
The Collaboration

The Miscellany
Here is my collection of short reflections and experimental writings that don't exactly seem like short stories to me.

Loneliness (2011)
Both a reflection on and a story about loniless
Happiness (2000)
I suppose I was thinking about what exactly is this thing we call happiness
Thoughts on Robert Frost (2011)
Reflections on the poem Out Out
The Technology Dilemma (2011)
Is all this tech really helping? Are we happier? Are we better in some way?
Perception Is Reality (2011)
When I think about time, I like to think about stars and about live sports on TV.
The Population Dilemma (2011)
About 4 people are born every second and about two people die every second.
Why I Read (2011)
I read quite a bit. This is why.
Watch The River (2011)
Recently, my days have been filled with summertime activities
The Dilemma of Immortality (2011)
I do not want to die. I assume this is true for most of us...
Love and Loneliness (2011)
Love precedes loneliness. The unconnected are not lonely...
The Technology Dilemma
It has yet to be proved that our enormous investment in computer technology in recent years has resulted in increased productivity, or that the ability to “process” hundreds of images and millions of bits of information has anything to do with thinking — with constructing an argument, with making good decisions — much less knowledge in the strong sense.
–Kingwell
I think of Mark Twain. Even though Ken Burns does not dwell on this fact in his four hour documentary devoted to the guy generally considered the first American writer, Twain spent considerable time wondering whether we, through technology, were personally improving or personally moving further away from perfection. It’s a good question. A fringe group of people out there, some of whom are pretty smart and reasonable, advocate a back-to-nature type of living. Leave the grid. Don’t burn fossil fuels. Reject electronics. Unify and coexist with Nature. And all this seems well and good. We are at spiritual peace when we move away from technology, when we get out of town and retreat to the hiking path. Twain liked this too, but he also liked inventions and technology. In fact, he lost most of his fortune investing in a type-setting machine. We seem to be comfortable existing in a world of simultaneous yet contradictory messages. I want the newest smart device, a fast internet connection, and HDTV, but I also want a quiet peaceful moment in nature. I want the convenience of the grocery store stocked with prepared foods and canned goods, but I also want fresh produce from the organic local farmer.
​
To be hip and current, is to drive a hybrid. What a wonderful example of this strange irony. By owning a car, I am willing to tacitly support interstate systems and dwelling miles and miles away from where I work. Yet, by purchasing an energy-efficient car, I am also preserving the environment and shrinking my footprint. What the hybrid really suggests is a commitment to technology; a basic view of I can, through technology, find a way to live the way I want and simultaneously not hurt my environment. Thus, the hybrid owner seems to be on the side of those who believe that we are moving toward completion or perfection or self-actualization, not away from it. Of course this document could not exist without the computer I am creating on. By using my computer to grapple with this issue I too seem to be saying that I support the idea of technological growth as the path to greater fulfillment. Yet, I hear the voice of good old Thoreau and I wonder. What if I lived in a primitive cabin? Would I achieve greater inner peace? Isn’t inner peace, contentment, happiness, what it is ultimately about? So either technology increases this, or decreases it. But now the real issue pops up: fighting against technology is futile.
​
Even if I were certain that computers were not helping us and in fact were hurting us, society as a whole is so invested in the continuous development of technology, that my voice will be a whisper at best. Most likely, opposing technology, refusing to use email, to text, to even have a cell phone, is simply to become irrelevant and ignored. Only a cranky dinosaur refuses to embrace the newest advancement. What an interesting word, “advancement.” We do not embrace technological “entrapment.” We get excited about the newest app, TV, and touch screen. To reject TV, cell phones, and the web is not only archaic, it’s foolish, especially if I buy into the idea that being connected to the world is a way to increase my happiness.
​
Montaigne is credited with creating the form now known as the essay. His idea was that writing in this manner is a type of rambling contemplation leading to self-discovery. Today’s writing seems to be following this direction. So what am I discovering? Well, I am thinking about what choices I want to make in my life. I am trying to increase my active participation in the direction my life takes. I am reminding myself that I live in a world that clearly is moving toward further “advancement” and thus sending the message that happiness if increased through further development, yet I am reminding myself that this whole theory might be flawed.
Thoughts on Robert Frost
When I was younger I somehow knew that Robert Frost was an important American poet, that he wrote a poem about two paths diverging in the wood, and that the speaker of that poem chose the path less traveled by and that that had made all the difference. Like most Americans, I liked this notion of marching to the beat of my own drummer, of striking out on my own, of being different. And, as years went on, I would hear this Frost poem every once in a while on the radio, or in a lecture, or cited in conversation and so as far as I was concerned, this one poem was what made Robert Frost this great American poet. But, as often happens with me, eventually I grew curious. To satisfy this curiosity, I decided to read Frost’s collected poems and essays. I discovered an amazing body of dark, disturbing, and resonating verse and prose that, as Kafka says, was an ice-axe that broke the seas frozen inside my soul.
​
I mention all this because today I woke up with Frost’s poem Out, Out on my mind. Here’s the poem and some of my thoughts inserted. If you have never seen the poem before, read it first skipping over my insertions.
Out, Out
The buzz-saw snarled and rattled in the yard
And made dust and dropped stove-length sticks of wood,
Sweet-scented stuff when the breeze drew across it.
And from there those that lifted eyes could count
Five mountain ranges one behind the other
Under the sunset far into Vermont.
Frost is great at establishing a grounded location for his poems. I always think of the old TV show the Waltons as I imagine this backyard lumber mill in the woods of Vermont. Everything seems so peaceful, pure, and innocent. A natural setting and good honest work prevail.
And the saw snarled and rattled, snarled and rattled,
As it ran light, or had to bear a load.
And nothing happened: day was all but done.
So cool. Nothing happened. It is just the end of another day. Sure the saw rattling and snarling is a bit ominous and harsh, but it is surrounded by such serenity that it does not seem threatening at all. This is Frost. Let’s disguise the raw horror of existence behind a serene curtain. Let’s forget about the agony of life for a while and just live in the false safety of the world.
Call it a day, I wish they might have said
To please the boy by giving him the half hour
That a boy counts so much when saved from work.
Oh do I remember how I loathed chores as a kid. That free half-hour was so precious. I had nothing to do of course, but give me my free half hour!
His sister stood beside them in her apron
To tell them "Supper." At the word, the saw,
As if to prove saws knew what supper meant,
Leaped out at the boy's hand, or seemed to leap—
He must have given the hand. However it was,
Neither refused the meeting. But the hand!
The boy's first outcry was a rueful laugh,
As he swung toward them holding up the hand
Half in appeal, but half as if to keep
The life from spilling.
So Frost surprises us. Sure he sort of set us up for this, but still, the boy severely cuts his hand! What?! Life strikes a blow. This is the dark and disturbing stuff that I did not know Frost, the gentle nature poet, wrote about.
Then the boy saw all—
Since he was old enough to know, big boy
Doing a man's work, though a child at heart—
He saw all spoiled. "Don't let him cut my hand off—
The doctor, when he comes. Don't let him, sister!"
Oh how we plead for a do-over. Of course we cannot have it, but yet we plead. I love the line: Since he was old enough to know, big boy. It reminds me of those adolescent years when I was both old enough and not old enough at the same time. When I was a cool and tough dude with my buds, but a wimpy kid who sought nurturing at home.
So. But the hand was gone already.
The doctor put him in the dark of ether.
He lay and puffed his lips out with his breath.
And then—the watcher at his pulse took fright.
No one believed. They listened at his heart.
Little—less—nothing!—and that ended it.
He dies! Really?! Weren’t we just hanging out on Walton Mountain? Weren’t we just talking about that free half-hour of childhood bliss. Supper and sunsets and summer evenings. But no, Frost will not allow it. He will remind us that reality is always lurking, ready to strike.
No more to build on there. And they, since they
Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs.
So cold, Mr. Frost. So dispassionate, but so true. How many calling hours and funerals have I been to where mundane conversation and witty banter is tossed around well within view of the body in the open casket. But what else can we do? We are helpless to change things. We just go on and try not to think about that buzz saw that will someday, out of the blue, cut into each of us.
Happiness
It is easier to be sad than it is to be happy. You don’t have to try much to be sad. In fact, not trying at all often leads to sadness in a sort of cynical fashion, and not trying at all is exactly what he told her she was doing. She pointed out that if that were what she were doing, she must be trying to do it and therefore his theory necessarily was invalid as well as inane and banal. To be involved with a former philosophy major is bad enough, to fight with one is infuriating. I do not like to fight, it goes against my aphorism, but we often contradict ourselves and there is another loophole for her. She will remind me that fighting leads to sadness and thus that I must not be trying to be happy since I am perpetuating this fight. You know, the more I live, the more I begin to hate principles. Perhaps I should tell Mark Twain to go fuck himself and his little sayings and then I’d be happy. Let me think, is there any reason to not tell Mark Twain to go fuck himself? He wrote Huck Finn. So? Does that mean I have to model my life around aphorisms? He was tremendously popular and there’s even that weird actor guy who seems to make a lot of money pretending to be Mark Twain. Yeah, but there are people who make money pretending to be Elvis. Is this imitation stuff all it’s cracked up to be? I know a lot of people who have never read Huck Finn and who are happy. Perhaps I should go to my bookcase, find every book that has any connection to Mark Twain whatsoever and kill it. That’d teach the old fucker. But what would she say about it? She’d say I was giving up on my principles — abandoning my beliefs when times got tough, that I could be Groucho (These are my principles, if you don’t like them, I have others). But I could say, she is being rigid, that she refuses to allow for change, that nothing is constant except change, that everything changes but change, that killing the fucker is merely being natural, and that being natural has got to promote happiness. But I know it would all come back to one statement, for whether I kill Mark Twain is irrelevant. She will say people who are happy do not try, they just are. I will have no response. She will win, I know, but I can’t stop arguing, it is against my principles. I am not going to write about my grandfather, because, unlike most grandfathers, my grandfather was basically an average guy. She would say I am wrong, that there are no average guys, that this statement minimizes human dignity. I will thus say one nice thing about my grandfather: My grandfather could solve crossword puzzles. There, I’ve restored his dignity. She still is unsatisfied. She really is hard to live with. Most people tell you all kinds of tips. I hate tips. I even hate restaurants because I have to give monetary tips to the waitstaff. It’s like a planned encore. It’s like saying, I know I’m going to be good, so why don’t you just applaud me and I’ll go home without performing. Is it possible to attend a concert, classical, blues, rock, bluegrass, whatever, and not hear an encore? It’s almost like the audience is playing along with the performer. The performer stages the show, the audience buys the tickets, and whether it stinks or not is irrelevant, the encore must go on. I must get my money’s worth by hearing three more bad pieces, and the wait staff must get their tips whether they spilled soup down the front of your dress or not. Afterall, if I don’t give them a tip, the restaurant wages aren’t going to allow them to be happy. She’ll tell me to get real, that the waitstaff will do a good job, it’s the rule, not the exception, and thus they have every right to anticipate a tip, that the same holds for the performers.
My mother sends birthday cards to everyone. In her kitchen is a calendar listing the birthdays of her neighbor’s children’s friends.
Loneliness
​
Loneliness is a location beside life — beyond the horizon. Existence there is inevitable; the iron bell will drop its hammer, burst will the pipeline. In this crowded void, knives develop new purposes, perspectives fall away like windswept snow squalls blown directionless yet correctly. No one likes the lonely — a hard truth to hear. From contagious diseases, we tremble away. Like fear, we forget loneliness — feigning ignorance of its symptoms. In the haphazardness of life, we even envy the lonely, but this is a mistake. Suffering, we must not envy. Yet, as the other side is not our side, green will always be greener. Clichés still remain remarkably unable to teach. Loneliness stays a cliché. No one wants it around; it is as banal as the ninety-four year old man sitting at the shopping mall in front of Sears watching the teenagers playing hard to get with each other. The old man is their foreshadow though — their future, but clichés have no voice, and the youth have underdeveloped ear.
Loneliness, like heart disease, liver failure, and hip replacement, reveals aged territory — a disease of adulthood. Its signals remain as numerous as the butterflies, yet as transparent as windows in a Cadillac — windows from which an old woman receives protection from the elements, or from which the elements gain protection from her. Yet she has a telephone and a name, and it is loneliness which causes her to sit beside that phone from morning till night and conference with kids who call her Mother. Teens typically call after finding her number in high school hallways or stapled to telephone polls. Her message: Mother’s always home. They tell her about their friends, their parents, their lives, and she tells them that all will pass, that life contains ups and downs, that people change, that love is hard, that the world cannot rest in hopelessness. She listens, and they hang up feeling better but not knowing exactly why. Mother’s symptoms manifest quietness; her loneliness stays sublimated.
Life in a cabin is lonely. Nature falls short of enough. Nothing unperceived proves real. With only his eyes, Drummer has no perspective. Heat comes from wood and flame. Food can be hauled in a car and stored. Water is sucked from the ground. People are not so easy to access. No telephone lines stretch to Drummer’s cabin, as if the lines themselves would ease the angst through their potential. He could move into town, or drink at the tavern, or even smoke cigarettes on a park bench, but that would not make a difference. if he had a phone, maybe he would call Mother, but she most likely would refuse to talk to a lonely old man. Such is not her affair.
Time is irrelevant to the lonely. Past, present and future jumble together like ingredients for cakes. After kneading and molding, they become inseparable. Beth clutches the handset and counts the rings. When she reaches fifteen, she replaces the handset and waits thirty minutes before re-dialing. She wants to talk to Drummer, but Drummer died in sixty-eight and before that he lived four years without a phone.
Love precedes loneliness. The unconnected confuse the taste of loneliness with sour green apples. These people are the solitary trees in overgrown fields. Only the trees of the forest understand loneliness as they drop leaves onto tiny flowers that are too naive to comprehend the sun’s deception. I have had leaves dropped on me; I know.
Suicide is for the lonely, for those who lack hope, who despair. Mother could have despaired, but she found a straw and clutched it. Drummer died naturally. Suicide? Not technically. But he must have felt that wind and known no blanket would be enough; he must have seen the storm and known the cabin would fall; he must have, one does not live that long and not know things. Beth passed in seventy-six, the bicentennial, and left me here.
Hopelessness arises from the soul like the transparent bubble blown with the child’s breath. Only a second, less than a second, before it breaks away from the plastic ring, floats beyond retrieval, and bursts on a blade of green grass. For to be hopeless is to be without even the hope of touching that breath. The lonely forget to breathe. At the end, Beth and Drummer forgot, I see that now.
Loneliness exists for the albino squirrel and the seagull, but for each it remains different — opposite. The squirrel loses hope of acceptance, of ever being good enough, but the seagull loses hope of accepting, of others ever being worthy. Both the same, yet one becoming the fertilizer of the earth and the other becoming the Buddha. Beth and Drummer are fertilizer.
Without parents one moves up the ladder, becomes one generation higher. Eventually we all know this too; except the tragic, they mourn their children; they are the loneliest of all. Drummer mourned his father in fifty-eight, and lost Sawyer, my brother, in sixty-four. Drummer was a strong climber, but when he had to look down from his great height and see Sawyer no longer ascending, he froze. To not look down is the secret, do not allow yourself to know how much you stand to lose. I was not on Sawyer’s rung: I was not high enough to be hurt in the fall.
I can remember all those dates, the years I climbed on the ladder, but now, on the top rung, they all seem irrelevant. From here, the view denies comprehension; from here, I can see even why I could not see then, why they still can not see.
The Buddha taught compassion in the world yet knew its illusuariness. I can see that too from where I stand. The tallest buildings truly own the city. The mightiest trees own the forest. The highest mountains own the Earth — the Himalayas, Mount Everest — they reign supreme. I know this, yet I have not been there.
Beth left me antiques and heirlooms that I mostly sold at auction. The money surprised me. Chairs that I climbed to reach the upper cabinets when I was a boy were handled like relics. Books that propped open doors and leveled tables were now finally being read. I was glad to see this rebirth, to learn that everything transforms, that everything, even the lonely, has worth.
Marriage is lonely. Mary does not stand on the ladder with me. Her father is one-hundred-six. Her brother is eighty-one. Beth and Drummer are still here through their objects, is the view from Mary’s rung. Only Mary's father understands me, but he is too high to communicate. He only looks. I envy him. This I could never tell Mary, she would laugh.
​
Mary's father reminds me of Jason’s infancy — cooing, looking, absent to self. Mary enjoyed playing with Jason when he grew to be a toddler; I loved playing with him as an infant. Jason is grown and away now. Mary's father never really even knew him. Mary's brother used to buy him toy cars for his birthdays. Mary does not miss Jason. She is happy he is happy. Happiness I have surpassed: I miss Jason.
​
Every July sixteenth, Mary and I drive her brother to the cemetery and leave flowers for his wife and beside her, for their mother. I am embarrassed that Beth and Drummer are gone, it makes me too much older than Mary and her brother. Yet it is inevitable. I will no longer go with them to see their father; the realities are too naked. Their father understands this I am sure. Mary and her brother do not. They call me selfish. I allow it; I accept it. Protestation is irrelevant, lessons are learned only through death. But with Mary away, with Jason away, I remember loneliness, for even on the top rung, there is loneliness.
​
I have a boil on my chin which I refuse to have removed. It could be easily done, but secretly I want Mary to touch it first. She pretends she doesn't care about it; yet, even in intimacy, she subtly, delicately, beautifully, avoids it — moving fingers, lips, arms, gently around it, tracing my face with fingertips of purity. She can climb trees and avoid the poison oak; she can pick wild roses without danger; she can dance around cobras leaving them senseless and alone; this, she has learned.
​
On his body, Mary's father has several growths. A goiter I call the Buddha-belly falls over his collar; its manifestation is undisguisable. Before I stopped visiting, I stroked the flesh of the belly to drive away the loneliness it caused. I know Mary's father appreciated the gesture; yet, Mary tells me he has yet to opt to have it removed. This I do not understand, but I am not him, and I give him the benefit of the doubt.
​
Mary and I often go to the theater and listen to the symphony. This habit we developed after Jason grew. It fills the spaces, somewhat. Once we attended a performance of Mahler’s 8th: The Symphony of a Thousand. Mary was overwhelmed by the magnitude of the production, by the brass behind us, by the four woodwinds far to our left, by the violins in the balcony, by the children’s voices. I was caught in the Faust, in the end of knowledge, in the end of music. Leonard Bernstein said that Mahler’s symphonies lose popularity not because of their difficult scores, nor their lengths, but because their agonizing messages are simply too true, telling something too dreadful to hear. Watching the conductor turn to us, the audience, for the purpose of cuing the various musicians spread among us, I understood the loneliness of community, I understood what music could not do.
​
There is an old man I see occasionally at the grocery. He always smiles, yet I have never heard him speak. When she sees him, Mary is uneasy. I only wish to touch him, to kiss his forehead, but I fear he will not understand, so I remain within myself. Approaching the lonely creates loneliness. It reminds us of our inevitable limits. For this man, I can do nothing. We live in different cells, separated by translucent concrete too thick ever to chisel away. The owner of the market, Mary knows. The old man is named James, and he lives alone in an assisted-care center. One year at Christmas, Mary sent him flowers and fruit. The card read: Thinking of you this Holiday Season. She did not sign it. To the gift, I was in opposition. James most likely did not need flowers, and I know few people who believe fruit is a gift.
​
On the cork board beside the refrigerator, a Christian poem is tacked. It conveys an experience of a beach walker who finds solace from the idea of Jesus pacing beside him — who merges the two worlds and finds companionship. This walker is a Buddha. I am not capable of this merger. I can not see the invisible so clearly. Right before he left home, Jason thumbtacked the poem to the board. He told Mary to read it when she felt lonely. When she reads it, she thinks of Jason and smiles.
​
Jason believed steel workers knew secrets. To work twelve hours, stumble to a shelter which you do not own, eat meat and potatoes, and replace some other guy on a worn mattress where you stay until he comes to replace you is simplicity, is honesty, is reality––nothing to do with satisfaction, with fulfillment. Obsessions with satisfaction, with fulfillment destroy us; they produce loneliness. Jason is profound, but the long-shift was no carefree life. Despair arises in no time. In the mills, Mary’s two uncles worked. Harry, blind drunk on whiskey, fell down twenty-four concrete stairs — a pebble over the falls: Howard cracked his head on a low beam and pushed a broom on the night shift until he dropped off, like an apple in a windstorm. The ignorant are not blessed. No one is blessed. Mary disagrees.
​
Mother phoned me before loneliness fully enveloped me, back when enduring seemed possible, even likely. She needed to talk about Jason, she said. She said she had never called a parent before, that most of her contacts were from the parent-less, from the phone booths of emptiness, from the void; but that Jason was eccentric for an old man, extraordinary for an adult, unbelievable as a child. I listened to the voice in my ear, still unclear of its origin. Beth was dead. The dead have no need for phones: they have no one to call. Yet Mother continued. Jason is a philosopher, a theologian, a metaphysician. Jason understands. He knows your struggles. He knows Mary’s struggles. He understands loneliness like a wave understands the sea. He knows that some fruit is never harvested. He knows that glaciers creep slower than the watched clock. He knows that despair is woven into Nature’s blanket. Why I sit here beside my phone, he knows. These intuitions his father ignores, he says. He says his father will not let go, will not drop his dukes, will not allow things to be. Jason is right, Mother told me. She said she knew it before he told her. She knew she would one day make such a call, she said. She said she knew the call would be futile, in vain, but necessary, like the warm spell in January, bound to do more harm than good, yet completely right. Mary does not connect to you, she said. She said Mary needs a soul mate, a kindred-spirit. Mary will never live through the fighting, she said. Still I wondered who this voice belonged to, yet I could not ask, she knew me, and I knew that somewhere deep within my being, I knew her, that somewhere, I once lived in her womb, in her mind, in her soul. Mary was fortunate to have Jason, she said. Mother said that I did not know Jason. Time interferes, she said. Mother said she could have loved Jason, that Jason was her match, that people are often born too many years apart to meet their spiritual partners, that loneliness was this. Then Mother was gone.
​
For every gorge we see, a mountain exists in the invisible world. When we descend into canyons, we climb the mountains of the Buddha land. This is why Mount Everest is so lonely, this is why the summit is the base, why apexes are heavy; I know this also. Until many years after Mary left, it was not apparent to me. She left me sparring in an empty ring, a flower with no petals, a mirror which does not reflect. Then I had to stop fighting. I had to understand the inevitable. I had to surrender.
​
Grief glues us together, but the seawater soon dissolves all binding, leaving loneliness. When Mary's brother died, Jason called me. Mary and I reunited then, but it did not last. She was higher, but still her father lived on, and our levels differed too much. For a time, we pretended that we understood. In the dark, we played charades. We lit candles in every room to celebrate the sunshine. Naked, we ran around Walden pond at night, and made love beside the rock pile. How silly we were. People as high as we should have known better. Yet we chose to climb down for a time, to be children once more, to forget all we understood, to pretend love was real, lasting, eternal. One can only forget for a short time. The memory is impossible to erase, and no matter how many dams are constructed, eventually the levees break, and the world of superficial joy is washed under twenty miles of loneliness.
A grown-child’s old bedroom is a museum. It is evolution. It is the billions of stars in the sky, all seeming to shine at once, a reminder of the confusion of time, the deception of it all. In Jason’s room is a baseball card collection. Thumbtacked to the wall, there is a music poster. A blue spread covers his mattress. In his desk drawer are remnants of papers and pencil stubs, but in the back of the bottom drawer, crinkled and dried, fragile, is a pink flier with faded ink: Mother’s always home and a phone number.
​
Sometimes at night, I call Mother. She does not answer anymore. The phone just rings and rings. After fifteen rings, I hang up and try again every thirty minutes until I am too tired to remember. Just the number, the dialing, the potential is enough sometimes.
​
Mary's father still lives. He will live on and on: he is the lama, he will never die.
Late Night Radio
​
Back 1979 or so there was a Cleveland sports guy named Pete Franklin (1927-2004) with a nightly radio show People of Wikipedia claim:
Pete Franklin is widely credited with pioneering the more aggressive, acerbic and attention-grabbing form of the genre, which has since been adopted by generations of sports media personalities, and bringing it to a multi-national listening audience. The zenith of Franklin's career came when he hosted Sportsline on the 50,000-watt Cleveland AM station WWWE ("3WE") 1100-AM from 1972 to 1987.
Well if you rate sports guys on a scale of one to ten and let one be the guy who doesn’t know sports exists and ten be the guy who tossed out his remote as obsolete once he tuned in ESPN, I would be a 3.45. I establish this because Pete Franklin being an early version of a radio sports talk guy is not why I listened to him late into the night.
I listened because I couldn’t fall asleep unless the radio was on, and I couldn’t fall asleep if the radio was playing music. When Pete’s voice came over my old clock-radio I could focus on this, tune out the little odd noises that would distract me from falling asleep and peacefully drift off.
​
Around 1982, I broke up with Pete Franklin and became a loyal Larry King fan (King was exclusively on the radio then). His syndicated show played live from 11 PM till 2 AM and then repeated from 2 till 5 AM. So as I worked through high school and college it didn’t matter what time I hit the bed, I could always count on Larry King to be there to talk me off to sleep.
​
Well, strange as it might seem, I still listen to the radio late at night . (For my wife’s benefit, I now use one ear-bud.) When Larry King left the late-night radio world, I jumped around to various local and syndicated news and talk shows for years never quite able to latch on to one for longer than a few months. So, as of now, I have settled for something called The BBC World Service.
​
This all news and human interest format works well for me. The British accents and somewhat obscure stories about the governmental taxation in Zambia are often just what the doctor ordered for a good night’s sleep. Oh, I guess I should also mention that sometimes when I roll over at 3:48 AM and barely wake up for a minute or two, I catch an interesting news bit and then fall back to sleep. That’s exactly what happened last night. Here are two little stories that caught my semi-conscious mind and stuck.
​
The first is from Iran. Here is a summary I found this morning online: A man who blinded a woman by throwing acid in her face in Iran, after she rejected his marriage proposal is preparing to face the same fate.
​
Iran's Supreme Court has upheld the controversial sentence against Majid Movahedi, who attacked Ameneh Bahrami six years ago. Amineh has demanded that Majid should be blinded too. She told the BBC's Persian TV she wants to carry out the sentence herself. "They told me there will be a doctor who will carry out the sentence but I said no, I really want to do it myself. Let me do it first and if it doesn't work, the doctor can complete the operation"
Even by the tough standards of Iran's judiciary system this is an unusual case. The country has one of the highest death penalty rates in the world, and there have been high profile cases recently involving stonings or amputations.
But nonetheless Iranian public opinion is divided about the verdict — as is Ameneh's family. Arguments about punishment, fairness, deterrence and revenge are being used by those on both sides of the debate.
For their part, the family of Majid Movahedi, who have repeatedly pleaded for mercy, are preparing themselves for the daunting prospect of their son being forcefully blinded on Saturday.
​
Wow. I mean one side of me is saying that this scumbag deserves this, but the other side is saying that this doesn’t seem emotionally healthy for the victim. I know that revenge is not really an ultimately satisfying resolution and most psychologists would work with the victim to focus on acceptance and perhaps even forgiveness, but then again, I can understand wanting to do this to the guy who inflicted so much agony on me. I do know one thing, however, that just like capital punishment, this verdict will not stop other people from repeating the act. We do not function this way. If I am really angry and crazy enough to throw acid in someone’s face, then I am not rational enough to think that I better not do it because I will get into trouble. So, this verdict is based purely in revenge and punishment. Maybe that is fine, but I tend to think it is not.
​
The second story is about a woman who meets her anonymous, biological, sperm-donor father. It turns out that the guy is Jeffrey Harrison who lives alone with four dogs and a pigeon in a broken-down RV in a Venice Beach car park. He donated sperm three or four times a week, totaling 500 times, during the 1980s and 1990s to help pay the rent.
Obviously an interesting story from the privacy standpoint, but for me the most interesting thing about the story is that the daughter did not find the guy, Harrison came forward and identified himself. It seems that he saw a newspaper article about the girl and her search for half-sisters (his daughters from other donations) and knew he was the father. After about two years, he freely came forward and sought them out. He said it took two years to decide if he wanted his daughters to know what he was like and how he lived.
​
If I had donated back in the day, am I proud enough of who I am today to want the resulting child to know me? Maybe this falls under the category of how we decide if we are of good character, or maybe it falls under the category of it’s not about me. One side of me feels that even if I were ashamed of my life, I would still owe it to the child to let him make his own judgment.
​
Disclaimer: I never donated. This is hypothetical.
Perception is Reality
When I think about time, I like to think about stars and about live sports on TV. Stars because when I look at the night sky, I love the realization that all those stars appear to me to be existing at the same moment, yet the individual lights that I see all at the same time, actually were emitted anywhere from a few years ago to thousands of years ago. In fact many of the stars that I am looking at right now, might not even exist anymore. That star over there might have gone nova three thousand years ago, but I will never know it because its light will still be in our sky for many many lifetimes past mine. Yet, strangely, I seem certain that all those stars are actually there.
​
I like live sports on TV because it’s all delayed by a second or two or even maybe by a few minutes. It takes time for the camera to send the image to my screen. So that touchdown that I just high-fived my son about, actually might have happened two minutes before I knew it. The fans in the stadium have already been cheering way before I even set down my bowl of chips. Of course this is true of all perception. We never actually perceive what is currently happening, we perceive what has just happened. There is no “live.” We are always a bit behind. And so I think about this old philosopher named Immanuel Kant. Here’s what Wikipedia reports about this German dude.
Immanuel Kant (1724 –1804) was a German philosopher from Königsberg (today Kaliningrad of Russia), researching, lecturing and writing on philosophy and anthropology during and at the end of the 18th Century Enlightenment. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason aimed to unite reason with experience to move beyond what he took to be failures of traditional philosophy.
Ok … and, although the article goes on to offer some good stuff, it fails to mention that he’s one of my favorite philosophers. Further, it doesn’t really focus on the one thing that I really like about this guy. Now I’m not a professional philosopher, so here’s a somewhat basic understanding of one of the things he was doing. See, he wanted to deal with how we know for sure that what we think is real is actually real. I like this. And strangely, I often think about this. I mean just go to a now old website and listen to the mosquito ringtones and you’ll see, or hear, that sounds exist that some of us cannot hear. If I cannot hear it, does it exist? This suggests that there very well could be substances I cannot see, matter I cannot feel, and odors I cannot smell. Well, Kant agreed. He too wanted to deal with this. And now that we have computers, his ideas make a lot of sense in an analogy. Just as computers can only function within their operating systems, we, according to Kant, can only function through our human operating system. For Kant, this system is constructed in such a way that we experience things outside of us in time, space, and causality. Kant then says the troubling part: we have no way to know if time, space and causality actually exist. We are stuck living in a world that we can absolutely only interact with in this way. We cannot get outside ourselves and perceive things as they might actually be. I mean, maybe time, space and causality actually are inherent in the things we perceive; however, these things could just as easily only seem to exist in time, space and causality because that’s how we function. We perceive the world as growing older. Everything we perceive seems to be moving from a moment of inception toward a moment of final decay. Yet, why does everything have to begin and end? Perhaps all things are always happening, but we are unable to see it as it really is. The same is true of space. We see things taking up space and existing as individual items, yet, this is not necessarily true. Maybe everything is one big blob, but our senses break this big blob into trees and houses and people. Finally, we make connections that lead us to believe that if I throw a ball, I caused the ball to move. Yet, again, if space and time are not really demonstrable, then I really cannot cause anything. I can only seem to cause things. Ok, getting pretty deep here, so let’s pull back and ask why this is important. Perhaps it is not, but perhaps it is a constant reminder that all this reality that seems so certain to us, might not really exist at all. I like to think about that stuff, and so I think about it, if I can.
The Population Dilemma
According to Stephen Ross of The Harvest Fields, 6,924,246,831 people are currently on our planet. How Ross can determine 831 as opposed to 827 is beyond me, but I’m comfortable with an estimate of about 7 billion. Ross also reports that about four people are born every second and about two people die every second. Thus we are adding 172,800 additional people each day. But this is not really news. Many people know this. Many intelligent people write about population and sustainable growth. If you want to read interesting articles about this I like Population, Sustainability, and Earth's Carrying Capacity: 
A framework for estimating population sizes and lifestyles 
that could be sustained without undermining future generations by Gretchen C. Daily and Paul R. Ehrlich. Also if you are interested, check out this fascinating article by Jared Diamond called The Worst Mistake In The History Of The Human Race. Diamond argues that when we transitioned from hunter/gatherer to agriculture, we unknowingly created all the problems we currently have.
​
I want to start with the given that we will, if we continue our trend, reach a point in which the planet, as we now know it, will be unable to support the population. Now some people will argue that this saturation point will never actually come because we will continue to create new technologies that allow for unlimited expansion. To argue that something is not a problem because we will invent a solution when the issue reaches critical levels seems irresponsible at best. This seems to be our thinking as far as fossil fuels go. We will burn oil to ease our lives until there is no more oil to burn, then we will figure something out. Hey, I’ll be honest, this is mostly my mindset. We tend to deal with problems when we have to, proactive isn’t really something we seem to be very good at. We like maxims like “Live for the moment,” “Go for it,” “You might die tomorrow so live today,” etc.
So we celebrate birth and mourn death. Biologists argue we are programmed to do this in fact. No one I know is angry when a loved one or friend has a child. In fact, my sect tends to celebrate, and why shouldn’t we? Children are the future. They make us closer to biological success stories. They bring us immeasurable rewards. And of course we are crushed by death. We feel loss and sadness. I don’t know anyone who condemns birth and celebrates death for population control reasons. In fact, this seems absurd, but doesn’t it also seem to be what is required in order to control population growth. So here’s that contradiction I find within my worldview. Do I fight for regulations that aim to control population growth, or do I fight for individual choice in reproduction? Do I support medical interventions to extend life, or do I argue that by extending life we are adding to unsustainable population growth? Of course this produces another contradiction: If any restriction or policy is developed, who gets to develop it? Each of us would probably rather sit in the driver seat and point to that group over there as the people who need to be controlled, than have that group over there tell us whether we can reproduce or extend our lives. So here’s why I’m a hypocrite: I want a sustainable population, but I don’t want anyone to tell me what I have to do to achieve it.
Why I Read
​
Reading will gain us nothing but enchantment of the heart … as we grow accustomed to receiving books in stillness and attentiveness, so we can grow to receive the world, also possessed temporally temporarily. Reading gives context for experience, a myriad of contexts. Not that we know any better what to do when the time comes, but we will not be taken unaware or in a void.
Ruined By Reading: A Life in Books
Lynne Sharon Schwartz
I read quite a bit. And what I mean by this is that I read quite a bit of fiction, poetry and literary things. I hardly ever read a newspaper. I’m interested in reading the newspaper, but it almost always comes down to consciously choosing between reading the paper or the novel I’m halfway through, and I almost always decide to devote my reading time to the novel. Only occasionally do I attack the stack of magazines that gradually build up on my desk, although, since I subscribe to them and thus directly asked the distributors to send them to me, tossing them unread onto the recycle heap evokes a conflicting sense of liberation and failure. Even though I write and am flattered when someone other than me takes a look at my stuff, I often find it laborious to browse other amature writer's stuff. The reason? Well, it is the same as why I’m not reading the paper: when I make time to read, I almost always want to read a book. (Yes, this book is sometimes non-fiction, but it is still a book.)
To make time to read is an interesting phrase. I have heard many many people say that they would love to read but just do not have the time. I cringe just a bit inside when I hear this. I cringe because even though our culture has told us that reading is really important, many don’t find it all that much fun. So this “nice” line has evolved to allow a non-reader both to respect the value of reading and yet excuse them from participating. Strangely, I don’t judge non-readers as bad people. Many, if not most, productive and happy people do not read very much. Even as an English teacher, I try not to sing the song of how reading books is vital. After twenty years in the classroom, reality hits you in the face, and the evidence of successful and brilliant students who do not like to read books is a bit staggering.
Of course knowing how to actually decipher symbols and create meaning is reading, and this skill is truly vital.
Reading poetry and fiction, however, might just be too individual a choice to be lumped in the category of "vital." Yet, it still bothers me when a person says, “I’d love to read more, but I just do not have the time.” I want us to be honest. I can make time for what I really want to do, can’t I? Making this time is something we do constantly. We make time to watch our favorite shows, to follow our favorite sports team, to mow the lawn, to ride our bikes, to seek romance and entertainment, and to work. Sure, occasionally we have an over-committed few weeks and really don’t have time to do what we want, but when we do have time, we do what brings us the most pleasure. For me, that is reading; for many, it is something else. I guess what I’m saying is if you don’t like to read fiction and poetry, continue not doing it, but just call the spade the spade.
But this is not what I set out to write about. I set out to explore why I am so willing to devote hours a day of my precious and short life, to sitting alone in a quiet well-lit corner climbing inside a book. Schwartz helps me understand this. By the way, I also am somewhat fanatical about reading books about reading. One of these books is from where the opening lines are lifted. And here is another quote which always affirms my reading.
Indeed, what reading teaches, first and foremost, is how to sit still for long periods and confront time head-on.
I’m good at sitting still for long periods of time, and I love thinking about Time. In fact, I’m going to go do this right now.
Watch The River
​
Recently, my days have been filled with summertime activities — playing euchre with aunts and uncles visiting from out-of-town, riding The Beast and The Diamondback at Kings Island, playing a round of golf with my father, my visiting brother and my teenage nephew, sitting in the top row at the Great American Ballpark with my kids on a ninety degree afternoon watching the Cleveland Indians beat the Cincinnati Reds, hosting a little league ice-cream social after my son’s team lost the league championship, going to cook-outs and parties with friends and family. When time permits, I tend to respond to the nagging responsibilities of homeownership — vacuuming the family room, mowing the lawn, washing the cars, polishing the woodwork, the list goes on and on. Oh, and when I am not heading the duties of homeownership, or involved in summertime activities, I hear the call of consumption — trips to the grocery, the shoe store, the gas station, the mall. Is it any wonder that when a few extra minutes pop up, I find myself involved in easy entertainment — women’s world cup soccer, Expedition Impossible, Summer Wipe Out, Major League Baseball. In the little remaining down time, it is tempting to nap, snack, or just chill. And so life goes on. And so another summer goes by. And then it’s fall. Another college football season, a new bunch of leaves to rake, a turkey. I have often been dissatisfied by these seemingly endless days of activity, and thus am reluctant to allow myself to fully commit to them. For a long time I thought I maintained this aloof status because I wanted to be associated with the brooding intellectual type, but now I realize it is because I am afraid — I’m afraid of that rushing river that is inviting me to jump in and of allowing the current to carry me, before I know it, to the end of the road. Like Ulysses and his men, I too am tempted by the lotus eaters. I see that I could easily float.
But, when I do jump into the raging river of life and allow myself to simply flow through a continuous string of activities and duties, I somehow think that I am not living deliberately — I am being too passive. Although I very well might, I do not want to, as Thoreau says, come to the end of my life and discover that I had not lived. What a haunting thought indeed. I want to live a life in which I am invested in what is expansive. And yes, sometimes that means seeking out experiences, and yes, few lives are free of duty and responsibility, but I can try, I can fight, I can focus, on finding moments to devote to expansion. For me, those times manifest through reading, writing, and challenging discussions.
To put this another way, it seems to me that most activity is designed to entertain us while we sit and watch it. I tend to want to be the designer of my entertainment. I want to create and search for meaning. I grow tired and lethargic and bored sitting in the audience day after day. I am bothered by activities that do not encourage reflection, yet, our economy is designed in a way that such mindless activities are promoted and maybe even essential to capitalism. If we all stopped buying stuff, and stopped attending concerts and sports games and theme parks, what industry would support us. But, I do not wish to be anti-materialistic in this essay — Henry David Thoreau wrote that message far better than I ever could. No, this essay is about what centers my life; it’s about pulling myself out of that river that I sometimes dive into, it’s about drying off in the sun and, as Dylan sings, it’s about sometimes, just sitting here on this bank of sand and watching the river flow.
The Dilemma of Immortality
"I intend to live forever, or die trying."
-Groucho Marx.
I do not want to die. I assume this is true for most of us. Sure the acutely depressed, perhaps spiritually enlightened and the ultra complacent might welcome death, but most of us want to live forever. In fact, most of the major religions of the world teach some form of immortality albeit mostly manifested through leaving the physical body and the tangible Earth. I, however, want to live in this form and in this place forever. In fact, most of the people I know desire this too. But if I succeed in living forever, I also want to maintain activity, intelligence and curiosity. Perhaps this could go unsaid, but if I lose all or portions of my ability to act, think, and investigate, then I am partially dead. So to be alive at 198 but bed-ridden, demented, and reliant on a machine for respiration, is not living forever; it is existing forever, and that I do not necessarily want to do. So I must amend my opening statement to say that I want to live forever with a high quality of life.
Ironically, almost every character in film and literature who is presented as immortal ends up pretty much detesting it. They tend to outlive everyone they know and love, they tend to be too experienced to connect with the new people they meet, they tend to be bored and tired of the world, and they tend to indulge in excess in order to feel some sense of enthusiasm or thrill. In other words, our great creative minds, when focused on immortality, tell us that it ain’t so great. Yet I still want to live forever, and fortunately for me, the medical field is focused on satisfying my desire. Of course medical technology and advancement is still a long long way from ensuring my immortality, but at least immortality does seem to be the goal of the field.
So we mostly no longer look for an elixir of life in strange metallic compounds and exotic animal parts or search deep crevices and ancient caves for a fountain of youth. Now, the medical field has become our best bet at achieving that ever elusive immortality.
The dilemma occurs of course on several levels. On one level, if the medical field continues to prolong life with quality, lots of things get messed up. Our economy is based on the idea that retired people will not live too long, but retired people are living a long time in their post-work world. Funding this is problematic, and if the trend continues, it would only make sense to push the retirement age to 70 or 75 or 80. But wait, I don’t want to work that long. I want to retire at 60 or around there and travel, relax, do those cool things I never had time to do when I was working.
Retirement is not the only issue, population sustainability is another problem. If we do not die, the population issue is really problematic. And what about relationships? Will we see nine or twelve marriages over the course of a 200 year life. Will we play catch as children with our great-great-great grandfathers? So practically, even if the medical field could grant us immortality with quality of life, we should refuse it. I’m not sure I’m that altruistic, however.
Another ugly issue that must be addressed is the issue of natural order. Some call this playing God. Many contradictions exist here. On one hand, those hardcore religious people who spurn medical intervention of any kind are accepting the natural order of all living beings. If I am injured or become ill, I will either naturally recover, or I will die. The natural order of survival will regulate life and death. Our brains evolving into inquisitive rational states however also seems natural, and it is this natural state that has produced science that is helping us recover better and live longer. So do we embrace this as natural, or condemn it as unnatural. We seem to do both. We condemn cloning and stem cell stuff as too manipulative, but we praise surgeons who can transplant a vital organ and see nothing unnatural about living with someone else’s kidney. Nietzsche believed that technological advancement left unchecked would lead to our destruction. If we include life lengthening intervention, it very well could.
So here we go again. The hypocrisy exists through my strong desire to play god mixed with my rational understanding that playing god is not all that good for humanity and through my desire to live forever when I know that living forever would probably really suck.
Love and Loneliness
​
Love precedes loneliness. The unconnected are not lonely. They are solitary trees in overgrown fields. Only the trees of the forest understand loneliness. They drop leaves onto small flowers too naive to understand how the sun deceives.
I penned this many years ago in a journal and stumbled upon it today. I love it when this happens. It’s like meeting the guy I was back then; it’s Proustian. Younger me floods over present me and strange feelings float to the top. These must be the feelings of many creatives. I now read the old writing with a certain detachment from the ideas, an ability to look at them anew with fresh eyes and additional maturity and growth. This is simultaneously disquieting and stunning. What I thought was such a poignant observation expressed in such an organic metaphor, now I see as eerily naïvely eloquent.
This is why I’ve never gone under the pen and tattooed my body. Who will I be ten years from now? (Of course now that I am revisiting this piece ten more years later, I do have two tattoos.) I consider who I was ten years ago and barely recognize that person. Do I want to look at a cryptic Celtic design tattooed on my forearm from now until I expire? Will it still exhilarate me and represent me when I’m sixty. Perhaps it will, but chances are it will not. My devotion to fiction reminds me of this. For years I could not get through War and Peace and then something clicked and I read it twice back-to-back. When I was twenty, at best, I would have tattooed a Bob Dylan lyric on my arm, at worst, the name of some girl I thought I was madly and eternally in love with. Today, both would have been sad mistakes. Strangely, the Dylan lyric would perhaps have turned out to be the more embarrassing. At least the old passionate love of youth is universal and thus aptly celebrated and manifested in permanence, but a song lyric? Really?
Those who know I read avidly often ask me what my favorite book is. I cannot answer. One book does not rise head and shoulders above the thousands of significant works out there. Besides, the book I’m digging today will not be the book I’m digging next month or next year. Like a tattoo, singling out one work and clutching it next to the heart for the rest of my life seems stifling. So to beat this point to a pulp, I ask myself what do I think about these lines I wrote all those years ago — these lines that back then I was so impressed with that I inked them into my personal notebook.
I wrote, “Love precedes loneliness.” I still agree with this notion. If I do not value anything (love it), then I can not miss anything. Reminds me of Buddhism’s call for the rejection of desire. Ok, maybe I could allow this body ink into my bicep. It still seems true today — it stands the test of time. I go on to write, “The unconnected are not lonely.” By buying the preceding line, I guess I have no choice but to agree here too. I am thinking of exceptions though, but most of these exceptions are people who have valued something and then lost it. The sad old guy in the chair valued family, health, possessions, idealized dreams, and perhaps lost some or all of these things; he is lonely. Yet I am uneasy with the idea that there could be an unconnected being. Isn’t desire inherent in us? Don’t we naturally long for companionship, feel lonely when we do not have it? Doesn’t a baby instinctively want to be held and nurtured? Aren’t we born lonely before we have anything to love? Freud would argue that we did have something we unconsciously loved — the womb. We are born lonely because we valued the womb and then lost it. Ok, let’s stop here, this is getting too much like Intro to Psychology 101, but perhaps the line is actually defensible. I’m also going to stop here because the rest of the jotting is metaphor. If metaphor is effective, it cannot be restated or translated without losing its impact. If it is trite and nonsensical, then it is not worth considering. I like that. Perhaps that is my tattoo. This is what the young me is teaching the present me. The young me would have attempted to literalize the metaphor and perhaps ruin it, but now I know when to leave things alone.