New Band Debuts, And Some Buddhist Thought.

Last night's debut of The Bobcats went well. This year's Act1 Entertainment Halloween bash was a crazy one, and it on well after I left around 2AM.

When Diane and I showed up, right around 9, Motif Sounds was already playing. They have a new guitarist, and it hasn't caused them to skip a beat. The new guitarist/frontman is impressive. The next band was My Favorite Mistake, and they rocked harder than I had expected, started out with a female-sung version of Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap (Play some AC/DC and you have my attention). Big Daddy & the Bulldogs was next, with Jerry playing bass instead of second guitar. Another solid rockin' set for the evening.

Then my new band, The Bobcats, debuted around midnight. We were a little concerned with the fact that our drummer quit six days prior and we had to draft my friend Andrew (from Triple Seven) and go in with only one full band rehearsal. Everything went well, though, and we had a great time.

After us another new band debuted: Calamity Blue. They were good. The female singer worked the crowd well, even singing while standing on a table at one point. For many people, what she did would have seemed too calculated and hokey, but she pulled it off. That's a band to keep an eye on.

By now, it was after 1AM and the place was still pretty packed. We hung out a bit longer, but Diane was getting tired and I was reaching the "enough to drink on an empty stomach" point and I had to get up for work today.

Overall, a successful debut for the band at one heck of a Halloween party. Kappler's rocked long and hard.

And now for something completely different...

I was reading a blog tonight and the subject of Buddhism came up, specifically the idea of "self awareness." Here's what I wrote:

Not to be too nit-picky, but "self-awareness" is a concept that doesn't translate well as a Buddhist concept. In broad terms, the "self" ("atman") is seen pretty much as a mental construct in Buddhism. The understanding of this leads to a realization of "non-self" ("anatman"). Technically, yes, "self-awareness" is important in Buddhism, but only as a way to remove the delusion of self. The self is seen sort of like an anthropomorphism of a phenomenon, much like the creation of deities and such to explain things we don't yet (or maybe cannot) understand. The tough part about achieving an awareness of non-self is overcoming the fear that creates such constructs (fear of the unknown, fear of being alone, and all those other powerful evolutionary forces that have shaped our neurophysiology).

As to the larger subject of whether or not Buddhism is a religion: It all depends on the definition of religion. The colloquial use of the term as a system of supernatural beliefs leads to a "no" answer. But if we revert back to the original meanings of the word's roots -- essentially, "linking back" -- then it may well be the quintessential major religion, as it is the only one that values objectivity and fact over faith in the works of deluded men. It is almost deist in that respect, I suppose, except that deism tends to be anthropomorphic, too.

The Buddhist realization of "non-self" is, perhaps, the toughest concept to translate into Western thought. When I took a course on world religions in high school, they got it all wrong. The extinguishing of the self doesn't mean that we are one big blob of non-individuals. Quite the opposite, I believe. It has been my experience that Buddhists are more individualistic (i.e., not herd-minded), and I believe that is because of the loss of the limitations that mental constructs like the self create. We tend to compartmentalize and label ourselves, and that requires the erection of psychological walls. Tear down those non-existent walls and you are free to explore more and incorporate those experiences into your everyday interactions and expressions.

To put it in base terms, Buddhism seeks to diminish suffering through the exposing and relinquishing of bullshit. Tell a Buddhist about your "soul" or "self" and he may very well ask you to show it to him/her. With Buddhism as a tool -- for that is all that it is -- one can seek out and find useless and harmful beliefs and attitudes and, as a result, create a more accurate, helpful, and useful mental model of life. One of the biggest parts of that is the understanding of the delusory nature of the "self."

XXX

NOTE: As I freely admit, there are sects of Buddhism that have become quite tainted, making it a duller and less effective tool. But I still prefer an animistic/shaministic/buddhist religion like Tibetan Buddhism over the war- and hate-mongering ideologies that are rampant in much of the human population. We'll never cure humanity of its penchant for ideologies -- especially cold-turkey -- so let's at least try to promote peaceful, loving ones.

The Most Idiotic Thing I Have Recently Heard

If you actually listen to people, you hear some idiotic comments. My favorite recent one...

A woman in one of the buildings in which I work had her fetus die with about a month to go in her pregnancy, and I heard another woman comment, "Well, it's all part of God's plan." There's a plan that includes killing children a month before they are due to be born? "Jesus loves you, but he killed your baby?!" Don't "god-fearin'" folks blow up abortion clinics and execute doctors who do the same thing?

I really do try to be nice, but if someone honestly believes such a thing, many of their civic privileges/rights (voting and driving, especially) should be revoked. If they believe the architect of such a plan is worthy of worship, they are just too dangerous to be allowed to have political or social influence (unless our goal for society is a permanent Dark Ages).

Knowing When To Walk Away.

When engaged in a conversation with someone on a point or points on which we have different views, I try to stick with it, giving the other person as much of a chance as possible to make their point and, hopefully, teach me something, while also trying to make my views and their bases clear. There are times, though, where this is impossible and one has to learn to walk away.

I was involved in an online conversation with a MySpacer on two different subjects. One of them was the presence of "ghosts" or "spirits" in historic buildings (the other was about evolution). The conversation began when I saw this person tell someone else that historic buildings are "notorious" for being inhabited by spirits. Well, since I happen to know a bit about historic sites, have spent much time at them, and have expended a great deal of time, energy and money to help preserve these sites and their history for the good of all, I felt as though I needed to jump in.

I noted how I had a much greater than average exposure to historic sites and their histories, including cemeteries and places where deaths had occurred (including my own 95-year-old house in which at least one person has died) and places that have been tied to ghost stories (SEE NOTE), and that neither I nor anyone that I knew in the field had ever experienced anything not explainable by the physical world. While this is not a scientific study, my level of exposure and network of others with high exposure to these sort of sites lends a much greater statistical significance to my anecdotal reports than someone whose experience and information base is limited to TV and the internet.

In addition to the results of my personal experience, historical research, and discussions with others in the historic field, there is no physical evidence for the spirit world. Yes, there are things that are "unexplained," but that does not mean that they are not explainable. Many things that we now understand quite well were unexplainable for many years: radiation, DNA, fire, viral diseases, etc. Many of these sorts of things were given supernatural explanations, yet we know now that they are easily explainable.

Naturally, my arguments based on fact and reason did not deter the individual. I, and all of the other people I know in the field, were dismissed as not being "in tune" with spirits and I was also hit with the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" falsity. Let's use an analogy here, as I did in my response: Suppose I tell you there is a 12-legged cat in a certain room. If you go in the room and find no evidence of a 12-legged cat or any evidence that a 12-legged cat was ever there, what would be your conclusion? That you weren't "in tune" with 12-legged cats? While I wouldn't fault you for saying at an absolute level that there might theoretically be a 12-legged cat in there, I would think that you were dead-fuck-nuts if you acted like there was a 12-legged cat in that room whenever you were there and told other people there was a 12-legged cat in there. For all practical purposes, I would consider you much more sane if you acted as if there was no 12-legged cat in the room, even if you took a quick look around whenever you walked in that room.

She ended that post by claiming that her belief in demons and ghosts and such did not make her any less "intellectual." Well, here's the definition of "intellectual" from the Merriam-Webster dictionary (the bold italics are my emphasis):

Pronunciation: \ˌin-tə-ˈlek-chə-wəl, -chəl, -shwəl, -chü(-ə)l\

Function: adjective

Date: 14th century

1 a : of or relating to the intellect or its use b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational c : requiring use of the intellect

When one asserts that something exists because of their experience and/or anecdotal information, when rationality points to its nonexistence, one is being exactly the antithesis of intellectual. There were other misdefined and undefined terms, no references to materials that might provide a basis for her assertions, and gross evidence of an ignorance of some of the subjects being discussed.

My conversations with these people are sometimes almost identical with some conversations I have with my sister, who has a developmental disability. Example: She likes to close blinds during the day and open them at night. I have tried over and over to explain to her that people can see in at night when the blinds are open and the house lights are on. She accuses me of lying when I tell her this. I have even taken her outside at night and showed her, but she still insists I am lying and, in fact, gets nastier and more insistent that I apparently have some evil agenda. This is what it is like to talk to some people who, you would expect, do not have the same limitations as my sister.

It reminds me of Monty Python's dead parrot skit:



No matter how dead you show the parrot to be, they just make stuff up, misuse terms, and say stuff that has no meaning. It is annoying, and a waste of time. While I don't like to walk away from a conversation, if it has no potential for productivity, then I need to learn to walk away.

It is a shame that people believe in baseless BS when there is a wonderfully beautiful and complex world of reality around them. While I feel bad for them, I need to learn that I can't "save the world" and that some people are just destined to live out their lives in a fantasy world. The best we can hope to do sometimes is to control the amount of damage such people do to the world around them.

XXX

NOTE: Two of these sites, which have been the subject of "real ghost stories" (an oxymoron) on TV, happen to be ones where I am generally recognized as the leading authority on their history. On one of these shows, the "haunting" was confirmed. I have not seen the other yet.

A New Retreat Tactic For Christian Fundamentalists?

After years of weakening America with lies, misinformation, and fantasy-based policy-making, religious fundamentalists have been forced into some degree of retreat. Whether this is a linear move toward the future (for the sake of America and humanity, let's hope so) or, more likely, just another pendulum swing, remains to be seen. Regardless, though, watching the retreat and the desperation it has caused allows for some interesting observations.

Earlier today, I read a letter in a popular motorcycling magazine that referenced the supposed "God-inspired Constitution." This is the first time I have seen this phrase, and I can't help but wonder if it is part of a larger movement, since the pious aren't real big on individual thought.

Perhaps the facts about the Constitution are becoming widespread enough to cause this? Not likely. So let's review a few here to see if we can find evidence of this inspiration...

Perhaps there is a mention of God or Jesus in the Constitution? This would seal the deal, right? Well, despite the claims of Christian fundamentalists that the US is a "Christian nation," there is no mention of Jesus (the defining element of Christianity) in the Constitution. Nor is there a mention of the Abrahamic God (SEE NOTE 1).

Maybe we can find this inspiration in the Preamble? Surely, that will explain the inspiration for the document, no? Here it is:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Hmm. "We, the People" ordained and established the Constitution. Not some god. This should be considered blasphemous to any religious fundamentalist worth his weight in... uhhh... frankincense. Muslim fundamentalists realize this, and it is a big part of why we have been under attack from them. The Quran makes it pretty clear that Jew and Christians are roughly the equivalent of other nonbelievers, and the representation of those traditions in our social demographics just makes them that much more nuts (SEE NOTE 2).

But hold on: Religion is mentioned in two places in the Constitution:

1. In Article VI:

"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Now, wouldn't this be an odd thing to be included in a document inspired by a particular god, especially if that god was trying to establish a nation based on only one of the three religions that worship it?

2. In the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Let's just pretend that I cut and pasted my comments from above and save me the effort, okay?

To further the investigation into the case of divine inspiration of the Constiution, let's ask if the document mentions that infamously-demonic antithesis of godliness: science.

Well, yes, it does, in Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries..."

As always, there are a few interesting aspects here:

1. I am no lawyer, but this would appear to be the source of all copyright and patent law in the US (My thanks go out to the founders for the royalty check I received last week).

2. The founders expressed their intent to, quite literally, to promote the progress of science. You know science: That system of fact and reason that has given us things like General and Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and lots of other things, the most spectacularly successful of them being Evolution. If the Abrahamic god hates evolution, as fundamentalists often remind us, why would it inspire the founders to promote science? Surely, the deity was smart enough to realize this would aid in the discovery of evolution (SEE NOTE 3), as well as bazillions of facts that negate the "facts" of the histories written in scriptures.

3. The importance of science to the founders is shown here, just as it is on the first coinage of the US (photos in my My Photos album).

We could go on for quite some time about it, but I would hope that the idea of a "God-inspired" Constitution has been shown here to be nearly as dishonest and/or ignorant as claims that the U.S. is a "Christian nation."

Christian fundamentalists, it should be recognized, will not easily give up their efforts to inject their wickedness into any crevice that is unprotected. It is what they do. They are very, very good at politics and manipulating power. We will see lots more of these lies expressed in new and mind-boggling ways as time goes on and they are forced further into retreat.

Allow me to inject a personal anecdote here:

Earlier this year, I was asked by a Christian fundamentalist if I was "one of those people trying to take God out of the Constitution." That grandiose display of ignorance and anti-Americanism stunned me like a taser. I don't remember what I said, and it wouldn't matter anyway. Facts and reason do not appply to these people.

If you believe that I might have quoted the Constitution out of context or left out things that would counter my point, please send me your mailing address and I will send you a free copy of the Constitution, with all of the amendments included (I have some left over from Constitution Day). Unlike supernaturalists, I encourage -- and am happy to help -- you to explore the facts for yourself.

XXX

NOTE 1: The year of the Constitution is written as "in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven," so some might argue that there is a mention of their god, but keep three things in mind: 1. The founders of this nation were political descendants of Great Britain, which determined the calendar, and we should expect such a calendar from a king who was also head of the official (Anglican ) church of the state. 2. Considering the often-deistic writings of many of the founders, the "Lord" referenced was not necessarily the Abrahamic one. 3. Consider the fact that, following the above, was this phrase: "and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." If the writers of this document were so dedicated to any religion, why would they feel the need to add a secular measurement of time immediately following the religiously-dictated one? That was a pretty radical move, and one that I am surprised has not been more noted by those defending the secularity of the Constitution.

NOTE 2: Certainly, some desperate fundamentalist will point to the word "Blessings" and say that this indicates their God's inspiration of the document, as only their god can offer blessings, but one word nails this: context (fundamentalists hate context). The Preamble makes it quite clear that it is the effort of "the People" that is securing these blessings. Again, blasphemy.

NOTE 3: Yes, I know that Darwin, Dawkins and many other evolutionary biologists were/are British, but there have been notable Americans, as well, such as Stephen Jay Gould and George Williams. And let's remember that Hubble's discoveries of the expanding universe took place on US soil -- at the Mount Wilson observatory, I believe.

Why Are Ghosts Nocturnal?

Ever notice that ghosts only seem to be active at night? Ever wonder why that is?

How is it that humans, a diurnal species, somehow become nocturnal after they die?

If "spirits" exist on "another plane of existence" (whatever that means), how come they are sensitive to the day and night cycles of a planet?

If ghosts are "non-physical entities" (whatever that means) why are they constrained by time and space (the things that define physical existence)?

Speaking of space: How come "hauntings" seem to almost entirely happen in isolated settings?

The answer, actually, is quite simple: In fiction, the setting is an important element. A good story requires a compelling setting. Darkness is spooky (diurnal species tend to naturally fear it because they have not evolved to operate well in it) and that fear can distract one's ability to think rationally, making one more likely to believe... well... garbage. In essence, the spookiness of darkness (and isolated settings) numbs your brain so that bullshit can sink in better and the purveyor of that bullshit can manipulate you to whatever ends they may have in mind (like misery, gullibility loves company).

So don't fear the dark, at least not because of ghosts. Fear people who want you to believe unsubstantiated claims. They are much more real and dangerous.

XXX

P.S. - Although it was not my intent, yes, I realize that I also explained why most religions play on fear with threats of banishment to spooky places.