Changing focus within the body. A little trick I use.

      There are always times when pain visits our body. Constant and dulling pain can really wear away at our spirits and give way to many kinds of thoughts which limit and distress us. There are many ways to distract ourselves or give us some temporary relief, but sometimes we have to just deal with it. In order to preserve our will and courage in dealing with pain, it helps to find a way to take our focus off of the area of the body under distress.

    A simple technique I've started using is to shift my attention from discomfort to the pressure I'm feeling from the force of gravity. This could be the pressure felt on the bottoms of your feet while walking or on your thighs while sitting. The advantage of this method is that it is always available to you unless you're free falling through space.

    If gravity is the reason you're in pain, then I guess you'll have to come up with something else to focus on!

The Body: The Source of All Evil

If there was one facet of my existence I would gladly rid myself of (assuming I could migrate to another medium of existence), there's no doubt I'd choose my body. I was watching a television show with Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse-Tyson. He said something to the effect that there would be a tremendous change in our planetary dynamic if all life forms simply subsisted on energy from our sun. Life wouldn't then rely of the consumption and destruction of other life.

Where my thoughts tie together is in the knowledge that so much of our weakness, temptation, destruction, irrationality, and suffering spring forth from the body. It is so pleasing to spend time in the world of ideas, imagination, spirituality, and other non-material pursuits and then suddenly realize your ass itches and you can't think of anything else.

Philosophical Punch in the Mouth Vol.5

Another doozy from Seneca:

Have you anything that might induce you to wait? You have exhausted the very pleasures that make you hesitate and hold you back; not one of them has any novelty for you, not one of them now fails to bore you out of sheer excess. You know what wine or honey-wine tastes like: it makes no difference whether a hundred or a thousand flagons go through your bladder – all you are is a strainer. You are perfectly familiar with the taste of oysters or mullet. Your luxurious way of life has kept back not a single fresh experience for you to try in coming years. And yet these are the things from which you are reluctant to be torn away. What else is there which you would be sorry to be deprived of? Friends? Do you know how to be a friend? Your country? Do you really value her so highly that you would put off your dinner for her? The sunlight? If you could you would put out that light – for what have you ever done that deserved a place in it? Confess it – it is no attachment to the world of politics or business, or even the world of nature, that makes you put off dying – the delicatessens, in which there is nothing you have left untried, are what you are reluctant to leave. You are scared of death – but how magnificently heedless of it you are while you are dealing with a dish of choice mushrooms! You want to live – but do you know how to live? You are scared of dying – and, tell me, is the kind of life you lead really any different from being dead? Caligula was once passing a column of captives on the Latin Road when one of them, with a hoary old beard reaching down his breast, begged to be put to death. 'So,' replied Caligula, 'you are alive, then, as you are?' That is the answer to give to people to whom death would actually come as a release. 'You are scared of dying? So you are alive, then, as you are?'

It can be disconcerting or liberating, depending on how you look at it, to be persuaded that your own death wouldn't be so bad.

Why I refuse to cry

Many people claim there is a therapeutic benefit to the act of crying. I happen to agree with them. There have been times in my life where I've indulged in the practice as a way of managing overactive emotion. However, for over a year I haven't shed a single tear. I've been close. I've wanted to. To the popularized layman perspective of Stoicism, the accusation might be that I'm repressing emotion, hiding from things, and presenting a masculine barrier between myself and what I feel.

The reason I've withheld all my tears (and plan to continue doing so) is because I see the act as physically legitimizing my rejection of the reality I'm faced with. I don't claim any special immunity to strong emotion or misfortune. I just don't want the universe seeing me wailing with dissatisfaction with what I've been given. If I dislike what I've been given, I can leave anytime I want. I see crying as being disrespectful to the totality of existence. The choice to withhold tears is a line I've drawn to check any unwarranted emotional responses. Responses that I've been given, at this point, decades to prepare for the oh-so-easily predicted misfortunes life can bring us.

Let's be honest. We know misfortunes can and will come. We know why. Sometimes it's pretty clear when. Given this, it's merely our job to do a little homework and we'll be ready when the test comes. I, for one, am not going to cry because I didn't want to do my homework.

The Fulmination of the American Crisis 2 of 2

There's a premise I'd like to share before starting my personal discussion. This idea is that there are two world views: 1) The world view of those who do not have to worry about basic necessities. 2) The world view of those that do have to worry about necessities. The world is not the same place for either of these views. The key difference being the number of choices/opportunities the persons possess. The Stoic recognizes how easily he can move from one view to the other and disciplines himself to neither be broken or falsely assured by either transition. To disclose, I do not have to worry about basic necessities in the short term. This combination of my prosperity and knowledge of its fleeting nature has left me with a feeling of responsibility towards those struggling beyond myself. The dilemma I've had my entire adult life has been the question, "What do I do now that I'm taken care of that pays respect to the realities of my and others' (American) life?" This question becomes increasingly difficult to answer in a place where you see everything as broken. This is not the broken that is fixable, but the broken that must be replaced.

Within the last year, I received a Master's degree in Childhood Education (grades 1-6). Becoming a public school teacher is my attempt to be part of something positive and to create personal meaning for myself in terms of work satisfaction. Despite my cynicism, I could see myself finding that satisfaction in the work once I became experienced and could create a proper classroom. However, there would be a certain blindness and blissful ignorance I'd have to impose upon myself to accomplish that. I'd have to pretend that those who are making the important decisions in education aren't totally disconnected from what human beings need to flourish. I'd need to ignore that schools are, in many lights, institutionally inhumane, abusive and demoralizing to the student. It's really hard for me to ascertain what is really the function of schooling. Do you learn anything? Sure, but what is left after you consider what you forget and what you never use/need/care about? Do you really need twenty years(pre-K through Master's) of theoretical learning before you attempt a profession? Ludicrous. Don't forget the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on each person in those 20 years. Education is an industry that you come out of knowing how to...take tests. Anyways, I could keep ranting, but the point is to highlight how, in America, even trying to do something that should be noble and satisfying is perverted and corrupted.

The dilemma being, as always, what do I do now? I could put aside my philosophical differences with schools and commit to being an entity inside of schools that does its best to bring something human to what can feel and become inhuman. This was my first instinct upon moving into teaching. I convinced myself that I could eventually climb to a position of power (principal/superintendent) and create policy that would improve the experience and enrichment of my students. The reality I see inside of schools is that the ability to make that kind of difference is shrinking everyday. Schools have had the bottom line business model imposed upon them in the form of test scores instead of profits. I've been trying to examine this model of thinking. Consider this analogy:

       -I work in a Nazi Work/Death Camp. I take part in all the day to day functions that I'm responsible for. Maybe I don't pull any triggers or turn any switches, but I'm part of the system. However, every day I bring some of the Jews some food or some medicine or some other helpful item. Am I really serving the Jews by giving them these scraps of sustenance in an otherwise awful existence? Or could I do something more for them by leaving and maybe helping those who haven't been brought to camps? The question I'm trying to answer being, "Can you really serve a positive purpose from inside a dysfunctional and failed system?" It's really a hard question to answer.

     This question is not only applicable to my career dilemma but to most parts of American life. How much does my participation make me complicit in this mess we've created? My taxes go towards all these failed ideas. At what point do you need to divorce yourself from the system as much as you can in order to be healthier and say something about what is going on with your own actions. Don't people need to start living their solutions instead of just suggesting them?

If you interested more in the education topic, I recommend this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U&feature=player_embedded#at=689

Technology and the Stoic (Human)

 Being an aspiring Stoic, I continually examine myself and my world under the scrutiny of whether those entities exist "in accordance with nature". As someone who has grown up alongside the digital and technological revolution (I'm 32), I can't help but notice my linear growth compared to its exponential explosion. And as I continue my trod towards middle age, technology continues to blast itself into our daily lives and into the far corners of the universe. (I define technology as the gadgets, machines, and digital systems we use to accomplish tasks and entertain ourselves more efficiently in terms of space, time, and effort.) The only part of me that has kept any pace at all with technology has been the mental dissonance I acrue from living in an increasingly digitized era.

I realize the time may be too late to ask this question towards any large scale practical purpose seeing as technology certainly stands no chance of being rejected or merely halted by our global civilization. But, I'll ask anyways because there is still a poignancy to the issue in terms of our day to day existence. We still must decide on an individual level how we immerse ourselves into our world on a technological basis. My question being, "Does the technology of the industrial age and it's conceivable future applications stand in discord with nature?"

There are a number of ways to look at this question and neither Rufus or Chrysippus are going to have any answers for us anytime soon. Hopefully, my words may inspire a few of your own and we can address together what I see as the most dynamic force and period of change in human history.

-One of the fundamental premises of Stoic logic is that humans are social creatures. Now that we have jet planes that can get you anywhere in less than a day, e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, Skype, cellphones, and text messaging I wonder if our social relations have improved at all. Certainly they are more convenient and expedient. My experience tells me that (as with many technologies) we've created many unforseen complications and removed essential components from the experience of communication and interaction. What we've gained in access and speed I perceive we've lost in humanity. We've been disembodied to a degree. We've become a world of avatars that has left many, myself included, feeling on the outside looking in on nowhere. Am I the only person who thinks it's funny and yet telling of something wrong that I get e-mails from someone sitting 40 feet from me in the same apartment?

-What indictment of technology is made from the fact that enough nuclear firepower stands available to wipe out humanity many times over? If that's antiquated 20^th century gibberish to you then what about genetically engineering human beings and computerized intelligence vastly superior to our own?

- From an agricultural standpoint, we've come to point where our meals depend on the fossil fuel technology we use to harvest and distribute our food. Our populations grow while relying on this, perhaps finite, resource. The future of food and maybe the environment itself seem rather precarious since we are now surrounded by problems created by technology that can only be solved by better technology. Is this a paradigm that can exist indefinitely or is technology bound to collapse upon itself?

- If there was consensus on technology being detrimental to the quality of our existence, then where would we draw the line? Electricity perhaps? Technology of the kind we experience today seems to be very much an all or nothing proposition seeing as it is made of highly interdependent systems.

Despite the tone of this essay, there is still a part of me that entertains the idea that this is an unavoidable, necessary, and perhaps benign part of the human experiment. As we have been given this intellect and reasoning capacities, we were bound to invent such wonders. But if put to task, the stronger impression I get is of a people, a species who may end up learning a very harsh lesson about the limits of their capacities and that of the planet they live on.

Lastly, I'd like to share an anecdote from my own adventures in undigitization. Over a year ago I stopped carrying a mobile phone. Since then, I can count on one hand the number of times I could have really used it. The big surprise has not been how well I've gotten by without it, but the amount of social pressure I've received from family and friends to be on the grid. As with being mostly alone in my philosophical pursuits, I'll take my solitude in this matter as another vote of affirmation.

The Fulmination of the American Crisis 1 of 2

     Trends work in such a way that early on in their formation they have an uncertainty about their own sustainability which, when removed, clears the path to no longer being a trend but something legitimate. For instance, cell phones were at one time a trend and are now ubiquitous.

    The beauty of trends is that they can be reversed and mostly just fade away. America, my home, has passed the point where the problems ailing its vital systems (democracy, economy, foreign policy, education, health care) can no longer be referred to as trends. For many years, I've quietly observed and analyzed the American socio-political landscape. The perplexing and intellectually comical conclusion I've come to is that the rate at which the number and magnitude of our problems ascend is inversely proportional to the intelligence of our responses to them. In other words, the worse things get, the dumber we respond to them. 

• Wall St. blows up the global economy? Bail them out, punish no one, and do no regulatory reform of consequence.

• Radical Islamists not associated with any flag fly planes into buildings? Start two wars of occupation killing over a million people (us and them) and costing trillions of dollars.

• Democracy overrun with corporate money and influence? Make a supreme court decision allowing them unlimited monetary access.

Given the premise that the trend of bad decisions is not a trend but a worsening status quo, then it is only a matter of time before we implode, revolt, fragment, or fade into irrelevancy. Maybe I'm going overboard but part of me feels like that can't happen soon enough. This country has become a terrible joke to me and I don't see the will or the intelligence in the people to do anything about that. Undoubtedly, I am cynical. However, that's better than being foolish. Which is what you'd have to be in order to suspend reality long enough to see the hope you thought was coming in '08. 

(Part two will be a reflection of how this problem interplays with my aspirations, plans, and reality.)

The limit of my patience

    As someone who prefers to be in a leadership position whenever I can, I've learned that the easiest way for me to simply lose my patience is when trying to accomplish something collaboratively. I can understand when people don't execute plans properly. This type of mistake is expected and unavoidable. The mistake that seems to develop the most friction for me is when people are unable to analyze and synthesize why a certain course of action is preferable or why we should be focusing on certain goals rather than others.

    This seems to come back to the never ending battle between emotion and logic. Albeit, there are certain people who just fail at stringing logical premises and conclusion together. But really, after a few attempts at trying to enlighten them, I'm going to move forward from this person. It's the person who I know is capable of grasping arguments that disturbs me and holds onto false ones because of emotional ties.

     I watched this episode of House M.D. (which I enjoy simply for the clever ways he employs logic in order to be a first class asshole) in which House and his girlfriend have some static in their relationship because she caught him lying to her in order to do his job. The crux of his argument being that everyone lies so there's no good reason to get overly worked up about something you undoubtedly do to others. It has a mildly stoic ring to it. Scenes later, he catches her in a lie about her past. At this point, he feels vindicated in having proven his point since he has now lied to her and she has lied to him. He forgives her for her lie, but she's not going along. She's still upset.

     Dramatically but principled, he lies to her yet again and gives her a false apology for having lied to her the first time. It's this type of over complication and necessity for venomous compromise that results from having to appease emotions and not logic that really deflates me at times. As much as I try and want to be connected to other people, these situations leave me feeling high degrees of isolation.

A tribute to George

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f0GStBCeUU&feature=player_embedded

Before I started any kind of study of academic philosophy, I was mostly exposed to certain ideas by pop-philosophers (which these days are mostly comedians). George Carlin being a large intellectual influence merely by his combination of humor and thoughtfulness.

Although I disagree with some of George's motives for taking this stand, I find the result to be brave and admirable.

Philosophical Punch in the Mouth Vol.4

This quote comes from Seneca's essay regarding the virtue of mercy. I've picked this because I am a new teacher and this fairly describes my ideal for classroom management.

"There is the further point that a great many people are capable of returning to virtue's path if punishment is waved. But pardon should not be exercised in an unthinking way; for once the distinction between bad men and good is removed, what follows is confusion and the outbreak of vice; accordingly a wise restraint should be shown, such as is capable of distinguishing between curable characters and ones past hope. The mercy we exercise ought not to be indiscriminate and for all and sundry but it should not be withheld completely; for pardoning all involves no less cruelty than pardoning none. We must preserve a mean; but because equilibrium is not easily achieved, whatever is likely to tilt the balance should incline the scale in the more benign direction."

I have been called too nice as a professional and maybe I am not reaching a proper equilibrium, but this is because I continually incline to that benign direction.

Emotionalism

    Before I get into reasoning, I'll just declare that I don't want to be an emotional person. The fewer emotions I can have, the better. I have no expectation of this happening in my lifetime, but I keep it as a personal goal. For people in mindsets other than the Stoic or perhaps Buddhist (the eastern cousin of Stoicism) way of thinking, this seems ludicrous, dangerous, or perhaps cowardly. I've spent my entire life in a shroud of rubberized feelings bouncing up/down/left/right and mostly in circles. I can't speak for anyone, but I don't see much different in the shared lives of those around me.

    My perception is that we have three states. Good feelings, bad feelings, and no feelings. However, good and bad feelings are in one dimension of existence and no feelings is in another. What I mean is that the good and bad feelings have a special relationship. They play off each other and depend on each other. They form a necessary dichotomy. We misuse impressions to create a bad feeling and when the fog is lifted from our mistake it is transformed into a good feeling. Similarly, we push ourselves to emotional highs regarding the objects of our lives and often come into a crash.

    The no feeling dimension is rejected for the same reason we fear most things, their being foreign. Our proclivity towards understanding puts us at odds with it. I'm hardly an expert, but I feel like there are moments where I can catch a glimpse of what it is like. It doesn't feel all that pleasurable like a state of bliss. It just feels very calm and authentic. I think we can stumble into it at times, but our untamed feelings are too strong to leave us there for long.

    The first problem I have with excess feeling all the time is that I barely get to live my life in the moment because I'm constantly having to fend off these voices trying to persuade me of what to do and what to think. Can't my mind know what's a natural way to live without these constant feelings?

Surrender

   As I've been honing my Stoic thinking process, the idea of surrender has thrust itself in my consciousness. Without delving too deep into this idea, let me show how I've begun to do it. Imagine a situation comes along where I make an incorrect judgement and feel the resulting emotion inside. My problem in the past is that I've dwelt on the mistake and feeling after they happen.

   The truth is that I was meant to make that mistake and feel that emotion because I had not corrected my thinking beforehand. (And sometimes your imagination just hurls false judgements upon you!) So instead of beating myself up, I am now trying to simply surrender to those thoughts/feelings and allow them to process and move along. This allows me to move forward with time and keep my mind clear.

    The lesson for me being that we can't avoid the backlash for living in discord with our nature. So just surrender to the consequences. What else can you do? If you don't wish to go down that path again, then set your mind to become what it wasn't before that happened.

Philosophical Punch in the Mouth Vol.3

From Epictetus' Discourses, Book 4  1:99-106

- 'How do you mean, attach himself?' So that whatever god wills, he wills too, and what god does not will, he does not will either. 'How, then, can this be achieved?' - Why, how otherwise than by considering god's purposes and his governance? What has he given to me to by my own and subject to my own authority? What has he reserved for himself? He has given to me whatever lies within the sphere of choice, and made that over to me free from all hindrance and restraint. This body formed of clay, how could he make that free from hindrance? And so he has made subject to the circulation of the universe my property, my furnishings, my house, my children, my wife. Why, then, shall I fight against god? Why do I will what is outside the reach of my will, to possess absolutely what is not granted to me absolutely? So how long shall I possess them? As they were granted to me, and for as long as possible. But he who gave takes away again. Why, then, do I resist? Not to say that I shall be a fool contending with one stronger than myself; but prior to that, I shall be doing wrong. For where did I get things when I came into the world? My father gave them to me. And who gave them to him? And who made the sun, who the fruits, who the seasons, and who the fellowship and intercommunion between men? And then, when you have received everything, even your very self, from another, are you angry with the giver and do you reproach him if he takes anything away from you? Who are you, and for what purpose have you come? Was it not he who brought you here? Was it not he who showed you the light? Has he not given you fellow-workers? Has he not given you senses? Has he not given you reason? And as what did he bring you here? Was it not as a mortal? Was it not as one who would live, with a little portion of flesh, upon this earth, and behold his governance and take part with him, for a short time, in his pageant and his festival? Are you not willing, then, for the time that is granted to you, to behold his pageant and his solemn assembly, and then, when he leads you out, will you not pass on your way, after paying him obeisance and offering him thanksgiving for what you have heard and what you have seen? 'No, but I wanted to enjoy the festival still longer.' So would initiates into the Mysteries like to be longer in their initiation, so perhaps would the spectators at Olympia like to see more athletes. But the festival is over. Leave it and depart like a grateful and modest person; make room for others. Others too must be born, as you were, and when they are born must have land and houses and the necessities of life. But if those who come first do not withdraw, what room is there left? Why are you insatiable? Why are you never satisfied? Why do you crowd the world?

A couple points:

1) I am a Pantheistic Stoic in that wherever I see God in Stoic text I just substitute Universe.

2) I see so many Stoic ideas in Christianity that it sometimes seems more than just a coincidence. IE: "But he who gave takes away again." (The lord giveth and the lord taketh away)

3) I love the oratory style of Epictetus. He pins you in a corner with rapid fire questioning that you simply don't have a counter answer for. 

Pain Analogy

     Pain. It needs no introduction. I just thought of an interesting way to think of it. Imagine a gasoline can or water can for plants. The can represents an incident of some kind that inspires pain. The water of the can represents the accumulated pain of that incident. The flow of the water out of the bucket represents the intensity of our pain. If we take some of the worst events of our lives, we will imagine that bucket being filled to the brim. Take that bucket and start pouring the liquid out of the spigot.

    Initially, the water flows out in a large and unsteady stream. The water can be whitish from all the air and jostling. Sometimes it will flow out in chunks because of air displacement. This opening period is when you feel the full fury and violence of the pain. 

    Then the water calms somewhat. However, there is still a very reliable and steady stream. You can see the transparency of the water as the flow remains consistent and strong. At this point in the pain game, people can get frustrated because of the persistence of sensation. There have been times in my life when I've wondered when it might end. 

    The next phase is when we still have a transparent stream but it breaks up into droplets towards the end. This signifies to me the light at the end of the tunnel where relief can be found.

    The second to last phase is when there are only droplets coming out of the bucket. The pain is just intermittent at this point. Life becomes just a little bit easier.

    And finally, the end has come when you take the bucket and turn it completely upside down to even see if you  can find any water at all. I've come to learn that this is not the time for celebration or satisfaction. Never own up to the fact that your pain is a bad thing. It is simply a challenge. An endurance challenge for the mind. One we can all win.

Hanging By a Thread

    By most accounts, I believe people are comfortable with accepting the pleasant side of what comes their way from fortune or fate. However, the reverses of fortune are not met with such an embrace. Why is this? One theory is that we suspend our belief about what reality has to offer us because, in the mean time, we don't want to think about the things we would prefer did not happen. This approach I will argue (as have others before me) is the worst of both worlds. The two criteria I will use to evaluate this approach are by how we see and treat a thing, a relationship, or an entity while we still share space and time with it and how we deal with its almost eventual absence.

    Let's look at the first situation or how I will call it, how much we appreciate something. The inevitable and literal outcome of thinking that something will always be yours (by denying you will ever be parted when you must) is simply taking something for granted. This is the state of not appreciating or enjoying something. The second scenario is what the response will be when we do lose something. Seeing that this occurrence is a broad departure from what we conceptualize, there is undoubtedly a shock in accepting these events.


    This is where the Stoic technique of negative visualization comes in. The premise of this technique is that we imagine the negative outcomes in our fates in order to prepare ourselves for these eventualities. Seneca argues that the shock is half the battle. On a side note, I don't think that negative visualization is the most apt term. What we're really doing is just realistically visualizing events. It's not a stretch to suppose that we envision the things we would prefer to happen without prompting ourselves. By creating mental space for the other possibilities, we are simply balancing our view of the future. We get the best of both worlds by being realistic since we can appreciate what we have when we have it and we can  prepare ourselves to be without it.


     The analogy that I use in balancing my thoughts is to imagine there being a tiny, thin thread that either holds something in my life or something (or myself) in existence altogether. This thread could snap at any moment and take everything and anything away at any moment...

The fairer sex (2 of 2)

    When talking about male/female relationships, the Stoic deference to the public interest over the private interest makes the distinction about how this process should run. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to make the decision for themselves as to which interest is more imperative, their own or the rest of humanity's. It is the argument of the Stoic that aligning yourself with the public interest (since we are social creatures) is one of the biggest steps towards the ultimate goal of "living in accordance with nature".

     In the first section of this column, I highlighted my own failings in pursuing women with what I wanted to have for myself (beauty, sex, attention/affection, and an object of my pursuit). While it might be different from person to person, this is what I refer to when I say the private interest.

    Looking at unions between men and women or even gay couples, what might we determine as the greatest benefit for the public to come out of these arrangements? From the limited number of benefits to the public I can ascertain, there are none more obvious or essential than the production and rearing of children who will contribute to and become the new face of our societies.

    The next question becomes, "How do we know who will be a good mother/father?" When it comes to relationships of any kind I believe the qualities that make us good fathers, husbands, children, brothers and friends. I can list a number of virtues, but the summary would be to look for someone who has taken successful efforts to make themselves better on the inside and who takes care of the body they've been entrusted with. And don't mistake me, looking good and being healthy are not the same although healthy always looks good.

    Before I continue this line of thinking any further, there is something I need to mention. Along with the public/private split in ideologies, there is another split that relates to relationships. It is about who is responsible for happiness. The person who aligns themselves with the public interest naturally must see themselves as master of their own happiness since acquiring things for themselves is not their goal. It also makes sense to me that someone who has their private interest at heart must look without themselves in order to make themselves happy. I believe this dependence on others leads to the dysfunction I often see in most relationships. My conclusion being that the reasons for entering most relationships that I see are selfish and misguided.

    Where this all leads me, I'm not sure. I'm considering taking a very Christian stance of just waiting until I'm married since I'm attempting to move sex down the list. I don't really find it that difficult to abstain once I set my mind to it. The frame of mind that I believe is taking hold is one of accepting that there are two ways to approach this situation. The right way and the wrong way. And aside from some mild gratification, the wrong way really doesn't offer me much.

Philosophical Punch in the Mouth Vol. #2

The Discourses (Epictetus) Book 1: Chapter 6: Lines 37-43

"Now that you realize these things, you also should look to the faculties that you have, and say as you behold them, 'Bring on me now, O Zeus, whatever difficulty you will, for I have the means and the resources granted to me by yourself to bring honour to myself through whatever may come to pass.' - No; but you sit trembling, for fear that this or that might happen, and lamenting, and mourning, and groaning at what does happen, and then you find fault with the gods. For what is the consequence of such meanness of spirit, but impiety? And yet god has not only granted us these faculties, which enable us to endure everything that happens without being humiliated or broken by it, but, like a good king, and a true father, has given them to us free of all restraint, compulsion, or hindrance, and has put them under our complete control, not even reserving any power for himself to hinder or restrain them. Possessing these faculties in freedom and as your own, will you make no use of them, not consider what it is that you have received and from whom, but sit groaning and lamenting, some of you blind to him who gave them and not acknowledging your benefactor, and others basely resorting to complaints and accusations against god? Yet I undertake to show you that you have the equipment and resources for greatness of soul and a courageous spirit: you show me what occasion you have for complaint and reproach!"

I certainly have nothing to add to this magnificent piece of writing aside from a mere anecdote. This quotation has the singular responsibility of inspiring my spirit and intellect into the Stoic mindset.

The fairer sex (1 of 2)

    Looking at my sexual/romantic exploits over the years, I see that I've exclusively used the desire model for how I've picked and lived with women. Obviously, there are certain traits in a companion we should want before others, but my desire model refers heavily to sexual desire and emotional desires to be fulfilled by the partner. I've always wanted to want someone. I've been so hypnotized by that feeling of transitioning from wanting someone to having someone. The bliss of allowing your imagination to picture how wonderful and pleasurable it will all be. Wanting someone to be yours forever. The evidence all points to the failure of this model. There isn't a person who ever lived on par with the cosmic and infinite pull of a man's desire unleashed. 


    And what better object than females to ignite this longing. At least in this country, they are ruthlessly trained from the crib to become beautiful and to capture the attention of boys and girls alike. Sadly, this show often reaches derivative where women of all ages experience terrible anxiety from their own desires to be desired. What could be a more unstable and painful arrangement than to have one desire be based on the ever-changing fickle nature of another person's want?


    The question I've posed to myself being at this crossroads is, "Where do I go from here?". 


    For me, the first part of the answer is simple. I must totally reinvent my thoughts and actions regarding sex. Without taming this instinct, I simply will never have a good relationship with a women. The first reason being that I will choose all the wrong women. The second reason being that the relationship will revolve around the sex and doom it internally. Easier said than done, right? Not really. The opportunity exists to practice this one all day everyday. Here's how my process is working step by step:


1) Realize that my desires for sex(or anything else) are an enemy needing to be conquered. If you don't fundamentally believe that the desires are to be checked, then you're reading the wrong blog. 


2) I've taken a renewable oath of chastity until the New Year. It helps to confront your desires by establishing that they won't be indulged anytime soon. 


3) Masturbation. This one is a biggy. Many religious peoples believe that by masturbating we are fanning the flames of desire. And frankly, I'm not sure they're totally wrong. Personally, I find it as the means to ridding myself of my lustful thoughts. Some of us are just the 'I can barely concentrate' types. However, I find it's important to frame the activity around what the goals of it are and to try to limit the racy thoughts as much as possible. 


Before I introduce an argument comparing lust and hunger, I will admit that these are not synonymous ideas since  food is necessary to live whereas orgasms are not. However, I believe they play themselves out in the body and in our behavior very similarly so I believe we can apply similar principles from one to another. When both of these desires reach their boiling points, it is our imaginations for what we will need to satisfy them that take hold. The job then becomes to accept less than what we imagine or in some cases to accept nothing. With food, we can see the simplicity of eating a simple sandwich and a piece of fruit rather than a three course meal. With sex, often we have to have the strength in many cases to do without. And what I've done with masturbation is to reduce my viewing of porn by 90 plus percent. I have no other conclusion than the images in porn stir the imagination and inflate the desires. Opposed to trying to inflate desires, I frame the experience as an act to help eliminate and repress the desires. Humorously, I've found it near impossible to eliminate some fantasizing. This part being what I interpret religious people have issue with. Folks, it's clear to me that we can't control some of the thoughts we have come into our head from our imaginations. Our job is to limit them and to not indulge them.


4) The last step is to re-train my eye. This will be the most difficult. I will be honest and admit that my eye is used to looking at and evaluating women as sexual objects.It's so automatic at this point that I've barely scratched the surface here. The only progress I've made is by not allowing myself to continue staring at someone I've spotted. I'll get back to you on this one. 


Part 2 will take us away from eliminating old, bad habits and talk about creating new, good ones.

Bullying

     The recent rash of suicides among children that were inspired by their problems with being teased/harassed by their peers is something that needs to be discussed in relation to Stoicism. I have a few points of contention with the reaction that I mostly see regarding this issue. The focus is entirely upon trying to stop or reform those doing the harassing. The first problem being that this isn't a behavior that will ever disappear (yes, I appreciate and support the efforts to limit that behavior) and the second being that you're only addressing half the participants. More specifically, we're accepting the shaky premise that the victims of bullying are exactly that, victims. What a shame to think of other human beings as being so helpless as to have no other recourse against the verbal taunting of pubescent children save killing themselves.

     Let's take a look at this situation in a factual manner before we move ahead any further. Children A thru Y say or post online a host of ill-intentioned and ill-natured insults to Child Z. Child Z has negative judgments about the nature of the insults. These judgments lead to emotional pain and other fresh judgments about his/her situation in life. The pain from the judgment about insults and the pain from new judgments (I'm not a good person or I have no way to escape or no one cares about me) becomes so extreme that Child Z judges that life isn't as valuable as escaping this pain and ends his/her life.

    I will say that most children, without the proper guidance, will naturally not accept insults graciously. But the point of the previous paragraph was to illustrate the responsibility that Child Z had in the process that lead to his/her suicide. By responsibility, I am not pinning blame for being the recipient of the insults but for the manner in which he/she responds to them or thinks about them. What I really feel is that these children have been let down by the adults in their life who have not had the combination of wisdom and conviction needed to prepare these children for what they will face in life.

    And what wisdom do I refer to? The wisdom that says:

- Are the things people say about me even true? If not, why do I let it bother me? If someone called you a horse, you would think them equally foolish to what they said.

- Do I respect the person who is the source of the insult? If they are lacking wisdom and character, I would only be putting myself on their level to let their insults affect me. Also, if someone who is uninformed says something I am or do is wrong then there is a good chance it is right!

- Instead of being angry or upset with those who insult us, we should feel sorry for them that this is what they have lowered themselves to.

- The things people say about us are not insulting unless we decide they are. We all agree we have a right to our opinion. So make it one that helps instead of hurts. Sticks and stones....

And when you can become convinced of some of these ideas, then let it show with your reaction. Laugh off one insult while ignoring another.

I Prefer

    The Stoics make a wonderful distinction when it comes to how we pursue material things, pleasure, life itself and all other things that they define as being "apparently good". For instance, wealth is something that most people seem to gravitate towards naturally and is apparently good. Wealth, however, has no intrinsic power to make one's life good as opposed to virtue (the source of true good). The opposite of virtue and the only bad things in life would be the vices. All the rest in the middle is indifferent since it can neither bring you good or bad. Even life and death are indifferent since they are merely transitions into and out of phases we must all enter and leave. Whether the virtues and the vices are all that matter is a conversation for another day....

     This distinction that is made is that many of these apparent goods (money, ability, health) which are indifferent can also be preferred. For me, the power of that statement is apparent and abundant. The power is in the point of view. Take this silly example. You're at a restaurant and you're going to order a hamburger. There's no mention of cheese or cheeseburger anywhere on the menu. You say to the waiter, "You know what, I'll take the hamburger, but I'd prefer to have some cheese on it. If you don't have it, that's fine". Or you could complain to everyone about not having any cheese or decide that a plain hamburger simply isn't good enough for your fussy palate. Which person do you want to be? 

    The point is that we cultivate a certain ease and peace of mind when we simply prefer something opposed to desiring it and seeing it as something that is essentially good in our lives. We're able to let it go and we're able to accept its absence. In a word, we prevent becoming a slave to this object or state or desire. This is how Seneca responds to the criticisms levied against his wealth in his essay On the Happy Life. The opening of this quote is Seneca giving voice to the questions of one of his critics.

'Why, then,' you say 'do you mock me, since you give wealth the same status as I do?' Do you wish to know how differently we view it? In my case if wealth slips away, it will deprive me only of itself, but you will be struck dumb, you will think you have been deserted by your own self, if it leaves you; in my eyes wealth has a certain place, in yours it is centre-stage; to sum up, my wealth belongs to me, you belong to yours.