this weekend i was reading a new book by an author i really like, richard dawkins. he tackles tough questions with compassion and reason and is not afraid to ruffle a few feathers. i enjoy reading different takes on different religions and the more i read about western religions, the more i am struck by their strangeness. one of dawkin's main points was that 2 or 3 millenia ago what was considered 'right' and 'acceptable' by people living back is often very different than what we consider right and acceptable today. which is why many people of faith don't take many of the bible stories literally, but more as a book of morals in which to guide ethical behavior. (similarly, just because thomas jefferson, like most wealthy landowners back then, had slaves doesn't mean the declaration of independence and the constitution are not fantastic works on democracy and freedom) christianity and judiasm have given hope and purpose to millions of souls for thousands of years - this is undeniably a great thing. but if you actually read and grasp what's going on in the stories half the time, i'm sorry, but they are almost horrific by todays standards.

for instance, i'll bet you've heard of sodom and gomorrah. but do you know the actual story line? God decides to destroy the town of Sodom (killing every man, woman and child) for being bad (which seems a bit harsh to me for a benevolent, all knowing Creator to do to His children). He sends down two male angels to warn Abraham's nephew, Lot, who was uniquely righteous, to leave the city before the brimstone arrives. Lot hospitably welcomes the angels into his house, when all the men of Sodom come over and demand that Lot should hand over the angels so that they can (what else?) sodomize them: 'Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them' (Genesis 19:5). and yep, they mean 'know' in the biblical sense. Lot gallantly refuses, which is pretty cool, but then we hear the terms of his refusal...'I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, i have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof' (Genesis 19:7-8).

so go ahead my neighbors, gang rape my two virgin daughters, but leave alone these two beings from heaven who i would think could surely take care of themselves. the bargain proved unnecessary because indeed, the angels were badasses who struck the sodomites all blind. Lot and his family were able to hightail it out of town, except for his wife, who committed the rather mild offense of looking over her shoulder at the fireworks and was turned into a pillar of salt.

his two daughters appear again briefly a bit later in the old testament, when we are told that they escaped to live with their father in a cave and, starved for male company, get him drunk, have sex with him, and become impregnated by him (Genesis 19: 31-6). nice.

oh and also, before the angels came down to burn down an entire city and all of its inhabitants, there was the story of one of Lot's other daughters, Paltith, who is mentioned in the jewish holy text, the Talmud. she and a friend gave some bread to a poor man who had entered the city of Sodom. When the townspeople discovered their acts of kindness (guess they were big into what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours) they burned Paltith alive and smeared the other girl's body with honey and hung her from the city wall until she was stung to death by bees.

again, the bible is an amazing book, but these are hardly bedtime stories that i would tell my children to teach them morals. you'll never find violence like this in the tao te ching.

posted by bluematrix at 09/24/07 22:58 | link | comments (1)

in order for us to change, typically we have to go thru a struggle. an occurrence that shakes up the norm for example, like the loss of a job or relationship. something happens that makes the status quo no longer work and forces us to change.

it's nice to think we have the willpower to make major changes in our lives without experiencing loss, and sometimes we can. but more often than not we get too busy or too invested in our current situation to force ourselves to change without an outside stimulus going, 'uh hello, change here. sorry to have to raise your stress levels, but i'm afraid you're going have to accept this load i'm dropping on you right now.'

one technique that can help you make positive changes is to try what steve pavlina describes as a 30 day scaffolding. when constructing or repairing a building, a scaffold is a temporary structure that supports the shtuff you need like tools, materials, and people. then once the structure is in place, you remove it.

this involves constructing a new routine in your daily life for 30 days. this time frame is short enough that you can push yourself to the end of the month even when the small sacrifices you're going to make get to be a pain in the ass and you start complaining - or worse rationalizing that its ok to skip it just for a day. but it's long enough to turn an experiment into a habit.

your ego will really start to bitch, believe me. 'i don't have time to do tai chi today' or 'i'm too tired to write in my journal' or 'it's too damn cold to walk in the woods' there are a million ways to talk yourself out of breaking an old habit or to follow thru on a new one. but it helps to slap it down with 'its only for a month you wussy, get with it...you PROMISED'

meditate, jog, yoga, teach yourself a computer program, start learning a language, keep a journal, whatever - find the activity that, if you only had the time to do, would improve your life. then carve out the time at the beginning or end of your day for a month and just do it. go ahead and bitch the whole time about how much it sucks, but keep it up for one month. you might have to get up a little earlier to squeeze it into your day, but promise yourself to do it everyday, no ifs, ands, or buts. if you can't promise yourself, then don't do it, because you won't follow thru and you'll feel even worse than you do now.

but if you're ready to try and improve yourself, build a 30 day scaffold. or you can wait until mr. change drops in on you unexpectedly and delivers the change without the benefit of a scaffold.

posted by bluematrix at 09/19/07 12:08 | link | comments (1)

‘I’ve heard that stuff before.’ this was in response to my inquiry of how mist liked the movie (the Way of the Peaceful Warrior with nick nolte) we watched this weekend based on a book i read a long time ago.

i’ve heard the stuff before too, way more than she has, because i've studied spiritual stuff most of my life, but yet i still enjoyed it. her statement got me thinking though. she was right, there wasn’t much new material covered in the movie. then the next day, i caught one of my favorite motivational speakers on public television, wayne dyer, doing his spiritual thing. this time his schtick was on the tao. talk about nothing new, hell that stuff is 3000 years old. but i still enjoyed hearing him talk about concepts i already knew.

why?

the heart of this question is a key to why i keep writing about this stuff in this blog week after week, year after year. why do i (as well as damn near all personal development writers) think regurgitating previously covered concepts is a worthy endeavor? i think i can break it down into several reasons.

one reason is that just because i’ve heard it before, doesn’t mean you have. or maybe you have but you didn't get it from the angle that particular writer took.

another reason is that maybe there is an exposure threshold to learning/understanding spiritual concepts - you have to hear it a few times from different sources before heavy concepts begin to sink in. perhaps even a bunch of times before someone writes in a voice that finally clicks for you, one that makes you go, ‘whoa, NOW i get it.’

i think this is why i keep writing. not only does writing help crystalize my own thoughts, but maybe, just maybe, my perspective on a subject will help someone who reads it make sense of a concept that will help them improve their outlook on their own lives. that my particular regurgitation is just the one they needed to get them over the comprehension hump. in fact wayne dyer went on to talk about how he, a relatively new student of the tao, felt a little funny about talking and writing about it at first. but obviously someone must be digging his take on it, because its probably on the bestseller list by now like the rest of his books.

bottom line for me is i enjoy reading, listening and viewing personal development/spiritual stuff. and i enjoy writing about it because it helps me distill what i’ve read into important chunks. and, as a pleasant biproduct, hopefully those of you who drop by here find some meaning in my regurgitations as well. one of my goals is to get a lot better at writing and speaking about these things - one day i even hope to make my living helping others gain meaning and insight into their lives thru non mainstream topics like eastern philosophies, quantum mechanics, brain physiology, and whatever other interesting (and positive) ideas find their way into my life.

posted by bluematrix at 09/12/07 21:45 | link | comments (4)

this weekend i was thinking about how we experience emotions. i've noticed that my chi is still very centered from my trip to nantucket a month later. and while i still experience emotions everyday like anger and joy and sadness, they are fleeting and i quickly return to this calmness. i feel a sense of detachment from my emotions - they're still mine and very much real, but it's like i can see behind the curtain after a few minutes to the little wizard of oz pushing and pulling the levers of my ego.

soon afterwards i was reading some very interesting ideas on emotional states by steve pavlina - the synchronicity of his words and my thoughts was rather startling. here's a piece...

"Some people enjoy their emotional feedback and even look forward to it, since it’s usually a positive experience for them.  For example, a person who’s in love or in a state of passion would probably be grateful for their emotions.

Other people dislike the emotional feedback they receive.  Some regard their emotions as a problem and drug themselves to disable the connection, while others take the feedback to heart and realize it’s a signal that change is needed.

I regard my emotions like a feedback display in a computer game.  Such a display may include details like ammo, health, and location on the map to reveal how my avatar (character on the screen) is doing.  Here are some possible interpretations of how my emotions may align with the experience of my on-screen avatar:

• When I’m happy it means my avatar has a good supply of ammo, good health, and is making steady progress on the map.
• When I’m confused maybe my avatar has gotten lost, or he’s still figuring out how the game works.
• When I’m stressed my avatar may be low on ammo and/or health, not feeling prepared for the challenges ahead.
• When I’m afraid, my avatar may need to practice a bit more before tackling the next challenge.
• When I’m frustrated or overwhelmed, my avatar may need to recruit help from other characters or simply slow down a bit.
• When I’m feeling driven, my avatar is in the sweet spot of challenge.
• When I’m sad or disappointed, it’s time for my avatar to let go of attachments (such as the cool armor he just lost) and open himself to new experiences.
• When I’m bored or apathetic, perhaps my avatar is done with the current level or difficulty setting, and he needs a new, more interesting challenge… maybe even a new game.

Although your emotions arise within your consciousness, they are not your consciousness, and you are free to stop, breathe, and rise above them.  This will not eliminate the emotions — they’ll still be present — but you’ll begin to see them from a third-person perspective instead of identifying with them. 

cool stuff.

posted by bluematrix at 09/03/07 20:08 | link | comments (1)