Thursday

At my house, today begins another typical week. There is nothing major on the agenda. I'll go about my regular routine, just like the week before and the week after.

For most people in South Bend and around the country as well as the world, this is a very special time -- Christmas Week. Children are growing more and more antsy in preparation for the opening of Christmas presents and area churches are preparing to celebrate the birth of their savior. Since my wife and I are childless (by choice) and I'm not a Christian, neither of these variables concern me.

I certainly don't begrudge others for celebrating their holiday as long as they don't begrudge me for not celebrating it. About the only affect Christmas Day has on me is that I must change my grocery shopping routine to take into account that the South Bend grocery store will be closed and the Raymond grocery store only will be open for limited hours.

Other than that, Thursday will be Thursday.

Finding the Off Switch

On Friday, in the post "Tao of Dreams", I brought up the point that our minds often interfere with our brains. The former clogs the receptors of the latter and we often find it difficult to become one with Tao. So, it would seem that the simple solution is to turn off the mind from time to time. This is not easy, however.

I suppose it's easier for some. I know that many people can get lost in music, poetry or nature itself. I envy such individuals!

For years one of my greatest irritations with myself was that I seemed unable to disengage my mind. It didn't matter the time of day, the location or what I was doing. I could be watching Jeopardy on TV or trying to go to sleep -- my mind wouldn't shutdown. Millions of random things ran through it constantly and I analyzed almost every bit of it.

Unlike others, the arts or nature didn't do the trick. When I listen to music, I either repeat the words of the song in my head or replay the chords. When I read, I say the words out loud in my mind. Even trying to get lost in nature didn't work either because I was internally commenting on every sound, sight or smell.

As I grew older, I tried to teach myself how to meditate. I tried chanting some mantras, but I was constantly analyzing the mantras themselves. I also tried to blank out everything -- to sit as an empty vessel -- but I found that I was always saying to myself, "Don't think of anything" which, in and of itself, is thinking of something!

Part of my difficulty in this area, I believe, is tied to AS. As I lead a very repetitive existence, this pattern is exhibited in how my mind operates. I suppose I find comfort in repeating things and, since I don't deal well with change or an interruption of my routines, an ever engaged mind is a defense mechanism.

However, in the past three or four years, a marvelous thing has occurred. When I finally gave up on trying to find the off switch, it magically appeared! While I still can't manage to keep the button pushed down for long periods, I am now able to flick the switch from time to time.

In essence, when I quit thinking about it all the time (mind), it made itself self-evident (brain).

Will You Kill for Me?

It's a Sunday evening in snow bound South Bend. My wife & I are enjoying a quiet night in front of the fireplace. A little before 8:00 p.m., we start flipping through the cable channels to find something to watch. My wife's preference is to watch a movie. One of her favorite channels is Lifetime. I immediately recoil. "If you're going to watch that crap, I will retire to my upstairs cave."

So, we continue flipping around until we happen to notice an MSNBC documentary entitled, "Will You Kill for Me?" It's all about Charlie Manson and The Family.

I know a lot about this topic. When the best seller Helter Skelter came out, I read it from cover to cover (and reread it several years later). I've probably watched most of the documentaries made concerning Manson and I've read a lot more than the aforementioned book. I find the whole topic very disturbing, yet interesting. As a former social worker, I've always been interested in why people commit heinous acts.

However, as I watched this program, I grew a bit uncomfortable. The main thesis seemed to be focused on the cult aspects of the Manson family and the observation that the events that took place were from a bygone era. More importantly, the viewpoint behind the program seemed to say that killing for someone else is a societal anomaly.

People kill for others all the time! It's not an anomaly at all.

Right now the U.S. has over 100,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Their underlying mission is to kill for our country -- all of us here stateside. Our opponents are bent on killing our soldiers to defend their own supporters and countrymen.

While Manson used drugs and sex to mold and manipulate his disciples, the governments and insurgent forces alike involved in the current "wars" use religion, nationalism and sentiments like patriotism to mold and manipulate soldiers, freedom fighters and terrorists to commit unthinkable atrocities. How is this so different than Manson?

And it's just not in "war" that we find this tragic circumstance. People are recruited everyday into companies that develop and peddle products that kill people and destroy the environment. Some do it solely for greed, but a lot of these people believe in what they're creating and selling. The capitalist ethos has molded and manipulated them into believing that they are each serving a higher purpose.

Remember DDT? It was supposed to revoltionize agriculture and, thereby, be beneficial to humankind. And what did it really do? It made the planet and people very sick. Yet, the people who manufactured this vile substance defended it as beneficial until there absolutely was no question that it was anything but.

DDT is but one solitary example. I'm certain each reader can think of 100 more.

If truth be known, what scares people so much about the Charlie Mansons of the world, is that these individuals are not outside of the mainstream as much as we might like to believe. Yes, their tools of manipulation tend to be beyond the norm, but the end results aren't altogether different.

Bass Ackwards

It just astounds me how often the weather prognosticators get our weather wrong. I realize that weather prediction is not an exact science, but if you used the Southwest Washington Coast as a guide, you would think there was no science involved altogether. Sometimes I think we'd be just as well off if we received no weather predictions at all!

For the last three days we've been told that the storm of storms was headed our way. It would start off slowly Saturday morning with light snow. The light dusting would continue until late afternoon or early evening, then the heavens would open up and we could expect around one foot of snow. Not only that, but once this frosty deluge started, we would be buffeted by sustained winds of 25 - 35 mph with gusts of 50 mph or more.

As usual, the forecast didn't resemble the actual event at all. For starters, the snow began at around 9:00 a.m. on Saturday and dropped between 4 - 6 inches on us throughout the day. When late afternoon arrived -- the time the heavy snow was supposed to commence -- it stopped snowing. For the last several hours we've had nothing more than light rain and the temperature has shot up past freezing (it was in the 20s for most of the day -- 10 degrees or so colder than predicted).

Not only did the massive evening snow not materialize, our winds were meager compared to the predictions. Our top wind gust was only 17 mph, far less than the predicted sustained winds.

The forecast high for today is 45 degrees. I hope this proves to be correct as my wife was unable to ascend our 3 block long hill in the car. It's somewhere down the hill off the road. Maybe we will be able to float down the hill in the snow melt to retrieve it. :-)

Here or There

For a period of about a month, I was posting between 1 - 3 entries here each day. All of a sudden, the posts became more infrequent. Well, it's not because I encountered writer's block or I ran out of things to write. My attention was turned elsewhere.

I had gotten far ahead of my schedule for GreenPRO, an online database of progressive policies, resolutions and ordinances. In fact, I got so far ahead that I didn't need to do any research nor add any entries for nearly one month -- that same period of time I was posting a lot here.

In time, I began to realize that I had taken so much time off that I was now behind schedule. So, for the last week or so, I've added nearly 100 new entries. While finding the information to post certainly takes some time, the formatting of text in WikiMedia syntax is what really eats up the day -- Note: I'm a one-fingered typist! After plodding along at this task for several hours, I'm in no mood to think or write deep thoughts.

This is a very typical situation for a person with AS. At times, we can resemble an alcoholic going on a binge! In fact, binges often describe my life. I get all consumed with GreenPRO or this blog and it's all I think about. The transition from one to the other is often difficult as I always find it very difficult to switch gears and my personality doesn't allow me to do two things at once. Thus, I'm either working like a madman on the database or I'm writing tomes here. (I'm winding down from GreenPRO as I'm close to being one month ahead of schedule again, so I should resume writing more here.)

At least research, formatting and writing aren't as bad for one's health as staying perpetually drunk or stoned. ;-) It still drives my wife a bit batty, though.

Tao of Dreams

The weather outside is frightful, but the fire inside's delightful. Since we've got nowhere else to go, we watched one of our favorite videos, Field of Dreams. On the surface, the movie appears to be about baseball and "Shoeless" Joe Jackson. In reality, however, there is a far deeper message and baseball is the vehicle used to get us there.

When people first learn of Taoism, I'm often asked what source materials a person should get a hold of. While reading the Tao Te Ching and the Book of Chuang Tzu provide great inspiration and The Tao According to Pooh and almost any book by Alan Watts provide great insights, a person could do just as well watching Field of Dreams.

I'm certainly not suggesting the movie (or the book the movie is based on) was derived from a Taoist perspective or that the author or producer ever had an explicit Taoist thought, but the essence of Taoism is played over and over again throughout the story.

The lead character Ray (played by Kevin Costner), keeps hearing a voice. Initially, it says "Build it and he will come." Later he hears "Ease his pain" and "Go the distance". Another character, Terrance Mann (played by James Earl Jones), hears the voice on one occasion too.

Each time the voice speaks, Ray and the other character drive themselves crazy trying to figure out what it all means. They think hard, but find no answers. After a while, they throw up their hands and they focus their attention on something different. It's at the moment when they quit trying to figure it out that the message becomes clear.

We've all experienced situations like this. There's a word on the tip of our tongue, but, no matter how hard we try, it evades us. We're telling someone a story about a friend or celebrity, but, for the life of us, we can't seem to remember the name! We concentrate. We furrow our brow. We think and think and think, but end up drawing a complete blank.

Several hours later, when we are now oblivious to the previous situation, the word or name pops out. Heck, we may be awakened from a sound sleep to exclaim petulance or Bob Sanders.

The lesson here is that our minds often impede our brains. The former is crammed full of baggage (thoughts, desires, emotions, needs, dreams, aspirations, etc.) and so the lines of communication between the brain and the mind get clogged. When we lay the mind aside and allow the brain to function freely, the clog is cleared and the message flows unimpeded.

My Day in Court

We've all seen the ads about automobiles. They show sleek and shiny vehicles that define ones power, wealth and/or sex appeal. A person's choice of which car or truck to purchase, we are told, defines who we are and what kind of image we wish to project.

Of course, the above may be true for those of a certain economic standing, but, for the rest of us, the choices are greatly limited -- We buy what we can afford and that's not much at all!

When my Nissan Pickup gave up the ghost last year, we had next to no money available to purchase a replacement vehicle. We didn't like any of our choices, but finally went with a 1995 Ford Escort Wagon. It has proven to be an unmitigated piece of crap, but it's OUR piece of crap.

While there are host of things wrong with this lemon, the one that landed me in the South Bend Municipal Court today has to do with the car's less than adequate seat belts. I had received a ticket 3 weeks earlier for not wearing my lap belt.

I requested a Mitigation Hearing. This morning I told Municipal Judge Elizabeth Penoyar that I readily admit that I was not wearing my lap belt and that it was a conscious decision. I had not worn my lap belt prior to receiving the ticket and I did not fasten it today when I drove to the hearing.

The reason I don't wear it is because it does not serve the purpose intended AND it does not meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (though it was allowed to be manufactured this way). According to the federal regulations, a seat belt must be adjustable and have some mechanism that causes the seat belt to lock the occupant in place in the case of an accident.

The seat belts in the 1995 Ford Escort do neither. The belts are not adjustable -- it's one size fits all. When I'm sitting in the driver's seat, the automatic shoulder harness can be pulled out far enough that I can wrap it around the steering wheel and the lap belt pulls out almost as far. In addition, there is no catch mechanism whatsoever. The belts continue to give until they reach their maximum length.

Consequently, my fear is that, in case of a serious accident, my belts will not keep me in my seat AND will most likely entangle my legs and arms which could cause me great difficulty in escaping a burning or sinking car. This is why I have made the conscious decision not to wear the lap belt. (The shoulder harness is even more ineffectual, but it engages automatically and, if disengaged while the motor is operating, causes an alarm to sound unabated.)

I've read online that there have been many complaints about the ineffectiveness of seat belts on Ford Escorts, yet the government has refused to issue a recall. So, car owners like myself are stuck in an almost impossible situation: Wear the belt and risk death or serious harm OR not wear the belt and risk $124 tickets.

One other solution is to get new seat belts installed, but that solution is cost prohibitive for poor people like us. While the parts themselves only cost around $50, the labor runs several hundred dollars -- several hundred dollars we simply don't have!

My argument was compelling. Initially, the judge wasn't sure what she could do, but she came up with a solution that I believe is fair. My case has been continued for one year's time. If I am not ticketed for a seat belt violation during the next 365 days, the case will be dismissed and no fine will be assessed.

So, I will continue not to wear my lap belt. If I am pulled over by an officer for whatever reason, I will immediately fasten the belt and, when I'm done speaking to the fine public servant, I will disengage the belt before driving off.

If my wife & I win the lottery, then we will buy a new car which will define our newly found power, wealth and/or sex appeal. ;-)

Damn Cold

Generally, one of the advantages of living on the southwest Washington coast is that we tend to avoid weather extremes. The warmest month of the year is July with an average high of only 72 degrees. December and January are the coldest months with an average high for both months of 45 degrees.

Anytime the temperature goes really high or low, that is outside our norm and it's really outside the norm right now! In fact, the prediction is for lows in the teens for the next 2 nights with highs barely broaching the freezing mark.

I grant that, for most people in the country, this is no big deal because it IS that time of the year. However, if I had wanted to enjoy extremely cold weather, I would have moved to Minnesota!!

Is There Truth in Religions?

The question is: Is there not truth in religions, in theories, in ideals, in beliefs? Let us examine. What do we mean by religion?

Surely, not organized religion, not Hinduism, Buddhism, or Christianity-which are all organized beliefs with their propaganda, conversion, proselytism, compulsion, and so on. Is there any truth in organized religion? It may engulf, enmesh truth, but the organized religion, itself, is not true. Therefore, organized religion is false, it separates man from man. You are a Muslim, I am a Hindu, another is a Christian or a Buddhist-and we are wrangling, butchering each other. Is there any truth in that?

We are not discussing religion as the pursuit of truth, but we are considering, if there is any truth in organized religion. We are so conditioned by organized religion to think there is truth in it that we have come to believe that by calling oneself a Hindu, one is somebody, or one will find God. How absurd, sir; to find God, to find reality, there must be virtue. Virtue is freedom, and only through freedom can truth be discovered-not when you are caught in the hands of organized religion, with its beliefs. And is there any truth in theories, in ideals, in beliefs?

Why do you have beliefs? Obviously, because beliefs give you security, comfort, safety, a guide. In yourself you are frightened, you want to be protected, you want to lean on somebody, and therefore you create the ideal, which prevents you from understanding that which is. Therefore, an ideal becomes a hindrance to action.
~ Jiddhu Krishnamurti (1895 - 1986) ~

All Bark, No Bite

After all the various weather warnings, not much happened. We did experience some minor flooding from the coastal surge, but the high winds never materialized. I think the highest recorded gust in South Bend was 46 mph and we had received 1.2" of rain at the time our local weather station went offline (around 9 p.m.).

This is the thing about weather and our weather prediction capabilities. For all our science, knowledge and gadgetry, we still guess a lot! One of the drawbacks of guessing is that we sometimes guess wrong. So, in 2007, the guess was for a moderate storm and we got a very severe storm. This year the guess was for a moderate storm and it ended up being fairly run-of-the-mill.

To be quite candid, I'm a bit disappointed. While I certainly didn't wish a severe storm on my neighbors with the resulting damage, I do like storms! I was looking forward to be able to watch the trees bend a little sideways.

I sort of feel like a guy who lights a roman candle and all I got was a little fizz. :-(

And the Winds Shall Blow

Last year about this time, southwest Washington (where I live) and northwest Oregon were pummeled by hurricane force winds. The strongest gusts recorded in my county were near 150 mph and sustained winds of 60 - 90 mph lasted for over 24 hours. Trees fell by the hundreds of thousands and power was out for anywhere from 4 days - 2 weeks.

What made this sad situation all the more fun was the forecasts of the preceding days. About one week before the big storm made landfall, the predictions were dire and everyone around was understandably anxious. However, about 3 days before the storm hit, the National Weather Service severely downgraded the potential storm and everyone let out a sigh of relief. Then the storm hit and it was worse than the first prediction!

Consequently, I would think folks would understand why everyone in Pacific County, Washington is on edge tonight. The National Weather Service has issued a High Wind Warning, a Coastal Flood Watch and a Special Weather Statement for our area for the next 36 - 48 hours.

High Wind Warning
Issued by The National Weather Service
Portland, OR
2:06 pm PST, Thu., Dec. 11, 2008

... HIGH WIND WATCH UPGRADED TO A HIGH WIND WARNING... IN EFFECT FROM 10 AM FRIDAY TO 4 AM PST SATURDAY FOR THE SOUTH WASHINGTON AND NORTH AND CENTRAL OREGON COASTS...

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN PORTLAND HAS ISSUED A HIGH WIND WARNING... WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM 10 AM FRIDAY TO 4 AM PST SATURDAY.

SOUTH WINDS AHEAD OF A STRONG PACIFIC COLD FRONT WILL INCREASE LATE FRIDAY MORNING AND FRIDAY AFTERNOON TO 30 TO 40 MPH WITH GUSTS TO 70 MPH ALONG THE BEACHES AND COASTAL HEADLANDS ON THE SOUTH WASHINGTON AND NORTH AND CENTRAL OREGON COASTS. WINDS IN COASTAL COMMUNITIES WILL INCREASE TO 25 TO 35 MPH WITH GUSTS TO 55 OR 60 MPH. THE WINDS WILL SHIFT TO WESTERLY 25 TO 35 MPH WITH GUSTS TO NEAR 65 MPH LATE FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND CONTINUE MUCH OF FRIDAY NIGHT BEFORE SLOWLY EASING LATE FRIDAY NIGHT. WINDS WILL CONTINUE TO SLOWLY DECREASE EARLY SATURDAY.

Special Weather Statement
Issued by The National Weather Service
Portland, OR
11:22 am PST, Thu., Dec. 11, 2008

... ARCTIC AIR OVER SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON AND NORTHWEST OREGON SUNDAY AND NEXT WEEK WITH SOME SNOW POSSIBLE AT TIMES NEXT WEEK...

AFTER THE STRONG STORM FROM FRIDAY AND SATURDAY MOVES THROUGH... ARCTIC AIR WILL SPILL INTO SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON AND NORTHWEST OREGON SUNDAY... AND CONTINUE OVER THE AREA FOR AT LEAST A GOOD PART OF NEXT WEEK. THIS WILL LIKELY BE THE COLDEST WEATHER IN MUCH OF SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON AND NORTHWEST OREGON SINCE AT LEAST 2004. DAYTIME TEMPERATURES WILL FALL INTO THE 20S ON SUNDAY MAINLY IN THE NORTH AS THE ARCTIC AIR SPREADS IN. THE ARCTIC AIR WILL LIKELY REACH THE SOUTHERN WILLAMETTE VALLEY AREA SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY. DAYTIME HIGHS WILL THEN STRUGGLE TO REACH FREEZING THROUGH MUCH OF NEXT WEEK. NIGHTTIME LOWS WILL DROP INTO AT LEAST THE TEENS... WITH SINGLE DIGITS OR POSSIBLY EVEN BELOW ZERO IN THE CASCADES.

I certainly hope that this storm doesn't turn out to be as bad as last year! If we lose electric power again, things will be much worse this time around due to the arctic chill. I guess I should at least take some solace in the fact that this year we have a sufficient amount of wood to burn in the fireplace.

Let's all now say the winter oath together, Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Dream a Little Dream of Me

When I was younger, I dreamed all the time -- some may say too much! Over the past decade, however, the dreams went away. Now, it rarely happens.

I've often wondered why. Maybe I've grown more cynical through the years. It might be as the result of my fibromyalgia. I no longer sleep well and five consecutive hours is about my limit these days. I recently read that many folks afflicted with fibro suffer from a sleep disorder that doesn't allow them to enter deep sleep, thereby, no opportunity to dream.

In many ways, it may be just as well. My dreams were always sort of weird because I rarely saw faces in my dreams -- that's connected with AS.

With no dreams, I just take each day as it comes and hope I muddle my way through it. :>D

Perfect as Perfect Can Be

When I think back to my early years in Sunday School class, it's amazing I wasn't driven stark raving mad by age 8 or 9. One of the chief messages impressed upon our young, developing minds was that we each should always strive for perfection. Of course, after having this idea drummed into our heads year after year, we were then told that humans, by our sinful nature, could never come close to the sought after perfect state.

Even at a young age, this dichotomy boggled my mind! If not one of us has the capability even of landing in the neighborhood of perfection, why aim for it? Why set up humanity for the inevitable failure? Targeting an attainable goal -- like near perfection, excellent or really damn good -- would seem far more reasonable because, though a great number of folks wouldn't climb as high as this rung, many would succeed. They would become the role models for the rest of us to emulate.

By the time I reached my college years, the probing question on my mind was: Who says people can't be perfect? While I granted it would be very difficult to accomplish, I believed that, if each of us set our minds to it, we could accomplish anything.

But as I entered my 30s, I began to question the entire concept of perfection. From a Christian standpoint, we're taught that God embodies perfection. And who informs us of this? God himself! Since we don't have the intellectual ability to verify this assertion, how do we know if it's true or not? Maybe God is just like the rest of us in that he doesn't like to admit his own shortcomings.

From a Taoist perspective, many believe that nature is perfect. Again, we have no way to verify this. For all we know, nature may take a lot of missteps along the way and simply have the ability to self-correct...most of the time.

I think this whole idea of perfection arose because of humankind's imperfect nature. We assumed that if we're imperfect, something somewhere must be our opposite. If mortals are imperfect, then the celestial beings must be perfect.

I've basically removed the concept of perfection from my mind's eye. For me, the concept exemplifies a static state and our universe is anything but static. There are far too many variables and perspectives -- What might be perfect from one perspective may be wholly imperfect from another.

More importantly, if there is some personified being looking over us, wouldn't this entity be constantly striving to perfect its perfection? If so, then perfection itself would never be reached because every state of being would lead to the next and on and on.

Contrary Evidence

"Belief system are stunningly resistant to [such] correction, for the simple reason that deeply committed believers are not offering a variety of debatable proposals about the nature of the world. They see the world through their beliefs, not their beliefs from a worldly perspective. Therefore, whatever happens can only confirm the truth of what they believe. When we present believers with contrary "evidence", we only prove to them that we are outside the realm of faith and therefore unable to see the world as it is. For this reason, belief systems are not only impervious to opposition, they thrive on it."

~ p. 28-29, "The Religious Case Against Belief" by James P. Carse ~

Snake Eyes -- Move Jesus Six Spaces

It's amazing what one can find on the internet by following one link after another. I was looking at one of the referring urls coming to this blog and then, two links later, I discovered a new board game, "Playing Gods: The Board Game of Divine Domination".

Playing Gods is a satirical board game of divine domination. Two to five players each play a different god, and compete with each other to take over the world. This is done by spreading your believers, converting the followers of other gods, or killing them off with Acts of God.

My reaction to this game is a combination of hysterical laughter and horror. On the one hand, I salute the creators for ingenious creativity. Since I tend to be anti-religion, it sounds like it might be a real hoot to play. On the other hand, I generally detest games that glorify violence, in any form, though I must confess I used to play the board game Risk.

Nonetheless, I think it would be quite entertaining to watch Jesus, Buddha and Allah duke it out in someone's living room. Bring on the popcorn and beer!

The Theory of Everything

Learned people study some of the oddest things! Two gentlemen recently published a study on "The Effect of Country Music on Suicide". Why would someone even think this up and then decide to spend time and money on researching it?

Probably a month doesn't go by when I hear of or read about some other bizarre study. Within the past month or so, I learned that a quite a few physicists are trying to discover the theory of everything. Like THAT will ever happen!

We can't predict the weather reliably. Things happen everyday that no one can explain. We make decisions that turn out to have long-term negative consequences. So, why would anyone think they could uncover a theory that explains everything?

Even if someone did stumble upon it, they wouldn't recognize it because everything is far too vast for any human or all humans collectively to grasp. In my mind, such an undertaking is about as realistic as trying to take a picture of a unicorn or obtaining a one-on-one interview with a leprechaun.

Of course, I personally believe there is indeed an explanation of everything -- Tao. But no one will find it through theorizing mathematical formulas or conducting empirical studies. In fact, such methods will guarantee that these researchers won't connect with it at all!

Belief You Me

I often find wonderment from trips to the library. I typically head off down the hill with a specific book or topic in mind, yet I often arrive back home with something altogether different or, at least, with what I sought after PLUS something completely different. This was the case yesterday as I picked up my order for the book, "The Lilies of the Field" and also brought home, "The Religious Case Against Belief".

I'm not sure WHY I picked up the second book since religion is not a topic that generally appeals to me. I suppose it was something about the title that happened to pique my interest at the time.

I finished Lilies in one day. It's an extremely short book, but it still represents a feat for me because I'm a very slow, plodding reader. I've only read about 10 pages of book #2 and it's already got me thinking about the concept of belief.

For as long as I can remember, I've been taught that fact and belief are two different animals. The former is based upon empirical, deduced or observable reality, while the latter cannot stand on any of these three edifices. Fact belongs to the world of science and belief to the world of theology.

As I've aged, I've come to see that this is a false dichotomy because facts are beliefs too! It's just that they are beliefs that can be replicated, deduced or observed by others. Facts are no more real than non-facts.

For example, there is no way to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 is real. One really is nothing more than an adjective, a way to describe something else. I can hold a peach in my hand, but I can't hold a one in my hand. I can hold one peach in my left hand and one peach in my right hand, then tell you I have two peaches, but I can't hold two ones.

A "one" or "six" or "fifty" doesn't exist. Each is an abstract concept. Just like religion. Just like Tao.

The Fox Chases IE from Henhouse

When I first launched my blog in 2005, my tracking software indicated that nearly 3/4 of my visitors used some release of Internet Explorer as their web browser. As the weeks, months and years have ticked by, this figure continues to decline. As of today, over 65% of my visitors use something other than IE with Firefox now showing a comfortable lead.

I think this is fantastic news as I support open source software. I began using Netscape as soon as it came out and switched to Mozilla and Firefox as soon as they came out. I will admit, sheepishly, that I too used IE and Outlook when I first began surfing the web, but both programs irritated the hell out of me. I'm glad that others were irritated too and this spawned a multitude of alternatives.

I also have K-Meleon and Opera on my computer because I sometimes like to see how different web sites appear on different browsers, but I use Firefox 95% of the time.

Beets Me!

People with AS seem to have a great deal of difficulty with small talk and casual conversation. It seems we either don't know what to say at all or whatever comes out of our mouth is deemed weird, strange or unusual. Mind you, it seems perfectly logical to us, but this logic seems to be lost on almost everyone else!

On my birthday in October, I purchased a vegetable juicer. I used to have one years ago, but, in time, it finally wore out and since my wife & I are poor, we just never seemed to have the extra money to buy another. My wife spotted the one we purchased on the clearance shelf of one of our two local grocery stores. They obviously wanted to unload it because they sold us a $70 juicer for a mere $25.

The very next day I went to the other grocery store -- it's only about 5 blocks from my house -- to purchase organic carrots and beets, so I could make my favorite juice. Alas, while they had oodles of carrots, not a beet could be found in the entire establishment! One of the checkers, Marie, informed me that she was sure more beets would arrive in the next day or two. Crestfallen, I returned home with the carrots and enjoyed a tall glass of carrot juice.

Two days later, I returned to the store. As I entered, Marie and Kim (another checker) were standing next to their registers talking. I nodded in their direction and asked, "Do you have beets?" I thought this was a proper question as a) this WAS a grocery store, b) Marie had previously indicated that beets should arrive about now and c) I had acknowledged their presence with a nod.

Both of them looked at me oddly. "That's a really strange question, Trey" said Marie. I obviously must have looked completely befuddled because Marie added, "Most people would say hello first or ask how we are. They wouldn't simply walk in off the street to ask 'Do you have any beets?'."

I asked Kim if she too thought my question was odd. She said that it was. I still don't consider it an odd question, but after discussing the oddness of my approach, I was able to ascertain that they did, in fact, have beets.

I made a mental note of this situation. A few days later I was having a bit of trouble remembering which aisle the olives are on. Seeing a different checker, Teresa, I made sure not to repeat my previous guffaw. I said hello and asked her how she was doing. With what sounded to me like irritation in her voice, she asked, "Do you need some help?" I told her I was looking for olives and she directed me to the proper aisle.

Maybe she wasn't irritated and I just thought she was or maybe she was annoyed. I'm not sure, but she didn't seem interested in telling me how she was doing.

So now, I'm completely befuddled. I ask a direct question and I'm faulted for not being generally friendly, yet when I try to play the role of the friendly shopper, it now seems that's being too friendly. All these two situations cause in me is to not want to talk to people at all since I seem incapable of figuring out what they might want from a conversation.

A Taoist Jesus

I've reprinted the following article twice before (2005 & 2006), but I find it so exquisite that I'm doing it again in 2008. It is written by a fellow who goes by the moniker Disciple Dan. He used to host a website called The Path of Tao Jia -- the link no longer works. If nothing else, this should provide readers with great fodder for contemplation and discussion. See if you agree or disagree with his premise.

Was Jesus a Taoist?
by Disciple Dan

Before beginning this article, let me say that I have been a follower of Jesus of Nazareth since I was thirteen years old. I was ordained as a minister in the Christian Religion in 1972, and have spent more than thirty years in service as a minister to that religion. I feel, therefore, that I have an established understanding of what Christianity teaches, and am able to speak candidly about that faith. Without the slightest hesitation, I can say that I love Jesus and deeply respect his teachings... but I am no longer a Christian.

The foundation question that must be asked before asking if Jesus was a Taoist, is to ask if Jesus was a "Christian." This question probably evokes laughter from some, and others would exclaim with contempt, "Of course he was! The Christian Religion is founded on Jesus and his teachings!" I beg to adamantly differ with you.

Christianity was not founded on Jesus nor his teachings. Jesus was a Jewish carpenter from Nazareth who never gave the slightest indication that he intended to leave the Jewish faith nor institute a new religion. On the contrary, Jesus followed the Jewish law and encouraged others to do so. He was circumcised on the eighth day and attended the Jewish feasts in Jerusalem. He would, in fact, die while attending a Passover Feast in Jerusalem. When he cleansed the lepers, he told them to go to the Temple and make the proper religious offering according to the Jewish law. Even when he was disgusted with the hypocrisy of the leaders of his religion, he told his followers to obey the Chief Priest because he "...sat in Moses seat."

The single motive of Jesus seems to have been the reform of his own faith. When approached by a non-Jewish woman in search of his favors, he told her that he had been sent to the "...lost sheep of Israel." The scriptures teach that it was his custom to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath day... a habit that he maintained until his death.

Those people who followed him were also Jews. When he died he was removed from the cross early because the Jewish Sabbath was about to begin, a clear indication that his closest followers were still devout Jews. His followers buried him in a Jewish burial place according to Jewish customs. Later on, when the Apostles had a difference with Paul of Tarsus, it was over the matter of circumcision and the keeping of the Jewish law. Again, this is tacit proof that the Apostles were still very much orthodox Jews with no intention of leaving their religion.

If Jesus had intended to start a new religion, he would have certainly committed some of the things he intended to be taught or observed in his religion into written documents. No such documents exist. In fact, there is not the slightest reliable indication that Jesus ever wrote anything, even though we know that he could read and write, and was educated so well in the Jewish law that he was able to impress the scholars at Jerusalem with his brilliant scholarship when he was 12 years old.

There were a number of Jewish sects in the region where Jesus lived. A Jewish sect would be like a Christian denomination. There were the Pharisees, the Saducees, the Essenes, the Herodians, and a number more. It is obvious, I believe, that Jesus did intend to start a new sect, because he clearly appointed leaders in his group, but the thought of beginning a new religion separate from the Jewish faith was unthinkable to Jesus. If so, three questions need to be asked. First, If Jesus did not found Christianity, then who did? Second, Who originated the central beliefs of the Christian Church if Jesus did not? And third, what did Jesus intend to be taught in his new sect?

It is clear to any honest student of the Christian religion that Paul of Tarsus was the founder of Christianity. Therefore, it would behoove us to have a close look at this fellow Paul. He began his life as a rigid, devout Pharisee, probably the most conservative sect (denomination) within the Jewish religion. There is not the slightest indication from New Testament Scripture that Paul ever saw Jesus nor heard a single lesson Jesus ever taught. Paul had a "vision" on the road to Damascus. Even in the vision there is no indication that he actually saw Jesus, but he did see a "light." This vision, much like the vision of Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith, was a major turning point in his life.

Paul did not seek out the Apostles of Jesus after this vision, as one would expect, so that he might be instructed in the fundamentals of this new Jewish sect. Instead he set off for the wilderness where he spent several years developing his very own, unique, never before heard or taught set of doctrines which became the foundation of a new religion which he personally forged from these novel ideas - many of which were 180 degrees out from the teachings of Jesus, whom he had never actually heard. He was never appointed an Apostle by the authorities in Jerusalem, and, in point of fact, boasted about this fact in the first chapter of Galatians. He claimed his appointment to be an Apostle was an act of God.

Based solely upon his personal reason and logic, this prolific writer and charismatic speaker redefined the sect that Jesus had founded. He now preached a radical new idea that righteousness was no longer a requirement for salvation. He said that righteousness was now a matter of correct "thinking" rather than correct "actions." It boiled down to what you "believed" rather than what you "did." This was, of course, the exact opposite message of Jesus who repeatedly admonished people to practical acts of compassion and righteousness, warning them that if their righteousness did not exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, they would not "see" the Kingdom of Heaven.

Most significantly, Paul prescribed a new way to have your sins forgiven. He now preached that you must accept Jesus as being none other than "God" if you wanted your sins forgiven. He of course had not heard Jesus, nor those who had firsthand knowledge of him, when he made this pronouncement. Jesus had said that no one was good except the "Father" in Heaven, hardly something he would have said if he thought of himself as God. He had never claimed the attributes of God. He grew in "wisdom" just as other children did. He learned to walk, talk, run, and play just like all the other children in Nazareth. He had to be "potty trained" just like the other children, and his mother Mary wiped his nose and cleaned his behind. When hungry one day in Jerusalem, he hiked over to a fig tree to see if it had any figs on it. Had he been God, he would have known whether or not it had figs. When it didn't have figs, he lost his temper just like you and me.

Paul's new formula for the forgiveness of sins was totally at odds with Jesus' formula. Jesus had said that if you want your Father in heaven to forgive for you sins, you must simply forgive those who sin against you. When asked by a young lawyer what was necessary to obtain eternal life, Jesus had replied, "Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Do this and you will have eternal life." This simple answer from the mouth of Jesus was drastically out of line with early Christianity's highly exclusive formula about accepting Jesus as "God," being baptized, being "confirmed," celebrating the Eucharist, etc. etc. etc. It is clearly obvious to any honest student of the New Testament that Jesus and what he taught do not resemble Christianity and what it teaches. Paul's religion, when devoid of illogical defense, boils down to a primitive religion with a deity demanding a literal "human sacrifice" for his appeasement. Paul would make Jesus be that sacrifice in his theology.

Questions one and two mentioned above can therefore be answered with one word, "Paul." Paul founded the Christian religion. Paul originated its creed. He began to preach that baptism should take the place of circumcision. This concept was foreign to the official group of Apostles in Jerusalem. The very fact that these Apostles were still obedient to the command of circumcision is once again proof that they were Jews with no intention of leaving the Jewish faith. They merely wanted to found a new "movement" or "sect" within the broader Jewish religion. To them, being a follower of their movement did not preclude you from participation in every Jewish rite, ritual, and feast. It would be like a Baptist man today who was also a member of the Lion's Club. One had very little to do with the other in their eyes. To them. Belonging to their sect would only make you a better Jew and member of the Synagogue.

Paul, however, had other ideas. He came to the first Church Council in Jerusalem and argued that Greeks and non-Jews should be included in the new sect. He further argued that these new members should not be circumcised or become Jews. The Apostles had no problem with their becoming members of the new sect as long as the outsiders became Jews. Paul, the eloquent speaker and brilliant debater won the day and a brand new religion, outside the Jewish faith, was born in Jerusalem on that fateful day. Because Paul was by far a more educated man than the fishermen and tradesmen who made up the Apostolic Brotherhood, and because Paul was brilliant in the arena of debate, and chiefly, because Paul was a prolific writer who wrote more books on the new Christian Religion than any other person, Paul's new religion spread like wildfire, while the narrow Jewish sect that had hoped to be a reform movement in Judaism withered down to nothing.

By 312 AD Paul's new religion had adherents throughout the kingdom, chiefly because of Paul and his companions untiring efforts at evangelizing and proselytizing from one end of the empire to the other. When Constantine made Paul's Christianity the State Religion in the Empire, the new faith quickly absorbed many of the pagan customs, rituals, feasts, and holidays of the various religions of the realm and swallowed up massive population groups. Deliverance from hell could now only come by complete obedience to the Bishops and Priests of the new Church, giving Constantine immense power over the populace. Many were forced to accept Paul's religion by threat of physical harm. It is a matter of record that the Christian Church killed more people during the first hundred years after becoming a legal religion of the realm, than had all its persecutors during the one hundred years prior to 312 AD.

The final question previously asked, might be a bit harder to answer. What did Jesus intend to teach in his new sect? Of course, there is the obvious answer: he intended to teach the simple message of the early gospels which taught a path to peace with God that included only two elements; loving God and loving one another. One thing can be determined with certainty: he did not intend to have a set of written beliefs - a creed, if you will. Had he intended this for his sect, it is obvious that he would have written it himself. No other possibility makes any kind of logical sense at all.

He was intelligent, schooled, and able to read and write. He opened the scrolls in the synagogue when it was his turn to teach and he read the Scriptures. He wanted no creed for his new sect because he wrote no creed for his new sect. He wrote nothing because nothing needed to be written. This idea of living by intuition and practical goodness without a set of written commands is Taoist to the core. Ancient Taoism had no creed and does not presume to tell a single individual how he/she must behave.

The rest of what Jesus intended must be inferred by the example of his living. He lived very simply. He told his followers to go about spreading their message taking no provisions for their journey. He said that while foxes had holes, he had no place to call home. He practiced simplicity to the very extreme. When he was hungry, he plucked corn in the fields to eat as he walked along the way, having brought nothing to eat for himself. This life of utter simplicity is a foundation teaching of Taoism. It is repeated over and over in Taoist thought... simplicity... simplicity... simplicity.

Jesus taught humility. He told his disciples that the least among them should be counted the greatest. He told them to lead by serving and not by demanding. It grieved him when they tried to maneuver themselves to positions of higher authority or esteem.

Little could he have possibly imagined that a religion would one day be established in his name whose leader would be called the "Supreme Pontiff" who would dwell in the largest, most posh palace in the entire world where people would vie for the opportunity to have audience with him and kiss his feet. Could he have dreamed of the vast treasures of wealth and art that would one day be hoarded in Vatican vaults under lock and key in his name while thousands of the people he loved so much went without the basic necessities of life? No, Jesus taught humility. Humility is a core foundation of Taoism. One of the three treasures of Taoism mentioned in the Tao Te Ching, is humility.

Jesus taught simple, even illogical, trust in the Father. He told people not to worry about what they would wear or what they would eat. He told them not to practice what they were going to say when questioned about their faith. He told them tomorrow has enough problems of its own, just live in the moment. Trust in the Tao - the loving "Spring" of all existence - is a foundation in Taoism. Living in the moment and flowing like water, allowing the circumstances of the day to dictate the acts of spontaneity that propel us forward, are pure Taoism.

Jesus taught that knowledge cultivated apart from intuitive reflection was of no value. He told his followers to consider the lilies of the field, and the carefree manner in which they addressed each day. Any yet they were arrayed in royal splendor. They didn't struggle to "be", they just were. He told them to consider the birds of the air and how they survived on intuition alone without forced intention. He even sat a small child before them, ignorant and unlearned, and told them that they must be as the child to "see the kingdom of heaven." He placed no value in the wisdom of the learned mind and repeatedly lifted up the ideal of teaching by example and common sense fueled by compassion. This truth that the things worth knowing are known intuitively in the depths of the human heart and cannot be learned nor taught is a foundation of Taoism.

Jesus practiced a "live and let live" kind of life. When those outside his religion approached him, there is not a single instance of his taking the typical Christian position of "You must be "saved" in the manner prescribed by my religion to enter Heaven." There are no instances of him telling anyone outside his own faith that they needed to adopt his faith. When a Pagan Roman Centurion approached him about healing his sick child, Jesus not only granted his request, but as he walked away he exclaimed, "I have not seen faith this great in all of Israel." Never is there the first indication of his proclaiming exclusivity in matters of spirituality to this man at a point in the grateful man's life when he would have definitely been willing to listen. Jesus knew that spiritual peace was not a matter of lining up brain cells to fire in the proper sequence to believe certain dogma, but rather, in a life of humble simplicity and service to others.

For the Taoist, spiritual peace is achieved by living a life of absolute child-like trust in the One beyond our ability to understand and comprehend; in a life of humility where good works are performed without the desire for recognition or ego-bulging praise; in a life of simplicity where "less is better"; in a life lived in spontaneity where we trust the Tao to provide and direct the course of the day's events; and finally in a life of compassion toward others, allowing them to progress spiritually in their own time and way. Does this path sound familiar?

For most of my life I have been a Taoist - but I did not know it. Perhaps that's the way it was for Jesus. I lived as a minister in the Christian Religion, daily forcing my mouth to say things that my heart did not truly believe. This horrible way of living brought me much misery and even a breakdown in my health. Finally, my Teachers from the Other Side brought me to the shores of this ancient Ocean of pristine Wisdom, thousands of years older than Christianity. I stood in humble awe. The crude, leaky vessel of my Christian faith was no longer needed or adequate. The time-worn ship of intuitive experience had brought me to the ever-waiting shores of enlightenment.

Was Jesus a Taoist? He was definitely not a Christian. He lived his life as a Jew but, like me, was in constant conflict with the faith of his youth. He was in so much conflict with his faith that its leaders finally killed him for his demands for reform.

Was Jesus a Taoist? He was more Taoist than he was Christian. He was more Taoist than he was Jewish. His message was clearly more Taoist than either of these religions.

Forty-one years after officially becoming a Christian, I made the conscious decision to make a sincere effort to imitate the life of Jesus of Nazareth. That is precisely why I could no longer be part of the Christian religion. Was Jesus a Taoist? All things considered, if we carefully consider the religion he practiced rather than professed, I believe he was.