For example (from this morning): “LOAN OFFER!  READ THE ATTACHED FILE AND CONTACT MR. CLARK.”

Yes, it was all in caps.  And no, I didn't contact Mr. Clark...

You just know there’s suffering and ambition behind this.

Suffering + Ambition = Humanity

1. “[D]emand for the overweight primates is growing as part of the battle against the nation’s obesity epidemic.” Really?  We are the most populous overweight primates on the planet! What shortage?!
2. Barbaric, cowardly research design: “Dr. Grove said he needed the animals separated at all times so they could snack between meals, since that is an important reason people gain weight.  And allowing them outside [they are housed in cages], even one at a time, would mean they would exercise more;” “the study will do what cannot be done with people – kill some of the monkeys to examine their brains and pancreases.”  Really?  We are testing self-evident, scientifically imbecile hypotheses just to find more “magic pills” to do what can be accomplished behaviorally?
3. Idiotic rationalizations: as Dr. Grove is catching flack from animal rights groups, he offers the following gem of a rationalization – “This is a booming industry in China.  They have colonies of thousands of them.”  Really? We are now going to worry about outsourcing monkey-abuse research to China?

I am not, of course, saying Dr. Grove is bad.  He isn’t.  Any of my readers could probably predict the following assessment of mine: he is not what he does, and he is doing the best that he can.  It’s just that his “best” (and the “best” of similar research), frankly, sucks.  My post, of course, is not about Dr. Grove, but about our primal narcissism.  Primates, ourselves, we forgot that we are, forgot our kinship to all that is.  We must re-member and re-mind ourselves of our membership one mind at a time. 

Speak up against this inhumane scientific nonsense that is being done on your behalf in the name of yet another war, the War on Obesity.  Fight the problem of obesity yourself: the solution is ancient – ignore your restless monkey-mind and eat mindfully.

Let’s face it: there is no shortage of the overweight primates (just look around); there is a shortage of humanity and compassion.  Fill the gap.

Wake up, fellow primate!

Pavel, a fellow primate

Reference: Today’s Lab Rats of Obesity Studies: Fattened Monkeys.

The real threat to America (as I see it through my limited mind-lens) is not an economical one or a geopolitical one but a psychological one, not from outside but from within.

America is undergoing a major loss of identity.  We used to think that we are 1^st-this and 1^st-that.  And now we are learning that we aren’t.  Well, the fact of the matter is, that we never were any particular “this” or any particular “that.”  

We – American consciousness, collectively, and American minds, individually, (as consciousness and minds anywhere) – are beyond simplistic objectification.

Let me explain.  We are not what we do (our jobs, behaviors, roles).  We are not what we say (our rhetoric, our favorite self-descriptions, our mottos, our slogans, our party lines or even our language).  We are not our circumstance (where we live, how much or little we make).  We are not what others think we are (our relational status, our rankings, others’ thoughts of approval or disapproval of us, our publicity, our reputation).

We are not even our own mind-forms (after all, there’s never been a thought or a feeling or a sensation that we experienced that didn’t eventually pass).  We are not our favorite self-descriptions (“I am this” or “I am that” are just thoughts that we habitually have about ourselves – and we are not our thoughts about ourselves).

What are we?

That which remains* after we factor out all that we aren’t.  The am-ness of “I am this,” not the “this-ness” or “that-ness” of our self-descriptions.

I realize that this line of thought is, perhaps, too confusing and too disillusioning.  But, guess what, dis-illusionment is actually good news: it is liberation from illusion, from the illusion of what we are.  Confusion – with all its shoulder-shrugging loss of certainty – is an opening of the mind, a sign of a fist relaxing into a palm, a courage of not-knowing.

Our first priority (as I see it through my limited mind-lens) is to regain our psychological independence,  to restore our psychological sovereignty.  The rest will naturally follow (as it once did).

What are we?

Who knows, but one thing-less thing is clear (to me) that America – to re-discover its essential self – must first notice its own am-ness.  We are not what we’ve become or might yet become, we are what we are.  Being, not becoming.

Self-knowledge is still patriotic, right?  Just checking…

Related: Emerson’s Lotus Effect

* “That which remains” is a phrase that I’ve first encountered while reading Ken Wilber, a modern American sage.

So, here I am - looking at, believe me, no centerfold, per se, just a slinky red two-door cutie called IBE by Seat (pronounced "Say-ott), a Volkswagen-Spain brand. Enough to catch my eye but not without the following call-out: "This electric concept car tells us that the next generation of Seats will be very well-designed and will offer astonishing value." This, naturally, draws me in. The first thing that I am looking for in any article about a new hybrid is data about fuel economy. But what I get is straight-up car porn:

"The roundness of the basic form... a rather soft basic form... the surface above the front wheel is voluptuous, emphasizing roundness... the change from side to rear is marked by [...] "pressed" crease line [...] eliminating any hint of being pudgy..."

This lusting description of the exterior of the body is, of course, concluded with the fantasy of what it'd be like inside:

"The elegantly simple and highly inviting seat design could be very easily put into production without the slightest change. It's encouraging to see such realistic things in concept cars; it means we might be able to enjoy them ourselves in the near future."

So, as I scan through these twenty two points of purist commentary on form, I feel like I am reading a transcript of a couple of old men in a strip joint, fresh out of dollar bills, making ever more arbitrary aesthetic distinctions as they struggle to determine that evanescent point at which a strong ankle becomes a cankle.

I take another look at the Seat (pronounced "Say-ott"): it's basically another Golf with lipstick. So wh-ott?! I re-scan the piece in search for anything of Earthly relevance. There's the call-out with its promise of an electric concept with "astonishing value." There is an intriguing point about this car promising to be "safer" for both occupants and pedestrians. But there is no follow-through on any of these info-teasers. Just the syrupy aesthetic gushing. My mind reels: "I am done with this nonsense! Un-subscribe me from this car-nography!"

And then I come to my senses. Of course, how did I miss the obvious? As a civilization we still want our presents wrapped up in shiny paper with a pretty bow on top. Mankind is yet to develop a kind of mind that can recognize Essential values (such as no-nonsense fuel economy and safety, with a minimal geo-karmic footprint) without having to sell them through Form and Contour. We - the worshipers of Surface - are yet to embrace an ancient dictum that not everything that shines is gold.

Visual. Oh, how visual we still are. Will there ever be a day when we buy a car blind, not worrying about how it looks to us and others, just on the planet-friendly specs?

One more thought in closing: I've always liked that Volkswagen culture of naming cars after various forms of flow: Scirocco - derived from the Italian for "wind," Golf - for Gulf stream, Jetta - for Jet stream, Polo - for Polar winds. How about this meme-machine - a Lungta (Tibetan for "wind horse" - a Buddhist allegory for a human soul, an inner flow of wellbeing, a wind of Essence, not Form)?

Reference:

Automobile, Jan. 2011, Seat IBE: Electric Hijo De Scirocco (by Robert Cumberford)

Here are two thought-notes (that I came across in my readings this past week) that struck a cord with me…

David Weinberger, in his 2002 book, Small Pieces Loosely Joined (about the Web), voices a note of digital-age hope:

Ultimately, matter doesn’t matter.  If we can be together so successfully in a [virtual] world [of the Web] that has no atoms, no space, no uniform time, no management, and no control, then maybe we’ve been wrong about what matters in the real world in the first.

Colin Turnbull, in his 1962 book, The Forest People: a Study of the Pygmies of the Congo, quotes a note of stone-age acceptance:

There is darkness all around us; but if darkness is, and the darkness is of the forest, then the darkness must be good.

The hope of the digital age and the acceptance of the modern-day-stone-age…  What a curious clash! 

Hope – in its future-focus – is a rejection of what currently is.  A fellow mind I know is in the habit of saying that “hope is a mind killer.”  In some ways it indeed is, particularly, when in its intensity hope approximates wishing, yearning, longing, striving for reality to be different when it is what it is. Acceptance, on the other hand, is all about the here-and-now.  Unlike hope, acceptance nails you down to the forest of the present, day and night, both in light and in darkness.  If these two – hope and acceptance – were road signs, they’d pointing it two very different temporal directions.  And yet – as I see it – there is no hope for the hopes of the digital age without the stone-age know-how of acceptance…

Hope and acceptance – the two dialectic strings that make the mind hum. 

Resonate!

 “Buddhists are one of the least popular religious groups in the country [US].  People like Buddhists less than they do atheists and Mormons – and only slightly more than they do Muslims” (source: Newsweek/Sept. 27, 2010, “Our State of Disgrace”) 

My reaction (not that it matters):

• Surprised to find out that Buddhism is a religion (after all, Buddhism posits no gods and, as such, it is more of a philosophy of living than anything else, the original psychotherapy of suffering, if you wish)
• Makes sense: compassion and acceptance of reality as is are threatening values; judgment is socially simpler

“Medical errors kill some 100,000 Americans every year… Health care, says Dr. Lucian Leape, a pioneer in patient safety, … ‘remains fundamentally unsafe’… [Dr.] Pronovost… describes a run-in with a surgeon who refused to switch from latex to nonlatex… despite… the concern that the patient was having a potentially fatally latex-allergy reaction… ‘This patient could have died from ignorance and arrogance – a lethal combination.” (Source: Newsweek/Oct. 4, 2010).

My reaction (not that it matters):

• Brings to mind that old saying that “Young physicians fatten the graveyards.”
• Ignorance and arrogance are two sides of the same coin, indeed.

“A new Pew Research study reveals that agnostics know more about religions than many devout believers.” (CNN Belief Blog)

My reactions (not that it matters):

• Not surprising: agnostics don’t try to know what cannot be known; instead they focus on trying to know what can be known; knowing that you don’t know leads to knowledge; whereas believing that you know all there is to know, leads away from knowledge.
• Surprising: there is a CNN Belief Blog, I didn’t believe there would be; shows you what I know…

Joel Kotkin, in his Newsweek article, “The New World Order,” re-maps the world by “tribal ties” of “race, ethnicity, and religion,” and envisions the following developments:

Emergence of the so-called “New Hansa” (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden): “Hansa states share Germanic cultural roots… widely admired for their generous welfare systems, most of these countries have liberalized their economies in recent years… they account for six of the top eight countries on the Legatum Prosperity Index and boast some of the world’s highest savings rates… as well as impressive levels of employment, education, and technological innovation.”

Emergence of North American Alliance (of US and Canada): “these two countries are joined at the hip in terms of their economies, demographics, and culture, with each being easily being the other’s largest trade partner.”

My reaction (not that it matters):

• Hmm, I thought my native country of Russia buried socialism once and for all.  Are we going to build another Berlin Wall around these Germanic socialists?
• When the map of reality is changing, mind ought to follow…

I hope you had enough consciousness for breakfast.  Time to go to work.

A few weeks ago, on a cool-down walk with my German shepherd, Sherpa, I stumbled upon a discarded Lance Armstrong’s Livestrong yellow bracelet, right near that graffiti that I just mentioned.  Knowing about Armstrong’s publicity troubles, I was intrigued: has the publicity shit finally hit the fan?  I picked up the wrist band, brought it home, washed it and started wearing it.  This was my first Livestrong meme-leash and I decided to make my own protest out of it.  Against what?  Well, that’s the point of this writing.  Hang on with me for a paragraph or two as I set it up.

This Sunday morning I wake up to the following New York Times front page headline: “A Champion Against Cancer, Now Under Siege.”  I glance at the article and sense that it promises a psychological autopsy of a near-fallen hero and dive in.  I am not disappointed.  The article quotes Bill Strickland, a cyclist-writer, who offers an astute diagnosis of Armstrong’s mindware: “He’s the most binary guy I’ve ever met. […] He told me his motto is Win/lose, live/die.  He equates wining with living and losing with dying.”

If Strickland is right in his analysis, then Armstrong is a classic perfectionist.  Perfectionism  - a nearly “endemic” problem of the Western mind – runs on binary, dualistic, dichotomous either/or, all-or-nothing mentality.  Perfectionism is a way of strong-arming yourself into endless compliance with uncritically internalized “shoulds” and “musts,” such as the one that plagued Ricky Bobby’s mind (played by Will Ferrell) in Talladega Nights: “if you ain’t first, you are last.”

So, at least from a distance Armstrong seems to be an all-or-nothing guy in an all-or-nothing world, a binary hero in a binary culture of black-and-white mentality that can’t stand the confusion of the gray.  Perfectionistic leaders create perfectionistic followers.  Perfectionistic followers demand all-or-nothing perfection to worship.  Just listen to this projected binary reaction:  the article mentions “a consultant to nonprofit organizations, including Livestrong, whose father died of leukemia,” with Hodgkins’s disease himself, who anticipates both a mixture of professional doom and personal emotional crisis: “I’d be devastated if, because of his reputation, the foundation was hurt. […] That would be a really sad day for everybody.”

Notice the neurotic catastrophizing that comes with this kind of all-or-nothing thinking.  “I’d be devastated,” “a really sad day for everybody.”  Really?!  We aren’t talking about the flood in Pakistan or the oil spill in the Gulf, after all.  That’s the problem with a binary, dualistic thought-style: it finds devastation in the most trivial ebb and flow of ever changing life.  I don’t know if Armstrong doped or not, and I frankly don’t care, not because I am not a cyclist, but because I am a “recovering dualist.”  The reason why I picked up the Livestrong yellow band that was most likely discarded by another binary fan, is because I’ve been trying to fight a cancer of a different kind, a cancer of dualistic thinking. 

This “either/or,” binary mode of thinking is the cancer of mind that is eating the West alive.   Perfectionism divides us and fragments us until we can no longer stand ourselves and the world at large. Binary evaluations of self lead to self-loathing, stress, anxiety, and depression.  Binary evaluations of others result in a deficit of cultural compassion.  As I see it (and notice my self-checking tentativeness as I proclaim the following): "livestrong" nations are weak-minded, even if they are strong-bodied.  Reality is neither this, nor that; it is way, way too complex to be boxed into naively oversimplified categories of “good” or “bad.” 

Reality changes nonstop, without bothering to consult us.  To survive it, we have to be a step ahead of our time-specific categories.  We have to un-anchor ourselves from the illusions of certainty and to accept our inevitable existential blindness.  We are all riding a 9% grade hill into a hypothetical future that is never guaranteed and cannot be known because it doesn’t exist yet.  To survive this grand Tour de la Vie, we have to livewise, not livestrong.

As for Lance himself, here’s a pointer for you, friend, from a once perfectionistically competitive lance-corporal in the Soviet military: get yourself some mindful followers and keep up with your work on cancer.  I know you’ve always done your best, doing it now and always will, as long as you are alive.  Lead with compassion and godspeed to you in whatever you choose to race next.

Livewise wrist bracelets are available in any color (except for black and white), but are mostly in gray.  Seriously, there are no livewise bracelets.  And that’s the very essence of our problems.

We have been taught to chase the unattainable: to be more than what we are at any given point in time. We are a culture of idealistically naive strivers unable to be content with what is if only for a moment. This absurdly unrealistic goal (to be more than what we are at any given point in time) comes with the high cost of psychological dependence. Feeling chronically imperfect, we sell out for reassurance, validation and approval. Feeling chronically incomplete, we compete in consumption and stuff ourselves beyond measure.

This chronic deficit of self-acceptance becomes a matter of national deficit and undermines the socio-political independence of our society. Long-term sovereignty of a nation rests with psychological independence of its constituents. A nation of psychologically insecure denizens is at war with itself, and is, thus, divided.

On this 4th of July, 2010, and onward, I encourage you to proclaim your psychological independence - from a hollowing-out and incessant desire for more. Your individual psychological health is part of our collective wealth. Self-help, self-care, self-awareness and self-acceptance are patriotic. Stop waging war on yourself: you are doing your best, nonstop, all the time. On some level you know it. Make it official. And as soon as we do, as a nation, we will shift the paradigm from conspicuous consumption of goods and calories to the era of conspicuous compassion and moderation.

Proclamation of Psychological Independence

1.

We confuse perfection with imperfection

But there is no difference

Unless, of course, you compare what is with what isn't.

2.

If (at this very moment) I could be better, worse or other than what I am right now

I wouldn't be myself.

But I am, perfectly imperfect.

3.

It is always like that, not just during this now

But at any now that you are alive.

Present is perfect.

Proclamation of Psychological Independence Explained:

1.

We confuse perfection with imperfection but there is no difference (between these two) unless, of course, you compare what is with what isn't.

Explanation: what's real is real, what's not is not. Here's a brief inventory of what exists on this planet at any given point in time: the planet, of course; the animal kingdom; and you (the humankind) with its fantasies of what still could be. My point is this: there is no other reality at any given point in time aside from the one that actually is. We can now envision and imagine a theoretically better world and we can compare it to the real world that exists and we can say: "I don't want this actual world, I want that theoretical world." Suffering is borne out of this very comparison: the ideal always beats the pants off the real. In any comparison of what is with what isn't, in any comparison of reality to fiction, fiction always looks prettier. So, as we envision what still could be, we ignore what still is. But here's the existential glitch: there is only what there is at any given point in time. If we don't know how to be content with what is, we are stuck chasing the tail of desire, constantly optimizing, supersizing, perfecting. Bottom-line is this: perfection is a state that is beyond improvement; reality is the best that it can be at any given point in time (even if it had been better at some point in the past or if it can be still perfected at some point in the future); if so, then whatever is, at any given point in time, is the best that it can be, i.e. perfect. If this momentary reality (the one and only we have at any point in time) is perfect, then it is only not enough when we compare it with what isn't (i.e. our idealistic and naïve visions of still could be).

2.

If I could be this very moment better, worse or other than what I am right now I wouldn't be myself. But I am, perfectly imperfect.

Explanation: At any given point in time, you are what you are. That is self-evident. What this means is that at any given point in time (like right now) you are not less, not more, but exactly what you are, i.e. all you can be (right now). If you were in any way different right now, you wouldn't be you, but you are you, exactly as you are. What this means is that right now you are the best that you can be. Why? Because you cannot be any better right now. Sure you can be better at a later point in time, but we are talking about this moment, the one and only moment that there is, in which you are exactly what you are, not worse, not better, but just you. Doing the best that you can (at any given point in time) = being the best that you can (at any given point in time). I see this as inevitable perfection. You have arrived in this moment, perfectly imperfect, with nothing amiss and fully realized. Self-realization isn't when you are more than you can be at any given point in time; self-realization is when you realize that you are this real you, not the perfectionistic figment of imagination of what you should be right now. Understand this in your bones: you are what you are and that's enough. Accept your inevitable perfection at this moment and perfect the future if you still so desire. Self-acceptance isn't the end of striving (no, you can still strive, just without that overcompensating urgency and rushed desperation) but a beginning of psychological independence.

3.

It is always like that, not just during this now but at any now that you are alive. Present is perfect.

Explanation: You are doing the best that you can and, therefore, being the best that you can be, not just now, but always. Sure it might not seem so when you compare you to not-you (i.e. to some theoretical you that never exists or to others who are, by definition, not like you). But if you compare you to you, as you are, then you are always doing the best that you can do and, therefore, being the best that you can be, non-stop, without fail. Think this through until this becomes self-evident: there is no past right now nor is there any future in this moment, there is only this, this moment, this now, and it's always like that. You are always in some kind of now, in which you are only what you are, not more, not less, but just enough. Reality does not short-change us: there is no celestial lay-away in which the reality is withholding better versions of itself until a later time. Right now, which is always, there is only this, this moment, however it is, not less, not more, such as it is, perfectly imperfect. Look around for a moment: everything is what it is, if a door is half-ajar, it is half-ajar, if it is closed, it is closed, if it is open, it is open; if the sky is azure blue, then it is, if, however, it is overcast, then it is overcast. And so are you - in this moment, which is always, - all you can be, perfectly imperfect. Accept this ordinary, self-evident perfection of what you are in this moment and, if you still need to, perfect the future. Savor the new unhurried calmness of this continued self-optimization: when perfecting yourself from the platform of self-acceptance, you take your time living.

From Conspicuous Consumption to Conspicuous Compassion

Am I oversimplifying? Hell, yeah! My mind is still green (and I do hope it stays this way) but it does (fortuitously) know that the greener pasture on the other side of the hill is just an optical illusion, just the Jungian shadow of our insatiable, culturally-kindled appetite for more. I'll be writing and talking about all this jazz of self-acceptance and inevitable perfection as long as I breathe. My motive has nothing to do with altruism but self-preservation. You see, the world of self-rejection is a merciless jungle. If I can help you accept yourself, my guess is that you'll be kinder to others, which, in turn, will translate into a hopefully less hostile world all around. Self-acceptance means psychological independence, i.e. a world in which people mostly mind their own business, meeting their psychological needs in-house, without psychological blackmail or relational warfare, without surface-deep resource-intense contests of egos and psychological careerism. When we realize that we are doing the best that we can and being the best that we can, at any given point in time, eventually it dawns on us that everyone's like that and that, my fellow mind, becomes a platform for forgiveness and compassion. When you stop attacking yourself you automatically call a truce on the world at large. It is for this and only this reason that I keep jabbering about self-acceptance: self-acceptance powers compassion and compassion - at the end of the day - is just another form of self-care. On this July 4th and every day onward, be psychologically independent, even if you are in debt otherwise!

Now, somebody, toss me a veggie hot-dog and a couple of sparklers. Time to light up the sky!

Resources:

360° of Compassion

On to the review proper: the movie has eclipsed my modest expectations. Here's my spoiler-proof 10 point analysis of the movie that gives away nothing essential.

1. Movie begins with a psychologically astute and empirically sound review of the institution of marriage.
2. C30 Volvo hatchback hasn't been back. Ed still drives XC60 SUV. Bummer.
3. Jake is still Chippendale-"beautiful," the body a reincarnation of Marky Mark from Calvin Klein 90s, and just as good an actor.
4. Charlie (Bella's father) still cracks me up.
5. Edward almost has a tan.
6. However you slice it, straight guy, you are going to squirm a bit from the homoerotic tension between a bare-chested werewolf and a vampire, as the two play a game of intellectual chess, competing in romantic pseudo-altruism, with a sleeping beauty in between, while camped out on a mountain top.
7. CGI is tastefully understated.
8. Dialogue is neither on the nose nor improv-sloppy: just as it should be.
9. Speaking of "shoulds." Psychological punchline of the movie is Bella's stated dilemma: to be what she should be or to be what she is. She chooses to existentially affirm herself, and to ignore the dualistic distinction between life and death.
10. I still don't want to live forever.

Do you?