I watch a few TV shows and movies on Hulu, on my computer. Nine years ago, when we began our life together, Roderick and I chose to live without television. I find advertizing rather invasive. From what I have seen when I visit houses with television, it has not changed.

Like any media business, Hulu must generate income. Fortunately, the ads are extremely short, yet useless and bizarre products manage to find their way onto the screen and to make me question this human race, our concerns and priorities.

Two things are sold with every product: The product itself and the belief that certain circumstances or conditions exist that must be remedied. Statistics usually establish the need. 85 % of people will begin losing their hair by age 20. The large percentage is so impressive, and so immediately accepted as an indication of significance, that we rarely question what is actually being said. What about the 15 % who will not lose their hair? Of how many hairs are we talking? People lose hair every single day. Is it automatically a problem because of this sudden statistic? Some believe and insist that there should never be more than about 20 hairs on my brush each week. I have lost more than that each day, for over 25 years, and I am not anywhere near bald!

The latest “gadget” is a prescription solution that promises to grow longer, thicker and darker lashes. What is the underlying message? That having short, light, sparse eyelashes is a condition, one that requires a remedy. It is not merely special, thickening mascara that is supposed to do the trick anymore; one needs the Big Rx. Is not a prescription for a medical condition? Since when are the normal eyelashes we are born with a condition? How important is this, really?

Indeed, how important is it to be so absorbed with our bodies that we spend millions in research and purchases to create and acquire products that promise to overcome physical traits that are, in reality, normal? Someone who lost an arm might benefit from the research and equipment that provide an artificial limb, but what is accomplished by thickening eyelashes or preventing normal hair loss?

What of the fear of these unrealistic conditions? We suffer from a great lack of self-esteem in this culture. It probably does not matter how intelligent we are. Repeat the message that normal hair and lashes require medication and before too long even the best-grounded person may lose sight of reality and feel less than perfect.

I do not believe I have ever seen an advertizing campaign to promote self-acceptance, not a product, not a condition and not focus on imaginary flaws, just a plain acknowledgement that perhaps we are just ok as we are. The things we invent to attain perfection only lead to a greater desire for perfection; desire for perfection leads to the belief that it is not there already. But it is.

There is great perfection in a body that manages to balance on two feet and manipulate and transform its surroundings, build shelter, produce food, create art and music, hold a child, love an animal, build a community, learn languages and skills and grow in wisdom and acceptance. All of this is accomplished from the center of our minds and the cooperation of our physical structure. No funny pill or ointment is required.

Slainte!

According to several studies, most casual conversations focus on conveying negative experiences and discussing the shortcomings and misdeeds of others. We go out of our way to discuss a bad experience nearly three times as much as we might to discuss a good one. Some might say this indicates shallowness or a negative attitude, but could it be instinctive also?

The story we tell when we say that someone has wronged us, for instance, is merely an illustration, the conveying of an event in such a way as to impress upon the listener the atmosphere and nature of an encounter that did not bring us joy, fulfillment, nurturing or well-being. Take away the words, the whining and swearing, and it becomes an attempt to convey who we are in the midst of an event. By rejecting the event, we state our own belief system and we warn others so they avoid the same situation, the same assault.

That this is a perceived assault, not necessarily a real one, is irrelevant. It is our long-winded and twisted way of saying, “This is what happened to me. Do not go there. It is a place where you will be treated with disrespect”. It is also a long-winded and twisted way of saying, “I am a good and worthy person. These people did not treat me as such. I hereby seek your allegiance so that I do not stand alone in the midst of this drama”.

We instinctively seek commiseration. We want others to be angry with us. This validates our perception of the event that has so shaken us; it also reassures us that we do not stand-alone. When we are wronged or when bad things happen to us, we feel alone, diminished. We instinctively seek to build an army, we campaign in our own favor, until voices of friends and colleagues rise in unison against the misdeed. It is a powerful mechanism. It works in the sense that it provides a feeling of strength and righteousness. In truth, it does not, and it is not necessary to feel strong or righteous. It is necessary, however, to preserve our dignity. Complaining about a situation does not accomplish this.

What would happen if we said nothing, or if we chose to say it differently? We might convey a bad experience or encounter to friends and colleagues but not seek commiseration. Instead, we might seek suggestions and guidance. Should we speak up to someone who has insulted us or let it go? Should we avoid a certain individual or peacefully confront him? Most importantly, are we seeing things clearly, are we being fair and contributing to making things better?

These are tough questions. They require a lot of mental and emotional work, the sort that is not possible immediately upon leaving an unpleasant encounter or experience. However, these questions are building blocks. Without them, all we have are the anger and words we cast out into the world randomly, like random bricks and nails and planks a disgruntled builder might unload haphazardly on a job site. Every experience is a job site; one where we must organize our thoughts and emotions into a blueprint we can build upon instead of seeking to make sense of debris and, in fact, adding to the pile.

Slainte!

When children hurt their siblings or steal, parents scold them, send them to their room or ground them for the week. Though their may be some tension for a while, parents continue to love and support them, share meals with them and laugh with them. When a person in the community hurts someone else or steals, we chastise him or her and rarely forgive.

A trusted community member, in a town near where I live, was recently accused of molesting teens. It appears certain that he did in fact commit such acts, while otherwise being a respected teacher, mentor, coach and public servant. When a fellow public servant took the time to commend this man for his services to the city in addition to expressing his sorrow over the revelation of molestation, he was scorned for uttering such a comment.

Is there any real reason in the universe why we so readily obliterate the good deeds of fellow men and women the moment we become aware of the less than admirable acts they are also capable of? With our children it seems different, but in some ways it is similar. Though we do not cease to love them while we scold them, we put a lot more energy into noticing their wrongdoing than into stressing their general ability to demonstrate admirable traits throughout the day.

We define what is right by first identifying what is wrong. The right action or behavior then becomes the standard by which we measure our deeds and especially the deeds of others. There is an underlying agreement to favor what is good. However, we spend much less time reinforcing good deeds, even the simplest and most obvious good deeds, than we do pointing, analyzing and discussing bad deeds. To associate with the good, we must reject the bad or at least this is what we have come to believe.

What if the concept of “bringing to justice” did not mean bringing an “offender” before a court and jury? Instead, it would mean, “intervening in such a way as to lead a fellow human back to his or her most harmonious place in society”. Justice is represented by a scale. It is about what is right and balanced for all, not just for those who decide what is right and wrong. In fact, those who decide could be compared to parents; elders who observe the workings of a group of people and determine how to guide the whole group back to harmony and cohesion whenever there is discord on the part of one or many.

Parenting is not black and white; it does not isolate a child for wrongdoing. Rather, it leads to a voluntary effort to seek to understand the child in order to help him or her navigate through the crisis, remember, and embrace the behavior that is best for all.

We chastise people who do wrong as a statement that we aspire to reject wrongdoing in our own lives and in general. To condemn a person we have labeled a “criminal” or “offender” is an act that clearly separates us from that person and makes it clear that we had no part in it. But this was clear already.  

We do not have to stop loving someone because they have done something unspeakably wrong. We must let them know it is wrong; we must let them know it will not be tolerated because it hurts others. However, how can we ask someone to change and love others at the same time as we tell this person, “We are now rejecting you”? Is this justice? Does this make an example of the offender, as a deterrent to others or is it clearly understood as a statement of rejection? Does this solve anything?

There is a reason people commit acts of violence. The individual who committed the act is not the only object on which to focus our attention. When we look at the “why”, we may begin to see a greater picture and draw conclusions with far greater reaching potential. We might see what circumstances came together to generate an act of violence and how to avoid this in the future.

Will someone ask where this man came from, what he has suffered or witnessed or what sort of thinking led him to molest young children? What sort of talents does he possess that could be encouraged and developed so he may be able to change his perspective and behavior? Is this possible? Does rejecting the whole person on the ground of one horrific misdeed actually work? Does this reveal that we stand for good, or that we love conditionally?

I imagine a public award ceremony where reformed offenders and criminals of all sorts are honored for having overcome their inclinations to hurt others. I imagine an award ceremony where people who have done their time and made every effort to right their ways receive encouragement to continue on this new course instead of being rejected the moment they step off prison grounds.

I imagine a society where we reinforce and celebrate every act of harmony and cooperation far more often than we come together to speak against something or someone.

Slainte!

"Do we wish no to resemble who we are?" asked a radio host in the course of an interview regarding the various attitudes toward beauty and esthetics. I began streaming the show moments before its end. This last statement trailed off in my headphones as the sound of the keyboard began to take over: Smiling causes our faces to wrinkle much, but when we smile it is not our wrinkles that others notice, it is the communicative warmth of our countenance.

How true. Perhaps it is the wrinkles within that should cause us the most concern, as well as the ways in which we shrink in disapproval of others’ choices and behaviors, the ways in which we judge them and ourselves. These wrinkles of the spirit might very well be more apparent than the signs of aging.

I long ago decided not to spend any of my income on beauty products other than what is necessary to keep myself clean, healthy and presentable. I made this decision when I had very little and it was clear to me that I should focus energies on survival and inner well-being. I also made this decision following observation of deeply unhappy individuals within my immediate surroundings and after hearing these unimaginable words escape their lips: “I would rather die than grow old and wrinkled”.

As I sought to eradicate such thoughts from my own perception of self, I developed great freedom. Conversely, I also developed harsh criticism toward anything pertaining to makeup and aesthetic surgery. I became wrinkled on the inside as I frowned my objection, that is, until I made an interesting discovery. My own streamlined style was just as much an attempt to express some true self as is the style of people who choose to wear expensive clothing or decorate their skin or color their hair.

In truth, we do not so much seek to be someone else as we seek to create in the mirror the image that most accurately reflects who we know we are on the inside. The perfect shade of lipstick or the perfect tie pattern is required for one to feel fully expressed. I feel fully expressed in my subtly medieval cut blouses. I do not feel like me in anything else. Similarly, I believe that for most people who choose plastic surgery there is simply something very strong calling from within, begging to be revealed. They know who they are and the image they bring out into the world must reflect this.

We say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not realizing that this is not necessarily a third party’s eye. Granted that in some instances the attempt to transform or embellish one’s appearance may be a result of trauma or insecurity, I bet that in most instances it is an instinct. We simply know who we are. We may not voice this, lest we sound arrogant. In fact, our culture teaches us to suppress any such verbal expression. Therefore, we adorn our faces and bodies with the colors and shapes that best extend our spirits out into the world.

It would be interesting to watch the metamorphosis of our neighbors, colleagues and friends if all of us suddenly had the spontaneous ability to assume the colors, vestments and accessories of that within us which we know to be our true selves. Like changelings or young sprouts that grow in slow motion before the rhythmic camera shutter, we might merge into our true form as effortlessly as gently running water. I believe this is the experience we seek when we decorate ourselves with the textures and colors at hand in our material and not so fluid world. We seek a fluency of being.

Slainte!

We often fail to recognize the multitude of possibilities and nuances in everyday realities. We adopt a cause and develop a belief around it in our minds, one that soon becomes inflexible. The goal, the ideal, the path itself disappear in the face of a stubborn grasp onto truths that may or may not be in line with all aspects of an event or reality. We create unspoken contracts and live in fear of failure should we fall short. Worst yet, we live in fear of oblivion and annihilation.

It is important to care about nature, it is important to treat the planet and all creatures with love and respect, reducing our impact is a worthy and intelligent cause, but I question whether an extremist, stubborn, single-minded approach is necessary.

I began this questioning long ago, little by little, as I became increasingly aware of the discrepancy between my spoken dialogue and my actual thoughts and desires. I love animals. In fact, several personal experiences have convinced me of the possibility of communicating, or merging with them at a deep spiritual level. I abstained from meat eating for several years, until my body grew a bit older and I became aware of urges for the taste of iron and the slight but distinguishable feeling I feel upon smelling and tasting a fine cut of steak, a bit of blood.

Our bodies have an intelligence of their own. It recognizes every lack and every need and instinctively seeks to respond, fill the gaps and provide the proper nutrients and activity. If we pay attention to the prompts, we soon realize that we know exactly what to ingest as surely as we know with certainty in which areas we are most skilled. This reflection, and the inevitable giving in that led me to savor a good steak on occasion, or add chicken to my weekly diet, also led to a new, more honest perception of my relationship with nature.

It suddenly occurred to me that the real problem might be a slight variation on the generally adopted truth. The problem is not that we eat meat; it is how we treat the animals we raise for meat. Humane slaughter used to be the rule in many cultures. Mass production has led to less than kind practices. We must change our practices. Over-indulgence does not work, but complete, worldwide abstinence is neither realistic, nor healthy. Any solution must arise from a great measure of balance.

The real estate and automobile industries trigger a similar debate. We forget that human ingenuity is never at a standstill. The building and car design practices of today have evolved and continue to evolve even as we protest against them. Engineers, inventors, architects and dreamers are free to reinvent. In fact, they do so constantly. Every new design, prototype and shape is an innovation. They consistently seek to lighten what is too heavy, silence what is too loud and recycle what is otherwise wasted.

Hating all people who choose to purchase SUV’s or large houses does not contribute to greater respect for the environment. How could thoughts of hate ever lead to true respect? This is conditional love at best. I will accept you and value you if you drive an electric car, but for now I must look away as a statement of my love for the world. What sort of thinking is that?

The environment crisis is real, but I wonder if any fight or demonstration against global warming, meat eating or mansion dwelling can actually contribute to a renewed common accord and shared love and devotion for the environment. I am much less likely to see eye to eye with someone who is against me than I am with someone who accepts me as I am while strongly, simply adopting new, better rules and demonstrating the results of that.

Everyone has the ability to recognize a loving act, a new invention that works better, a new approach that gradually makes its way into common acceptance and usage, because it was allowed to evolve rather than being imposed. There is rarely any resistance to true evolution, and evolution is inevitable. Humans consistently seek more joy, more peace, more love and more well-being. Everything we create and do is certain to evolve in direct proportion to this search.

We naturally seek to reduce suffering and pain, but we must first recognize these before we can change. We strive for harmony, by nature. Our occasional clumsiness does not prevent our success; it leads to it. It is the stepping-stone, the point of recognition and awareness that leads to new, better directions.

Slainte!