetime have taken me to a place where eliminating beliefs and opinions in myself is the goal, so that I may seek and connect to what is actually True. It is surely a process that I will be in for the rest of this lifetime, and one that at times feels to have advantages or disadvantages. Even so, as I discover more Truth, rest assured sure that I will reveal it!
Oh... and the reason that it seems contradictory to you that one can be taken by the current of God's will while simultaneously having personal free will is because you are caught up in thinking dualistically, the only way in which the ego can think.
Thanks again, L56!
Today's From The Horse's Mouth Quote
"Supply-side economics does not conclude that a general reduction in tax rates would increase tax revenues, nor did any government economist or budget projection by the Reagan Administration ever make that claim."
William Niskanen (Member of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan)
William Niskanen (Member of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan)
"PLAYING WITH FIRE" - HEARTLESS, BRAINLESS, A LIFE WASTED LISTENING TO RUSH
Here's Bob Herbert in today's NY Times:
"It’s been clear for years that the G.O.P. is a party without a heart. But its pointless obstructionism, its overall lack of any serious response to what is a clear national economic emergency, seems to indicate it’s also a party without a brain. Republicans in Washington have behaved like a milling crowd standing in the way of firefighters trying to respond to a devastating blaze. I thought of all the guys who used to listen to Rush Limbaugh while driving to or from work but are now tuning in from their living rooms because the benefits of the G.O.P.’s right-wing, tax-cutting ideology never trickled down to them and they are now jobless."
"It’s been clear for years that the G.O.P. is a party without a heart. But its pointless obstructionism, its overall lack of any serious response to what is a clear national economic emergency, seems to indicate it’s also a party without a brain. Republicans in Washington have behaved like a milling crowd standing in the way of firefighters trying to respond to a devastating blaze. I thought of all the guys who used to listen to Rush Limbaugh while driving to or from work but are now tuning in from their living rooms because the benefits of the G.O.P.’s right-wing, tax-cutting ideology never trickled down to them and they are now jobless."
HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF A SPLIT IN CONSCIOUSNESS, TYPICAL IN PSYCHOPATHIC CHARACTER STRUCTURES
Senate Minority Leader Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, opposes pay limits on bailed-out bankers.
Here's Jon Kyl in his own misleading words:
"Because of their excesses, very bad things begin to happen, like the United States government telling a company what it can pay its employees. That's not a good thing in America."
Where's the split in consciousness? President Obama isn't telling "a company" what it can pay its "employees." He's telling specific companies, the ones that screwed the public because of their greed and incompetence and now have to bailed out with billions of dollars of the public's money, that their executives cannot make more than $500,000 in salary while still needing to be bailed out thusly.
HELLO?!
Here's Jon Kyl in his own misleading words:
"Because of their excesses, very bad things begin to happen, like the United States government telling a company what it can pay its employees. That's not a good thing in America."
Where's the split in consciousness? President Obama isn't telling "a company" what it can pay its "employees." He's telling specific companies, the ones that screwed the public because of their greed and incompetence and now have to bailed out with billions of dollars of the public's money, that their executives cannot make more than $500,000 in salary while still needing to be bailed out thusly.
HELLO?!
FOLLOW-UP NOTE TO "NOT EVERYTHING'S DEBATABLE"
I have a question for those who believe that everything is relative, that there is no Truth with a capital "T." Are there sane arguments to be made for the merits of genocide, slavery, rape, racism, pedophilia, thievery, littering...? If not, isn't that because there are indeed Truths that are self-evident? And evident to who? Those selves willing to see the Truth, as in "Seek and you shall find" or "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
ARE THESE FOLKS SERIOUS?
Here's our grown-up President today:
"So let me be clear: Those ideas - that tax cuts alone can solve all our problems; that government doesn't have a role to play; that half-measures and tinkering are somehow enough; that we can afford to ignore our most fundamental economic challenges, the crushing cost of health care, the inadequate state of so many of our schools, our dangerous dependence on foreign oil - those ideas have been tested, and they have failed. They've taken us from surpluses to an annual deficit of over a trillion dollars, and they've brought our economy to a halt. And that's precisely what the election we just had was all about. The American people have rendered their judgment. And now is the time to move forward, not back. Now is the time for action. And so when you hear these attacks deriding something of such obvious importance as this, you have to ask yourself - are these folks serious?"
But wait, Mr. President, are you saying that the notion is false that giving to the rich will benefit us all, that the wealth of the richest won't automatically trickle down to the non-rich? Won't the rich of this country be grateful for all the tax breaks they receive and use some of their surplus wealth to enhance the lives of millions through quality jobs creation in the U.S. or infrastructure refurbishment or new technologies to improve the quality of life on our planet? Are you saying that Reaganomics was in fact what George Bush, Sr., Reagan's own vice-president, said it was - "Voodoo Economics?" Are you saying that the reason trickle-down economics is nuts is because in reality, too many people are greedy, immature or otherwise nefariously disturbed psychopaths, and so we actually need adults in charge of government to make sure the crazy kids aren't raiding the collective cookie jar? Is that what you're saying? I guess you're serious.
"So let me be clear: Those ideas - that tax cuts alone can solve all our problems; that government doesn't have a role to play; that half-measures and tinkering are somehow enough; that we can afford to ignore our most fundamental economic challenges, the crushing cost of health care, the inadequate state of so many of our schools, our dangerous dependence on foreign oil - those ideas have been tested, and they have failed. They've taken us from surpluses to an annual deficit of over a trillion dollars, and they've brought our economy to a halt. And that's precisely what the election we just had was all about. The American people have rendered their judgment. And now is the time to move forward, not back. Now is the time for action. And so when you hear these attacks deriding something of such obvious importance as this, you have to ask yourself - are these folks serious?"
But wait, Mr. President, are you saying that the notion is false that giving to the rich will benefit us all, that the wealth of the richest won't automatically trickle down to the non-rich? Won't the rich of this country be grateful for all the tax breaks they receive and use some of their surplus wealth to enhance the lives of millions through quality jobs creation in the U.S. or infrastructure refurbishment or new technologies to improve the quality of life on our planet? Are you saying that Reaganomics was in fact what George Bush, Sr., Reagan's own vice-president, said it was - "Voodoo Economics?" Are you saying that the reason trickle-down economics is nuts is because in reality, too many people are greedy, immature or otherwise nefariously disturbed psychopaths, and so we actually need adults in charge of government to make sure the crazy kids aren't raiding the collective cookie jar? Is that what you're saying? I guess you're serious.
REPOST OF THE "PERFECT QUOTE" AND A PIECE ON PERFECTION
First of all, I love this quote by Barack Obama so much, I have to reprint it today:
"Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the essential."
Beautiful! It reminded me that on the occasion of last year's Superbowl, I put up a piece about perfectionism entitled: "Perfection on Superbowl Sunday?"
It's a year old post, and I must say this year's Superbowl game rivaled last year's, but lest we forget those Giants...
Here's the repost:
"There's an interesting article in the NY Times today about the notion of perfection entitled: "Perfection Is Afterthought, Perfect Examples Say."
The New England Patriots have won all 18 games they've played this year as they enter today's Superbowl, a "perfect" season thus far. But is it?
“There is no perfect season,” said John Wooden, who coached the U.C.L.A. basketball teams that once won 88 consecutive games. “You can have a season where you win all your games. But that is far from perfect. The other teams you played scored points and your team made mistakes. Maybe a lucky bounce actually won you a game or two. No, winning doesn’t make you perfect.”
Other famous athletes who have attained perfect scores and achieved record-breaking feats of greatness in their sport are also quoted in the article. Most agree that thinking about perfection or breaking records actually interferes with performance.
Winning doesn't make you perfect? I love that! Why? Because perfection, in the way most people think about it, is an illusion, and perfectionism is a crippling defense mechanism that actually prevents someone from achieving even reasonable goals or experiencing even minimal levels of fulfillment.
In reality, perfection is a place we're always heading towards, but never attaining, or conversely, it is the ongoing state of things already, depending on the way you want to frame it. In other words, because we're always evolving, because we're living beings, and therefore never static, anything that we accomplish today in the course of our evolution only sets the bar higher for another achievement tomorrow. Yet, also by virtue of the fact that we are alive, and as such are exact representations in physical form of our soul's intentions, we are already perfect in that we are exactly what we are designing to be in each moment. (Or as John Lennon put it: "Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.")
Perfectionism, then, is a covert way of resisting the very thing one is trying to accomplish, and/or it is an expression of the resistance to feeling gratified by what one actualy does accomplish. (Does anyone know a happy perfectionist?) Put another way, an obsessive insistance on perfection is a way of not giving, a withholding of one's gifts. It is a passive-aggressive act. The perfectionist will say things like: I can't serve our friends this meal, or present this work of art to the world, because my creation isn't good enough yet. Or I can't go to your party because I don't have a suitable outfit to wear, or I can't take my clothes off in front of you and make love with you because I'm out of shape physically. In other words, perfectionism is a disguised way of saying: "No!" No, I'm not going to give of myself to you. No, I'm not going to share my gifts with you. Etc. And that "no" is all too often disguised under the very annoying and false self-effacement of: I'm not good enough, or what I have to offer isn't good enough. Ugh! Get over it. Good enough is good enough! Give something to someone already. If it's from your heart, if it's a genuine expression of your desire to give, it will be of value to the recipient. Can you improve the recipe for that dish? Rewrite that screenplay one more time? Lose a little weight? Sure. And you will. And those changes will always occur over time according to your intentions in the moment.
You're a living, vibrant, fluid, always in flux human being. Don't let that stop you from offering yourself to others. There is no one else like you. No one else has your perspective on life, your confluence of experiences and ideas and imagination. No one else has your body, and I can tell you, your body is already beautiful and perfect the way it is... if you say it is.
And remember, whether it's the Giants or the Patriots today... it's just a game!
"Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the essential."
Beautiful! It reminded me that on the occasion of last year's Superbowl, I put up a piece about perfectionism entitled: "Perfection on Superbowl Sunday?"
It's a year old post, and I must say this year's Superbowl game rivaled last year's, but lest we forget those Giants...
Here's the repost:
"There's an interesting article in the NY Times today about the notion of perfection entitled: "Perfection Is Afterthought, Perfect Examples Say."
The New England Patriots have won all 18 games they've played this year as they enter today's Superbowl, a "perfect" season thus far. But is it?
“There is no perfect season,” said John Wooden, who coached the U.C.L.A. basketball teams that once won 88 consecutive games. “You can have a season where you win all your games. But that is far from perfect. The other teams you played scored points and your team made mistakes. Maybe a lucky bounce actually won you a game or two. No, winning doesn’t make you perfect.”
Other famous athletes who have attained perfect scores and achieved record-breaking feats of greatness in their sport are also quoted in the article. Most agree that thinking about perfection or breaking records actually interferes with performance.
Winning doesn't make you perfect? I love that! Why? Because perfection, in the way most people think about it, is an illusion, and perfectionism is a crippling defense mechanism that actually prevents someone from achieving even reasonable goals or experiencing even minimal levels of fulfillment.
In reality, perfection is a place we're always heading towards, but never attaining, or conversely, it is the ongoing state of things already, depending on the way you want to frame it. In other words, because we're always evolving, because we're living beings, and therefore never static, anything that we accomplish today in the course of our evolution only sets the bar higher for another achievement tomorrow. Yet, also by virtue of the fact that we are alive, and as such are exact representations in physical form of our soul's intentions, we are already perfect in that we are exactly what we are designing to be in each moment. (Or as John Lennon put it: "Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.")
Perfectionism, then, is a covert way of resisting the very thing one is trying to accomplish, and/or it is an expression of the resistance to feeling gratified by what one actualy does accomplish. (Does anyone know a happy perfectionist?) Put another way, an obsessive insistance on perfection is a way of not giving, a withholding of one's gifts. It is a passive-aggressive act. The perfectionist will say things like: I can't serve our friends this meal, or present this work of art to the world, because my creation isn't good enough yet. Or I can't go to your party because I don't have a suitable outfit to wear, or I can't take my clothes off in front of you and make love with you because I'm out of shape physically. In other words, perfectionism is a disguised way of saying: "No!" No, I'm not going to give of myself to you. No, I'm not going to share my gifts with you. Etc. And that "no" is all too often disguised under the very annoying and false self-effacement of: I'm not good enough, or what I have to offer isn't good enough. Ugh! Get over it. Good enough is good enough! Give something to someone already. If it's from your heart, if it's a genuine expression of your desire to give, it will be of value to the recipient. Can you improve the recipe for that dish? Rewrite that screenplay one more time? Lose a little weight? Sure. And you will. And those changes will always occur over time according to your intentions in the moment.
You're a living, vibrant, fluid, always in flux human being. Don't let that stop you from offering yourself to others. There is no one else like you. No one else has your perspective on life, your confluence of experiences and ideas and imagination. No one else has your body, and I can tell you, your body is already beautiful and perfect the way it is... if you say it is.
And remember, whether it's the Giants or the Patriots today... it's just a game!
"TILL CHILDREN DO US PART!"
Anyone who regularly reads my blog (and really reads it) knows that I am a fierce advocate for LOVE, EROS and SEX as essential ingredients in a healthy relationship between adult couples, and that I am a fierce advocate for the well-being of children, especially for respecting their need for individuation, and for recognizing the uniqueness of their souls as paramount in our rearing of them.
That I am fierce about these matters is understood. That some people find that off-putting is understood. Nonetheless, the truth about most matters is not only out there, it's usually quite obvious for all to see, if one wants to see it.
This piece appeared in today's NY Times: "TILL CHILDREN DO US PART," by STEPHANIE COONTZ. Ms. Coontz is not against marriage, nor against having children (and, of course, neither am I). In fact, the piece in the Times doesn't really take a "position" about its subject matter; it simply describes the results of some research, just as the surveys about angry mothers did that spun off into the hot discussions that were on this blog last week.
Here are some excerpts from the Times piece:
"Over the past two decades, many researchers have concluded that three’s a crowd when it comes to marital satisfaction. More than 25 separate studies have established that marital quality drops, often quite steeply, after the transition to parenthood.
But does the arrival of children doom couples to a less satisfying marriage? Not necessarily. The drop in marital satisfaction was almost entirely accounted for by the couples who slid into being parents, disagreed over it or were ambivalent about it. Couples who planned or equally welcomed the conception were likely to maintain or even increase their marital satisfaction after the child was born."
Exactly. I would add that couples who have children as an outgrowth of their Love, Eros and Sex being at high levels - in other words, couples who are in love when they have kids - were much more likely to have children in a state of harmony, than those who have children to fulfill an image or an ego-driven agenda.
Here's more from the Stephanie Coontz:
"But keeping a marriage vibrant is a never-ending job. Couples often embark on such an intense style of parenting that they end up paying less attention to each other. In the long run, shortchanging adult-oriented activities for the sake of the children is not good for a marriage. Indeed, the researcher Ellen Galinsky has found that most children don’t want to spend as much time with their parents as parents assume; they just want their parents to be more relaxed when they are together. Couples need time alone to renew their relationship. They also need to sustain supportive networks of friends and family. Couples who don’t, investing too much in their children and not enough in their marriage, may find that when the demands of child-rearing cease to organize their lives, they cannot recover the relationship that made them want to have children together in the first place."
Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!
Last licks from the Stephanie:
"As the psychologist Joshua Coleman suggests, the airline warning to put on your own oxygen mask before you place one on your child also holds true for marriage."
That I am fierce about these matters is understood. That some people find that off-putting is understood. Nonetheless, the truth about most matters is not only out there, it's usually quite obvious for all to see, if one wants to see it.
This piece appeared in today's NY Times: "TILL CHILDREN DO US PART," by STEPHANIE COONTZ. Ms. Coontz is not against marriage, nor against having children (and, of course, neither am I). In fact, the piece in the Times doesn't really take a "position" about its subject matter; it simply describes the results of some research, just as the surveys about angry mothers did that spun off into the hot discussions that were on this blog last week.
Here are some excerpts from the Times piece:
"Over the past two decades, many researchers have concluded that three’s a crowd when it comes to marital satisfaction. More than 25 separate studies have established that marital quality drops, often quite steeply, after the transition to parenthood.
But does the arrival of children doom couples to a less satisfying marriage? Not necessarily. The drop in marital satisfaction was almost entirely accounted for by the couples who slid into being parents, disagreed over it or were ambivalent about it. Couples who planned or equally welcomed the conception were likely to maintain or even increase their marital satisfaction after the child was born."
Exactly. I would add that couples who have children as an outgrowth of their Love, Eros and Sex being at high levels - in other words, couples who are in love when they have kids - were much more likely to have children in a state of harmony, than those who have children to fulfill an image or an ego-driven agenda.
Here's more from the Stephanie Coontz:
"But keeping a marriage vibrant is a never-ending job. Couples often embark on such an intense style of parenting that they end up paying less attention to each other. In the long run, shortchanging adult-oriented activities for the sake of the children is not good for a marriage. Indeed, the researcher Ellen Galinsky has found that most children don’t want to spend as much time with their parents as parents assume; they just want their parents to be more relaxed when they are together. Couples need time alone to renew their relationship. They also need to sustain supportive networks of friends and family. Couples who don’t, investing too much in their children and not enough in their marriage, may find that when the demands of child-rearing cease to organize their lives, they cannot recover the relationship that made them want to have children together in the first place."
Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!
Last licks from the Stephanie:
"As the psychologist Joshua Coleman suggests, the airline warning to put on your own oxygen mask before you place one on your child also holds true for marriage."
TODAY'S GENUIS QUOTE
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein
TODAY'S BONUS QUOTE QUOTING MYSELF
"Indeed, we are meant to live with full inner permission to follow our natural inner guidance and our inborn pleasure instinct to seek out gratification in all of our actions and endeavors, and that such a way of living always benefits those around us and those that we love."
Peter Loffredo
Peter Loffredo
DON'T GIVE RICH PEOPLE A BAD NAME, DAVID BROOKS!
As one of the semi-cogent commentators on the right, David Brooks tries from time to time to come out on the side of fairness and justice on economic matters. Recently, he had a column in the NY Times called, "WARD THREE MORALITY." In the piece, Brooks' main thrust is in his admonishing of "rich people" to change their ways or go through a "social self-immolation because they don’t understand that the rules of privileged society have undergone a radical transformation."
Here's what's off base about Mr. Brooks' presentation - greedy people need to be admonished, brought down and humbled, with constraints on their behavior, not "rich" people. Demonizing wealth, and by implication, ennobling poverty, is exactly what keeps us stuck in these kind of disastrous economic cycles of excess and recession.
Okay, now I have to go out there and attract some ire again, but the truth is: needy people are often part of the same mindset as greedy people; they're just flips sides of the same coin. (see my piece on the Oral Character Structure for more details) Both the needy and the greedy are starting from a belief that "there isn't enough." Greedy people act out that belief by unbridled, compulsive acquisitiveness; needy people act it out by looking to others to rescue them and support them in their dependent, "helpless" plights. Now, I'm not "blaming the victim" here. I'm saying that from the big picture perspective, there are no true victims. There are those who are, however, playing out a drama about want and abundance and so may experience victimhood.
Only when we see material things, and their means of exchange - money - as essentially neutral in moral terms, can we begin to tackle this problem. It's how we use wealth, how we relate to it with our egos, or not, that will determine its effects on our collective and individual lives. One can be struggling financially without being needy. One can be wealthy without being greedy. Indeed, there are many "rich" people who attained their wealth by spreading beauty around the world, through music or other art forms, or by creating innovative products that enhance life for everyone, and who also feel humbly compelled to share some of their wealth with others who are currently struggling materially.
It's not only important for the scumbags who've attained their wealth by ripping off everyone in sight to be dethroned; it's equally important that open-hearted, creative people demonstrate that you can become wealthy through positive action. That's the kind of inspiration that people who are currently struggling financially need, a message that will inspire them to tap into their creativity and open themselves up to their own gifts.
Paul McCartney, Merryl Streep, Steven Spielberg, Steve Jobs, Michael Jordan - I'm glad that these people are rich. That moves me. I want to be like Mike!
Here's what's off base about Mr. Brooks' presentation - greedy people need to be admonished, brought down and humbled, with constraints on their behavior, not "rich" people. Demonizing wealth, and by implication, ennobling poverty, is exactly what keeps us stuck in these kind of disastrous economic cycles of excess and recession.
Okay, now I have to go out there and attract some ire again, but the truth is: needy people are often part of the same mindset as greedy people; they're just flips sides of the same coin. (see my piece on the Oral Character Structure for more details) Both the needy and the greedy are starting from a belief that "there isn't enough." Greedy people act out that belief by unbridled, compulsive acquisitiveness; needy people act it out by looking to others to rescue them and support them in their dependent, "helpless" plights. Now, I'm not "blaming the victim" here. I'm saying that from the big picture perspective, there are no true victims. There are those who are, however, playing out a drama about want and abundance and so may experience victimhood.
Only when we see material things, and their means of exchange - money - as essentially neutral in moral terms, can we begin to tackle this problem. It's how we use wealth, how we relate to it with our egos, or not, that will determine its effects on our collective and individual lives. One can be struggling financially without being needy. One can be wealthy without being greedy. Indeed, there are many "rich" people who attained their wealth by spreading beauty around the world, through music or other art forms, or by creating innovative products that enhance life for everyone, and who also feel humbly compelled to share some of their wealth with others who are currently struggling materially.
It's not only important for the scumbags who've attained their wealth by ripping off everyone in sight to be dethroned; it's equally important that open-hearted, creative people demonstrate that you can become wealthy through positive action. That's the kind of inspiration that people who are currently struggling financially need, a message that will inspire them to tap into their creativity and open themselves up to their own gifts.
Paul McCartney, Merryl Streep, Steven Spielberg, Steve Jobs, Michael Jordan - I'm glad that these people are rich. That moves me. I want to be like Mike!
"NICOLE" COMMENTS ON "RUFFLED FEATHERS"
Nicole's comment can be read by clicking on "comments" underneath the post "RUFFLED FEATHERS." She is for the most part in agreement with "Suzanne and others who have been critical of how I presented myself as a father and as a purveyor of information that I present as truth. At this point, I will not reiterate what I've already said on these matters and can be read in the posts with my responses below.
I will address one thing that Nicole asked that is a technical matter. I rarely edit comments and only to the extent that something either inappropriately exposes someone's preferred anonymity or privacy, or if grammatical or typographical errors make a particular sentence unclear or distracting.
Thanks, Nicole. Hope you're finding the blog interesting!
PL
I will address one thing that Nicole asked that is a technical matter. I rarely edit comments and only to the extent that something either inappropriately exposes someone's preferred anonymity or privacy, or if grammatical or typographical errors make a particular sentence unclear or distracting.
Thanks, Nicole. Hope you're finding the blog interesting!
PL
A CAMEO APPEARANCE ON THE BLOG FROM DADLOFF!
Here he is:
"Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the
White House in DC; one from Illinois, one from Tennessee,
and a third from Kentucky. They all go with a White House
official to examine the fence.
The Tennessee contractor takes out a tape measure and does
some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil.
'Well', he says, 'I figure the job will run
about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100
profit for me.'
The Kentucky contractor also does some measuring and
figuring, then says, 'I can do this job for $700: $300
for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me.'
The Illinois contractor doesn't measure or figure, but
leans over to the White House official and whispers,
'$2,700.'
The official, incredulous, whispers back, 'You
didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you
come up with such a high figure?'
The Illinois contractor whispers back, '$1000 for me,
$1000 for you, and we hire that guy from Kentucky to fix the
fence.'
'Done!' replies the government official.
And that my friends, is how it all works and that is how
things have worked for so long......
NOW YOU KNOW HOW WE GOT INTO THIS MESS WITH OUR ECONOMY!!"
"Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the
White House in DC; one from Illinois, one from Tennessee,
and a third from Kentucky. They all go with a White House
official to examine the fence.
The Tennessee contractor takes out a tape measure and does
some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil.
'Well', he says, 'I figure the job will run
about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100
profit for me.'
The Kentucky contractor also does some measuring and
figuring, then says, 'I can do this job for $700: $300
for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me.'
The Illinois contractor doesn't measure or figure, but
leans over to the White House official and whispers,
'$2,700.'
The official, incredulous, whispers back, 'You
didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you
come up with such a high figure?'
The Illinois contractor whispers back, '$1000 for me,
$1000 for you, and we hire that guy from Kentucky to fix the
fence.'
'Done!' replies the government official.
And that my friends, is how it all works and that is how
things have worked for so long......
NOW YOU KNOW HOW WE GOT INTO THIS MESS WITH OUR ECONOMY!!"
ONE OF MY ALL-TIME FAVORITE PASSAGES ON PARENTING
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let our bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.
Kahlil Gibran
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let our bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.
Kahlil Gibran
RICK ON THE DIALOGUE ABOUT ANGRY MOTHERS - NO RESPONSE FROM PL
Heres Rick:
"As my Uncle Tony (Of course I would have an Uncle Tony!) would always say, "When you point your finger at someone, there are always three more pointing back at you." showing me with his big sausage fingers sculpted from decades of eating well and manual labor....
I agree with taking a look at myself before claiming anything. Sometimes I am dead wrong, usually because of ignorance and sometimes I am right on because of direct experience or the facts as I know them.
As far as wives blaming others for their lot, I think you can put husband/son/daughter/mother/father/alien/penguin etc in their place. I don't think wives have a lock on blaming others. I find some merit to your overall point. You do a great job of articulating the potential barriers we all have in attaining a peace within ourselves. This is just another example. Why you chose to zero in on wives does nothing to help your point. I though you could have started with wives, then moved on to the rest of us.
Now, the fact that you claim the reason you are such a good parent is because you do what you really want to do. Can you reconcile the irresponsibility of doing what you really want to do and the obligation you have to the children you are helping to raise? As a " contractual" husband to a wonderful wife and biological parent of a curly haired toddler myself, my own needs and wants are sometimes in conflict with those of the ones I love. You are a product of the 60's "Me" generation and I don't fault you for that attitude because it may work for you. I wonder what impact that attitude has had on the three children you have raised or are raising?
For me, I guess your point is still true. I am doing what I want to do and that is the "care taking" of my family. I don't resent it nor am I bitter because of the sacrifices I must make. My own belly has grown a bit, I lose sleep and I do not want to go out and shovel my damn driveway and street every storm, but I don't resent it. I see the positive result of those very sacrifices and they are much more valuable to me. What would your assessment be of this attitude? Remember, I don't do what I want to do, I don't resent it but need to make sure I fulfill my duties just as you "organically" fulfill yours.
I read "Suzanne's" post and your reaction to it. I do not sense the anger in Suzanne's post as you do. But rather a simple calling you out on some details. You're right in that she didn't address your main point, but how could she when that point was skewed. I and others, have called you out too but I didn't think they were from a point of anger but rather of "is he serious in trying to sling this BS at us?" That BS that we presume is because of the very angry tone you sometimes use(You're stupid!") or, as I have written before, the I am right you are wrong attitude so prevalent in your posts. You are usually better on the responses after you reflect.
I, and I think Suzanne, am not minimizing your role as a "parent" or as a "husband". You took it that way and maybe there needs to be some exploration as to why you have reacted so. I just think clarification is warranted particularly when you say how involved you are as a parent. Your posts come across as though "parenting is a piece of cake, I still serve myself first + how come everyone isn't as good at it as I am?" You may not mean it that way but that is how it reads. Will you grant your readers, who are full-time parents, that's 24-7, 365 parents, that your role as a parent is very different and much less demanding than theirs? Could you still do whatever you want if you had those children 24-7, 365 and their was no other involved father?
If my wife and I didn't have our child every other week, there would be much more time for ourselves simply because of logistics. If you were a single parent and had an infant 24-7 who needed to be fed every 2 hours, would you not feed it because you need your sleep? When you decide to become a parent, you also are obligated to care and raise that child at sometimes tremendous personal expense. Not everyone can do this. I'm sure in your practice, you can attest to the damage those parents who have that "take care of me first" attitude have had on their children. Something's gotta give. Now you're professing the same. Need to explain that one "little buddy" :-)
Criticism isn't taken easily by most of us. You are no different. Why else would you make that "editor's note" in which you write you had to fix typos and grammar? I grant you the need to "change the names to protect the innocent" but what good does it serve to note one's spelling and grammatical errors? Again, clearly those words are defensive + condescending in nature and further proves that whatever point was criticized, you couldn't easily counter it because there are holes in your arguement. How would you characterize my responses if within them they contained name calling and picayune statements that have nothing to do with my point like, "Hey by the way, PL didn't even edit Suzanne's spelling and grammar properly"(It's true, but has no relevance). If I ever do that, please send me to my timeout chair and then to my room without dessert.
ps. Hey Loff56. To further hammer your point, that the 18 Billion in bonuses on Wall Street actually equals 61 million to each citizen! I wouldn't even need that much! 1 mil would more than do it for me!!!!"
"As my Uncle Tony (Of course I would have an Uncle Tony!) would always say, "When you point your finger at someone, there are always three more pointing back at you." showing me with his big sausage fingers sculpted from decades of eating well and manual labor....
I agree with taking a look at myself before claiming anything. Sometimes I am dead wrong, usually because of ignorance and sometimes I am right on because of direct experience or the facts as I know them.
As far as wives blaming others for their lot, I think you can put husband/son/daughter/mother/father/alien/penguin etc in their place. I don't think wives have a lock on blaming others. I find some merit to your overall point. You do a great job of articulating the potential barriers we all have in attaining a peace within ourselves. This is just another example. Why you chose to zero in on wives does nothing to help your point. I though you could have started with wives, then moved on to the rest of us.
Now, the fact that you claim the reason you are such a good parent is because you do what you really want to do. Can you reconcile the irresponsibility of doing what you really want to do and the obligation you have to the children you are helping to raise? As a " contractual" husband to a wonderful wife and biological parent of a curly haired toddler myself, my own needs and wants are sometimes in conflict with those of the ones I love. You are a product of the 60's "Me" generation and I don't fault you for that attitude because it may work for you. I wonder what impact that attitude has had on the three children you have raised or are raising?
For me, I guess your point is still true. I am doing what I want to do and that is the "care taking" of my family. I don't resent it nor am I bitter because of the sacrifices I must make. My own belly has grown a bit, I lose sleep and I do not want to go out and shovel my damn driveway and street every storm, but I don't resent it. I see the positive result of those very sacrifices and they are much more valuable to me. What would your assessment be of this attitude? Remember, I don't do what I want to do, I don't resent it but need to make sure I fulfill my duties just as you "organically" fulfill yours.
I read "Suzanne's" post and your reaction to it. I do not sense the anger in Suzanne's post as you do. But rather a simple calling you out on some details. You're right in that she didn't address your main point, but how could she when that point was skewed. I and others, have called you out too but I didn't think they were from a point of anger but rather of "is he serious in trying to sling this BS at us?" That BS that we presume is because of the very angry tone you sometimes use(You're stupid!") or, as I have written before, the I am right you are wrong attitude so prevalent in your posts. You are usually better on the responses after you reflect.
I, and I think Suzanne, am not minimizing your role as a "parent" or as a "husband". You took it that way and maybe there needs to be some exploration as to why you have reacted so. I just think clarification is warranted particularly when you say how involved you are as a parent. Your posts come across as though "parenting is a piece of cake, I still serve myself first + how come everyone isn't as good at it as I am?" You may not mean it that way but that is how it reads. Will you grant your readers, who are full-time parents, that's 24-7, 365 parents, that your role as a parent is very different and much less demanding than theirs? Could you still do whatever you want if you had those children 24-7, 365 and their was no other involved father?
If my wife and I didn't have our child every other week, there would be much more time for ourselves simply because of logistics. If you were a single parent and had an infant 24-7 who needed to be fed every 2 hours, would you not feed it because you need your sleep? When you decide to become a parent, you also are obligated to care and raise that child at sometimes tremendous personal expense. Not everyone can do this. I'm sure in your practice, you can attest to the damage those parents who have that "take care of me first" attitude have had on their children. Something's gotta give. Now you're professing the same. Need to explain that one "little buddy" :-)
Criticism isn't taken easily by most of us. You are no different. Why else would you make that "editor's note" in which you write you had to fix typos and grammar? I grant you the need to "change the names to protect the innocent" but what good does it serve to note one's spelling and grammatical errors? Again, clearly those words are defensive + condescending in nature and further proves that whatever point was criticized, you couldn't easily counter it because there are holes in your arguement. How would you characterize my responses if within them they contained name calling and picayune statements that have nothing to do with my point like, "Hey by the way, PL didn't even edit Suzanne's spelling and grammar properly"(It's true, but has no relevance). If I ever do that, please send me to my timeout chair and then to my room without dessert.
ps. Hey Loff56. To further hammer your point, that the 18 Billion in bonuses on Wall Street actually equals 61 million to each citizen! I wouldn't even need that much! 1 mil would more than do it for me!!!!"
ARE ALL MOMS MAD AT DAD? 'FORE YOU 'CUSE ME...
Okay, time for me to ruffle some feathers.
There was an article in the NY Times a couple of days ago entitled, "ARE ALL MOMS MAD AT DAD?". The Times article referenced an extensive survey of 1,000 “nationally representative” mothers from MomConnection.com, an online opinion panel, and as author Martha Brockenbrough puts it, "the article is a disturbing portrait of motherhood."
Indeed, the survey is basically a litany of diatribes from irate, frustrated, exhausted mothers blaming their husbands for their overburdened, unfulfilled lives. In other words, it is a waste of time if you are looking for any kind of deep understanding about what is dysfunctional in today's parenting.
Here are some clips from the article:
“We love our husbands, but we’re mad that we spend more mental energy on the details of parenting. We’re mad that having children has turned our lives upside down much more than theirs. We’re mad that these guys, who can manage businesses or keep track of thousands of pieces of sports trivia, can be clueless when it comes to what our kids are eating and what supplies they need for school. And more than anything else, we’re mad that they get more time to themselves than we do.”
“We carry so much of this life-altering responsibility in our heads: the doctors’ appointments, the shoe sizes, the details about the kids’ friends. Many dads wouldn’t even think to buy valentines for the class, for example, or know when it’s time to sign kids up for the pre–camp physical, or that curriculum night is next Thursday at 7:30 and you need to hire a sitter and bring a nut-free vegetarian appetizer that can be eaten without a fork. Even moms who work full-time take it upon themselves to store all this data in our already overstuffed heads. We’re the walking, talking encyclopedias of family life, while dads tend to be more like brochures.”
Whew! Where do I begin?
Well, first and foremost, the lack of personal responsibility taken by the mothers in the survey for the state of their own lives is astounding. Excuse me, but how did you become such perfect martyrs, such deprived slaves to your own lives? Where were you captured from and under what kind of duress were you placed so you had to submit to such a terrible life? Or is it that you're just so good, so elevated and responsible that you are can't help doing the right thing because you're just made that way?
"Nut-free vegetarian appetizers that can be eaten without a fork?!" Excuse me, but at what point in your personal journey did you decide to lead such an inane life?
Let's get clear here, my dear long-suffering mothers: this is your problem of your creating.
Let me tell you about my life as a husband and father of two, ages 7 and 11. I do most of the shopping and most of the cooking for our family; I take the kids to school in the morning, pick them up after school, and put them to bed at night with a meditation (and lullaby for the youngest); and I share most of the other child-rearing and household tasks with my wife. She's better at some things than I am, and visa versa, so we divide those tasks up organically, like actual grown-up partners. I also work passionately at two careers and yet, have plenty of time for fun, health maintenance and a great sex life with my wife. And obviously, all of the above is true for my counterpart, the mother of our children.
Why is our life apparently so different from the lives described in the survey?
Well, back to my original point - because we each take responsibility for our lives. Of all the things that we know for certain about adult life, it's that blaming someone else for your fate is... not adult. We each not only do what we really want to do on a day-to-day basis, we also desire for our partner to do what he or she really wants to do.
Our egos are not invested in living up to some image of parenthood from our childhoods, and therein lies the real crux of the problem. The main reason the mothers in the survey find themselves trapped in their lives is because they are, but how they got there was through the determined process of feeding their own egos, trying to live out what said egos think it means to be the ultimate good mother. Oh yeah, and if you married a clueless guy, maybe it's exactly because you wanted to be top-dog-superparent-homemaker-nut-free-appetizer-bringer.
And then, guess what? It turns out, not only is there no reward for living out that masked identity, but it's ultimately not really good for the kids and a turn-off to your partner.
Oops!
So, moms, maybe you should stop complaining and finish raising yourself. And take a listen here: http://www.last.fm/music/Bo+Diddley/_/Before+You+Accuse+Me
There was an article in the NY Times a couple of days ago entitled, "ARE ALL MOMS MAD AT DAD?". The Times article referenced an extensive survey of 1,000 “nationally representative” mothers from MomConnection.com, an online opinion panel, and as author Martha Brockenbrough puts it, "the article is a disturbing portrait of motherhood."
Indeed, the survey is basically a litany of diatribes from irate, frustrated, exhausted mothers blaming their husbands for their overburdened, unfulfilled lives. In other words, it is a waste of time if you are looking for any kind of deep understanding about what is dysfunctional in today's parenting.
Here are some clips from the article:
“We love our husbands, but we’re mad that we spend more mental energy on the details of parenting. We’re mad that having children has turned our lives upside down much more than theirs. We’re mad that these guys, who can manage businesses or keep track of thousands of pieces of sports trivia, can be clueless when it comes to what our kids are eating and what supplies they need for school. And more than anything else, we’re mad that they get more time to themselves than we do.”
“We carry so much of this life-altering responsibility in our heads: the doctors’ appointments, the shoe sizes, the details about the kids’ friends. Many dads wouldn’t even think to buy valentines for the class, for example, or know when it’s time to sign kids up for the pre–camp physical, or that curriculum night is next Thursday at 7:30 and you need to hire a sitter and bring a nut-free vegetarian appetizer that can be eaten without a fork. Even moms who work full-time take it upon themselves to store all this data in our already overstuffed heads. We’re the walking, talking encyclopedias of family life, while dads tend to be more like brochures.”
Whew! Where do I begin?
Well, first and foremost, the lack of personal responsibility taken by the mothers in the survey for the state of their own lives is astounding. Excuse me, but how did you become such perfect martyrs, such deprived slaves to your own lives? Where were you captured from and under what kind of duress were you placed so you had to submit to such a terrible life? Or is it that you're just so good, so elevated and responsible that you are can't help doing the right thing because you're just made that way?
"Nut-free vegetarian appetizers that can be eaten without a fork?!" Excuse me, but at what point in your personal journey did you decide to lead such an inane life?
Let's get clear here, my dear long-suffering mothers: this is your problem of your creating.
Let me tell you about my life as a husband and father of two, ages 7 and 11. I do most of the shopping and most of the cooking for our family; I take the kids to school in the morning, pick them up after school, and put them to bed at night with a meditation (and lullaby for the youngest); and I share most of the other child-rearing and household tasks with my wife. She's better at some things than I am, and visa versa, so we divide those tasks up organically, like actual grown-up partners. I also work passionately at two careers and yet, have plenty of time for fun, health maintenance and a great sex life with my wife. And obviously, all of the above is true for my counterpart, the mother of our children.
Why is our life apparently so different from the lives described in the survey?
Well, back to my original point - because we each take responsibility for our lives. Of all the things that we know for certain about adult life, it's that blaming someone else for your fate is... not adult. We each not only do what we really want to do on a day-to-day basis, we also desire for our partner to do what he or she really wants to do.
Our egos are not invested in living up to some image of parenthood from our childhoods, and therein lies the real crux of the problem. The main reason the mothers in the survey find themselves trapped in their lives is because they are, but how they got there was through the determined process of feeding their own egos, trying to live out what said egos think it means to be the ultimate good mother. Oh yeah, and if you married a clueless guy, maybe it's exactly because you wanted to be top-dog-superparent-homemaker-nut-free-appetizer-bringer.
And then, guess what? It turns out, not only is there no reward for living out that masked identity, but it's ultimately not really good for the kids and a turn-off to your partner.
Oops!
So, moms, maybe you should stop complaining and finish raising yourself. And take a listen here: http://www.last.fm/music/Bo+Diddley/_/Before+You+Accuse+Me
RUFFLED FEATHERS!!
Okay, I figured this was coming, and I did say I was going to ruffle feathers.
Someone who knows some of the details of my personal life sent me the pissed-off e-mail below, challenging my credibility on the subject of parenting because the children I am raising currently, and have raised in a previous marriage, were not my biological children.
Yes, the child I raised in the past from age 3 to adulthood, did indeed have an involved biological father, as do the two children I am currently raising. Does that make me less of a "real" father? (And yes, each of the kids I'm raising and have raised, relate and related to me as a father.) And furthermore, does it disqualify me from evaluating the dynamics of parenting objectively?
Freud once used a famous quote to explain the dynamics of transference between a biological father and son: "Child is father to the man." What the creator of psychoanalysis was describing was how a parent will often relate to their child as if that child was the parent's parent. In other words, a parent might attempt to please or placate their child in order to gain their love and respect in a way they didn't gain it from their own parent; or a parent might compete with their child, acting out their own frustrations and feelings of incompetence in comparison to their own parents of childhood. Etc. Very often, the reason that grandparents and grandchildren seem to have less conflict-ridden relationships than parents and their children have is because the element of transference isn't so strong. Likewise, step-parents have a similar advantage, potentially, in that regard, being able to relate to their step-children with less transference, and perhaps more objectivity.
So, am I more or less qualified to comment on parenting because I am a "step-parent," Suzanne?
On the subject of "marriage," my partner and I consider ourselves to be quite married, more "married" than some married people we know. We haven't had a ceremony to that effect, it's true, and our monogamy is "spontaneous," rather than contractual, but does that make us less married? Or more? Or at least, differently married?
Finally, besides challenging my credibility, Suzanne, your e-mail didn't really address at all what the gist of my posting was and why it made you so angry.
Anyway, here's "Suzanne:"
[NOTE: The e-mail is edited for typos, grammar and a few things that were wrong factually, or would infringe on the privacy of certain others if I printed them]
"I have held my tongue until now. I think you must clarify your role in
your family to your blog readers. A bit back you referred to yourself as
a father three times over; I have an open view of what defines a father,
but you seem to refer to your fatherhood as a way of giving credence to
your argument. If you are going to do that than you must define your
role. Since I've known you over the last 25 years of so, you have been
in love with two women who have had children. The first woman had a child that you
helped parent until you and that woman split. That child had a
biological father that was very involved in his life. I think fathers would agree that
this is a unique kind of fatherhood.
You make reference to your wife now. I did not realize you are married. As far as I know, you are not married to your partner. You have played a part
in HER children's lives. They have a father. If you play a fatherly role in their
lives that is wonderful, but your readers should know that those
children have a biological father who they are connected to. You may
play an important role in their lives but if you asked them, would they
say you were their dad?
You defined yourself as father and husband; you should define that. I
think some of your readers may be particularly interested in your role
as "Father." From what I know, you have never "fathered" a baby or even
a toddler. Hmmmm. You are certainly entitled to opinions about
parenthood, but I'm not sure you can refer to your experience to give
value to your argument especially when the experience you refer to is
misleading. I think your opinions are interesting and thought provoking;
I wonder why you must create this false identity to validate them. Hmmm.
Will you post this email on your blog? I hope so."
Someone who knows some of the details of my personal life sent me the pissed-off e-mail below, challenging my credibility on the subject of parenting because the children I am raising currently, and have raised in a previous marriage, were not my biological children.
Yes, the child I raised in the past from age 3 to adulthood, did indeed have an involved biological father, as do the two children I am currently raising. Does that make me less of a "real" father? (And yes, each of the kids I'm raising and have raised, relate and related to me as a father.) And furthermore, does it disqualify me from evaluating the dynamics of parenting objectively?
Freud once used a famous quote to explain the dynamics of transference between a biological father and son: "Child is father to the man." What the creator of psychoanalysis was describing was how a parent will often relate to their child as if that child was the parent's parent. In other words, a parent might attempt to please or placate their child in order to gain their love and respect in a way they didn't gain it from their own parent; or a parent might compete with their child, acting out their own frustrations and feelings of incompetence in comparison to their own parents of childhood. Etc. Very often, the reason that grandparents and grandchildren seem to have less conflict-ridden relationships than parents and their children have is because the element of transference isn't so strong. Likewise, step-parents have a similar advantage, potentially, in that regard, being able to relate to their step-children with less transference, and perhaps more objectivity.
So, am I more or less qualified to comment on parenting because I am a "step-parent," Suzanne?
On the subject of "marriage," my partner and I consider ourselves to be quite married, more "married" than some married people we know. We haven't had a ceremony to that effect, it's true, and our monogamy is "spontaneous," rather than contractual, but does that make us less married? Or more? Or at least, differently married?
Finally, besides challenging my credibility, Suzanne, your e-mail didn't really address at all what the gist of my posting was and why it made you so angry.
Anyway, here's "Suzanne:"
[NOTE: The e-mail is edited for typos, grammar and a few things that were wrong factually, or would infringe on the privacy of certain others if I printed them]
"I have held my tongue until now. I think you must clarify your role in
your family to your blog readers. A bit back you referred to yourself as
a father three times over; I have an open view of what defines a father,
but you seem to refer to your fatherhood as a way of giving credence to
your argument. If you are going to do that than you must define your
role. Since I've known you over the last 25 years of so, you have been
in love with two women who have had children. The first woman had a child that you
helped parent until you and that woman split. That child had a
biological father that was very involved in his life. I think fathers would agree that
this is a unique kind of fatherhood.
You make reference to your wife now. I did not realize you are married. As far as I know, you are not married to your partner. You have played a part
in HER children's lives. They have a father. If you play a fatherly role in their
lives that is wonderful, but your readers should know that those
children have a biological father who they are connected to. You may
play an important role in their lives but if you asked them, would they
say you were their dad?
You defined yourself as father and husband; you should define that. I
think some of your readers may be particularly interested in your role
as "Father." From what I know, you have never "fathered" a baby or even
a toddler. Hmmmm. You are certainly entitled to opinions about
parenthood, but I'm not sure you can refer to your experience to give
value to your argument especially when the experience you refer to is
misleading. I think your opinions are interesting and thought provoking;
I wonder why you must create this false identity to validate them. Hmmm.
Will you post this email on your blog? I hope so."
Anonymous Responds to "RUFFLED FEATHERS!!" And PL's Response.
Here's "Anonymous":
"Interesting. I'm wondering what she's REALLY angry about. Surely it's not that you're in a committed relationship without benefit of the state's approval, and that you haven't contributed sperm to the children you've raised..."
PL:
I am not at all surprised at the kind of response that my piece "ARE ALL MOMS MAD AT DAD?" received.
First, my tone in the piece was harsh and direct and meant to be. Apparently, some people think that because I am a therapist or a writer in a public forum, my tone should always be congenial. Sorry about that, but that's not a rule of etiquette I feel obliged to follow. I am not trying to convince or persuade anyone about anything on this blog. Nor am I trying to attract fans. I am speaking out on various subjects in my own way, and that can serve as a beacon for others if what I say and how I say it reaches them. Or not.
I see a lot of damaging things being done by parents to children, and I don't mean just the obvious kinds of abuse, but also in many ways that are considered socially acceptable and even sanctioned by our institutions. Again, sorry, but like I said in my other post that got some people pissed off, "ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GET LAID," parents don't get elevated status in my book because of biology.
Second, the notion that as a non-biological parent who has shared child-rearing with biological parents, I am somehow less qualified to speak out about parenting is a red herring. As a father who has worked from home for most of my career, I have spent more time with my children than most biological parents of either sex, and having raised TWO generations of children I have spent more cumulative years raising children than most biological parents. And add to that the fact that for thirty years, I have worked with children and their parents in therapy and come to understand their inner lives in ways that most parents don't even attempt. If not having a DNA connection to my children has done anything to make me a different kind of parent, it's that it has made it easier for my ego to not be involved in my parenting because I'm not hung-up on passing on my "name" or "bloodline" to my progeny. Because my children weren't "born" to me, I see our connection to each other as a soul thing, and as such, it has kept me in touch with my role as a temporary guide to my children while they find out what it is that they came here to do.
Finally, the bottom line is this - what I said in the previous posts mentioned here is that you don't get a free pass because you gave physical birth to a child, and if you're unhappy in any part of your life, it's your responsibility, not your spouse's. That's what the two pieces were about. As the messenger, I do use not only my knowledge and wisdom as a tool, but I also use myself and my own experience. I understand that when I do that, some people who don't like the message will attempt to discredit the messenger. That's too bad, and really a waste of time.
"Interesting. I'm wondering what she's REALLY angry about. Surely it's not that you're in a committed relationship without benefit of the state's approval, and that you haven't contributed sperm to the children you've raised..."
PL:
I am not at all surprised at the kind of response that my piece "ARE ALL MOMS MAD AT DAD?" received.
First, my tone in the piece was harsh and direct and meant to be. Apparently, some people think that because I am a therapist or a writer in a public forum, my tone should always be congenial. Sorry about that, but that's not a rule of etiquette I feel obliged to follow. I am not trying to convince or persuade anyone about anything on this blog. Nor am I trying to attract fans. I am speaking out on various subjects in my own way, and that can serve as a beacon for others if what I say and how I say it reaches them. Or not.
I see a lot of damaging things being done by parents to children, and I don't mean just the obvious kinds of abuse, but also in many ways that are considered socially acceptable and even sanctioned by our institutions. Again, sorry, but like I said in my other post that got some people pissed off, "ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GET LAID," parents don't get elevated status in my book because of biology.
Second, the notion that as a non-biological parent who has shared child-rearing with biological parents, I am somehow less qualified to speak out about parenting is a red herring. As a father who has worked from home for most of my career, I have spent more time with my children than most biological parents of either sex, and having raised TWO generations of children I have spent more cumulative years raising children than most biological parents. And add to that the fact that for thirty years, I have worked with children and their parents in therapy and come to understand their inner lives in ways that most parents don't even attempt. If not having a DNA connection to my children has done anything to make me a different kind of parent, it's that it has made it easier for my ego to not be involved in my parenting because I'm not hung-up on passing on my "name" or "bloodline" to my progeny. Because my children weren't "born" to me, I see our connection to each other as a soul thing, and as such, it has kept me in touch with my role as a temporary guide to my children while they find out what it is that they came here to do.
Finally, the bottom line is this - what I said in the previous posts mentioned here is that you don't get a free pass because you gave physical birth to a child, and if you're unhappy in any part of your life, it's your responsibility, not your spouse's. That's what the two pieces were about. As the messenger, I do use not only my knowledge and wisdom as a tool, but I also use myself and my own experience. I understand that when I do that, some people who don't like the message will attempt to discredit the messenger. That's too bad, and really a waste of time.
"auntlori" weighs in on PL's Response to "Suzanne"
Here's "auntlori":
"I have a few thoughts on Sue's entry and your reaction to it.
Firstly, I don't find Sue's response to be angry but rather straightforward with no sugar coating.
Secondly, I would have to agree with her in that you need to be straightforward in what your role is/was as a "father" in the children's lives you have been involved in because it IS misleading to refer to yourself as having "fathered" three children. As you slam parents for various reasons, you often cite yourself as a source of reference; however, you never acknowledge that your experience is very different than others. This does not make less of your experience or your role less important. It simply makes it different, and I feel it unfair to negatively hold others against your experience. Being a full time parent to a newborn or toddler IS different than being a part time step-parent to a 4, 5, 7, 10, or 15 year old. There is no better or worse, but there most certainly is a difference that I think should be clarified. I am a biological mother to a 15 month old and was a full-time step-child to a woman from when I was 9-33 years old. It's not the same.
Thirdly, I don't think Sue missed the gist of your post; I think for those who know you, it is hard to sometimes get past the things that seem skewed to make a point. In addition, as a former English professor, I can tell you that one of my first lessons in teaching writing, particularly persuasive writing, was that you never want to offend/turn off the reader simply because they will stop reading and your point will be completely lost. The most persuasive writing is that which considers all, or at the very least, opposing points of view in a non-confrontational manner. When you give credit to other points of view or experiences, you do not cause the reader's defenses to go up and enable your point to be heard and considered. I find Sue's comments to be far less angry than your blog often sounds. So, just as you pose the question to Sue as to why she was angry about your entry, why was your initial entry so angry?
Fourthly, you often make negative comments regarding "traditional" marriage. Why, then, would you make reference to your partner as "your wife"? Again, to those who know you, it would appear that you are only using that word to make a point, which, for some of us, then renders your point ineffective. It seems hypocritical to knock "traditional" marriage, yet then use it, falsely, to suit your purpose. As I told my students, just as important as being non-confrontational in trying to make a point in writing, you must also be a reliable writer. If there are non-truths or "holes" in your writing, the reader no longer believes what it is you have to say because you have become unreliable. I believe Sue may have been making this point.
Fifthly, if there are typos or grammatical errors in my email, please feel free to correct, as it is Monday morning, I had a super-bowl party yesterday and my 15 month old is hanging on my leg."
PL:
Mostly, auntlori, I responded to much of what you wrote above in my response to "Anonymous." But I have a question - if my children were adopted, and let's say I adopted them when they were 3 years old, would I be qualified to speak on the subject of parenting as authoritatively as biological parents? If I were gay and not able to be legally married to my partner, would it be illegitimate of me to say I was married? Should I always qualify and say, "This is my adopted daughter," or "This is my non-legally binding partner?"
"I have a few thoughts on Sue's entry and your reaction to it.
Firstly, I don't find Sue's response to be angry but rather straightforward with no sugar coating.
Secondly, I would have to agree with her in that you need to be straightforward in what your role is/was as a "father" in the children's lives you have been involved in because it IS misleading to refer to yourself as having "fathered" three children. As you slam parents for various reasons, you often cite yourself as a source of reference; however, you never acknowledge that your experience is very different than others. This does not make less of your experience or your role less important. It simply makes it different, and I feel it unfair to negatively hold others against your experience. Being a full time parent to a newborn or toddler IS different than being a part time step-parent to a 4, 5, 7, 10, or 15 year old. There is no better or worse, but there most certainly is a difference that I think should be clarified. I am a biological mother to a 15 month old and was a full-time step-child to a woman from when I was 9-33 years old. It's not the same.
Thirdly, I don't think Sue missed the gist of your post; I think for those who know you, it is hard to sometimes get past the things that seem skewed to make a point. In addition, as a former English professor, I can tell you that one of my first lessons in teaching writing, particularly persuasive writing, was that you never want to offend/turn off the reader simply because they will stop reading and your point will be completely lost. The most persuasive writing is that which considers all, or at the very least, opposing points of view in a non-confrontational manner. When you give credit to other points of view or experiences, you do not cause the reader's defenses to go up and enable your point to be heard and considered. I find Sue's comments to be far less angry than your blog often sounds. So, just as you pose the question to Sue as to why she was angry about your entry, why was your initial entry so angry?
Fourthly, you often make negative comments regarding "traditional" marriage. Why, then, would you make reference to your partner as "your wife"? Again, to those who know you, it would appear that you are only using that word to make a point, which, for some of us, then renders your point ineffective. It seems hypocritical to knock "traditional" marriage, yet then use it, falsely, to suit your purpose. As I told my students, just as important as being non-confrontational in trying to make a point in writing, you must also be a reliable writer. If there are non-truths or "holes" in your writing, the reader no longer believes what it is you have to say because you have become unreliable. I believe Sue may have been making this point.
Fifthly, if there are typos or grammatical errors in my email, please feel free to correct, as it is Monday morning, I had a super-bowl party yesterday and my 15 month old is hanging on my leg."
PL:
Mostly, auntlori, I responded to much of what you wrote above in my response to "Anonymous." But I have a question - if my children were adopted, and let's say I adopted them when they were 3 years old, would I be qualified to speak on the subject of parenting as authoritatively as biological parents? If I were gay and not able to be legally married to my partner, would it be illegitimate of me to say I was married? Should I always qualify and say, "This is my adopted daughter," or "This is my non-legally binding partner?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
