Living in an area under the curve

Being neurodivergent is sometimes like being a data point on a normal area under the curve. That especially becomes apparent when navigating society, including health care, insurance, and public policy. Our current state of the US is a perfect example where an outlier on that curve is a target for ridicule, harassment, or a political object. It all complicates understanding and interacting with each other. 

To aid navigation through life and society we want to understand ourselves, be understood by others, and accepted for who we are. We usually seek guidance in the first step, which is often thorny:

"Occasionally I wonder what my life would be like if a doctor had ever actually settled on "You are THIS type of neurospicy". I've had, in my life, three attempts at diagnosis, and it's always "You're not quite [thing], but have aspects of it."

My take on this (with help from a neurodivergent neuroscientist/psychologist colleague) follows: the brain is 'plastic', which means it functions in a myriad of ways to enact with & survive in its environment. And no two minds are alike.

Humans like 'boxes' into which they place and label animate and inanimate things. It helps us understand and communicate with others. Medical and insurance communities require and assign labels as guides to categorize physical/mental states and to navigate social systems: care, policy, education, etc. But they do not fully represent the reality.

Each category (box) has a probability of a standard normal distribution (area under the curve), which is agreed upon by a community of practitioners and researchers. For mental states and function the official guide is the DSM. It is not accurately representative of the full diversity of mental function because its goal is to determine 'normal' & 'pathology' (or 'outliers', if you will). What determines 'normal' is that middle area under the curve (AUC), but is also a biased interpretation (socially constructed). Humans are complicated. 

Thus 'diagnoses' (which I don't like because it implies pathology) are attempts to categorize and put labels on the way your brain functions. But they don't fully capture the reality. Boundaries of those categories are fluid, often unspecific and flow into another. A good discussion and graphic for autism is addressed in this recent article.

Increasing opinion by practitioners & researchers is that other neurodiverse traits currently excluded be added to the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) category: ADHD, bi-polar, anxiety disorder, etc. All these can co-exist, should be recognized & included in a diagnosis. Or minimally be included in ongoing discussion with each practitioner and client.

I was told when learning my 'label' and category (2007) that my primary traits aligned with autism, specifically 'Asperger's syndrome'. I also fit the criteria of "mild" ADHD. However, medically and legally, I could not be both. According to the DSM-4, my category had to be one or the other. (see footnote below)

As my colleague explained both autism and ADHD can co-occur regardless of the strict criteria and categorization in the DMS-4. If I wanted his analysis added to my medical records, it would be 'Asperger's Syndrome'. (I chose not to have it documented for reasons explained in an earlier post.) 

Research in the last two years indicate that a significant percentage of people with ASD also exhibit symptoms of ADHD, and vice versa. The overlap is more inclusive of the reality of traits and function. Yet it can complicate diagnosis and therapy. Both conditions share some behavioral or cognitive characteristics but can also have distinct features.

We unofficially label it 'AuDHD'.

Regardless of a diagnosis label, individuals can discover more about themselves and other neurodivergents through conversations sharing experiences and testimony. It's less about what label you are than more about who you are as a person. The best way is to meet other ND people and learn from each other. 
______________________________________________________

Note: A newer addition, DSM-5, eliminated the Asperger's label and incorporated those criteria into the Autism Spectrum Disorder category. Also, DSM-5 allows for the co-diagnosis of ASD and ADHD conditions, but the current colloquial term AuDHD is not included. 

Religion in horror and America

Came upon this essay accidentally this morning. The irony is that this (growing up in religious schools) was a topic in three conversations last week* (different people who lived it; one called it the "school of hypocrisy"). While I can't really contribute to the conversation because I didn't have that experience, I've known others who did live it. Including my father.

As author C. J. Leede comments, the roots run deep, perhaps a thousand years ago. Although, my limited experience in Europe suggests that perhaps it's influence may no longer be as strong in many places there. A French colleague once mentioned that hundreds of years of religious wars there makes people weary and wary of religious repression and control (have heard similarly of Asia). Obviously, some countries are still willing to kill and maim in the name of their gods, such as several places in the Middle East. Some treat women like property and dogs. I find this tantamount to extreme hypocrisy and excuse for patriarchal control. 

Regardless, the bad vapors of religion manifest in various ways, often permeating and fusing with capitalism, and, as the US is a perfect example of current times, politics. Some mistake religious piety for greed. As I mentioned in our conversation the other day, the demon in the box pulling the strings is power. Greed and power seem to be twins, so delineating where one begins and the other ends is difficult. They are joined at the hips. Or, perhaps, the brain. 

"When I ask myself why I wrote 'American Rapture,' why I read religious horror or watch it on the screen, when I really stop and think, what do I wish more than anything I had known when I was a young girl trying to step into herself?

It’s this: Repression—religious or otherwise—is the horror. Ignorance is what we should fear. What makes us all ill-equipped for moving through life as humans in natural human bodies.

And maybe little girls aren’t born into more sin than little boys. Maybe sin is just an idea we’ve created for control. A powerful little beast that preys on all of us every day, in and outside of fiction. And maybe it’s one we just don’t need to feed anymore". - C. J. Leede  

* The people whom I had these conversations with were unconnected, nor did I initiate the aforementioned topic. This suggests people may actually be thinking about such subjects. I interpret that as a good sign, aka maybe hope?

The never-ending questions

The running theme in this blog, perhaps in my entire life, has been on reality, or what we think may be reality. What is reality?  Is that a valid question?

As author, literary agent, and 'thinker' John Brockman once proclaimed, he has had a lifelong obsession with asking questions, especially "the" question: "What is the last question?". 

Brockman's first book on pondering questions was By The Late John Brockman, published in 1969. In his own words, it was "about the idea of interrogating reality". Most would respond by declaring this is useless philosophy, thereby concluding it all meaningless. Yet each and every one of us plays apart in it, and without it. (As suggested in the movie, "The Matrix") Most of us just aren't aware of it. 

"Reality as a whole is unmeasurable except through effect. The unity is in the methodology, in the writing, reading, in the navigation. This system cannot provide us with ultimate answers, nor does it present the ultimate questions. There are none."*

This also precipitated his vision of the 'Third culture' consisting of "those scientists and other thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are." 

In 1988 Brockman and others created The Edge Foundation, an association of science and technology intellectuals. It was also an outgrowth of The Reality Club, a gathering (historically called a 'salon') of intellectuals based in NYC and held by a host. From 1981 through 1996 many well known scientists, authors, artists, technologists, and entrepreneurs met for presentations, 'round-table' discussions, seminars, etc. It retired to a virtual  presence on The Edge website in 1996. (A link on the sidebar has been posted when I created this blog in 2005.)

Despite frequently following the website after I first discovered The Edge (~1998), life became complicated and I lost track of it. An academic career sometimes consume the only existence in one's life, especially in LAC (Life After Children). I was busy "interrogating" small subsets of reality. 

It was with sadness (on my part) that Brockman ran out of questions and announced in 2018 the finale to The Edge project with the question, "WHAT IS THE LAST QUESTION?". 

"Ask 'The Last Question,' your last question, the question for which you will be remembered."

Possibly the best tribute to The Edge was in a ''moratorium'' by lecturer and writer Kenan Malik in The Guardian. The excerpt below gave me some private satisfaction in that I have always relayed similarly to students, children, colleagues, lab members, friends, relatives, and, many times, here on this blog: ask questions. (despite the frustrations of many).

"Asking questions is relatively easy. Asking good questions is surprisingly difficult. A bad question searches for an answer that confirms what we already know. A good question helps to reset our intellectual horizons. It has an answer that we can reach, yet unsettles what we already know."

 One response on the webpage, which may not really qualify as an answer for some, is one of my favorites. As we often say in the scientific fields, answers to a question may only be more questions.

"The final elegance: assuming, asking the question. No answers. No explanations. Why do you demand explanations? If they are given, you will once more be facing a terminus. They cannot get you any further than you are at present. The solution: not an explanation: a description and knowing how to consider it."**

Many people are unsettled by that, but it is the reality. Perhaps it is a very simple single question with no explanation. Just like reality.

________________________________________________________

 * John Brockman, By The Late John Brockman, 1969, Macmillon. The Kindle format can be accessed on Amazon.com. Hard copies are >$70.

** Ludwig Wittgenstein, Zettel, eds. G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright, trans. G. E.

When 'thing' was not a thing

In our daily conversation we use many words that we don’t give a millisecond of thought to where they arose from. And, sometimes, what they really mean. One of those words is ‘thing’. We may utter it dozens of times in a day and it may have as many dozens of meanings. That word, regardless of intention, may be the most ubiquitous and flexible in our language. It even fills holes in a conversation when the speaker can’t think of the correct word to use. 

But what does ‘thing’ really mean? Where and when did it originate? We will hitch a ride on the ‘thing’ through history and learn answers.

Proto-Indo-European Languages (late Stone Age to early Bronze Age)

The origins of the word ‘thing’ are rooted in the Indo-European family of languages. Most modern languages on the European, North American and northern India continent evolved from branches of these ancient languages. Some of these survive today: English, Germanic, French, Celtic, Albanian, Portuguese, Russian, Dutch, Slavic, Italic, and Spanish. Just like living organisms, languages evolve, too. Likewise, they follow people as they migrate, colonialize and trade. Eventually, some may share meanings and even sounds. As we will shortly discover. 

All the languages mentioned above descended from a single prehistoric language: proto-Indo-European. It was spoken sometime during the late Stone Age and early Bronze Age (~3300-1200 BC). Because this was before written history, the geographical area of origin is controversial. 

The favored hypothesis is the region of the Pontic-Caspian steppes (modern Ukraine and southern Russia). It is also associated with the famous Yamnaya peoples, nomads who are considered having developed wheeled carts and horse domestication. Bands of Yamnaya spread south, east and west, conquering and assimilating cultures as they went. Most Europeans and of European descent carry a percentage of Yamnaya genetic haplotypes in their own genes. Of course, the Yamnaya took their language with them.

Indo-European Languages (Mid-Bronze Age into the Middle Ages)

By the time written history appeared throughout Europe, many Indo-European languages had evolved from its spoken historical prototype. This was also a period (4000-1000 BC) of great migrations throughout Eurasia and the Atlantic Europe. Hittite (of Anatolia/Turkey) is considered the earliest (4000-3000 BC) spoken Indo-European language, but is now extinct. Spoken Indo-European languages mixed with speakers of other languages during these migrations; they mixed, overlapped and retained some similarities throughout. 

As pastoral cultures (farming) evolved and more people stayed in one location, especially during the Classical (800 BC-500 AD) and Middle Ages (500 AD-1500), branches of the Indo-European language became more standardized within those cultures. They also had more than one dialect. Remember that in those times, only the elite could read and write; most of the population was illiterate and information was shared orally. Consequently, each branch of the Indo-European languages had, and still have, varieties (dialects) of speech. 

Each of these languages had a development stage, similar to proto-Indo-European. For example, proto-Norse was spoken in Scandinavia and is thought to have evolved from a northern dialect of Proto-Germanic during the first century BC and 100 AD. It evolved into Old Norse and its several dialects at the beginning of the Viking age (~400 BC). These later separated and became the modern North Germanic languages.  Old Norse is also believed to be the first North Germanic language spoken. Keep this in mind as we progress through time. 

This thing and that thing

Before we dive into the word ‘thing’, it is important to follow the evolution and separation of the North Germanic languages. As mentioned, Old Norse was spoken in what we know now as Scandinavia.  At the beginning of the Viking Age the dialects of Old Norse diverged into the modern North Germanic languages, also known as the Nordic languages, or Faroese, Icelandic, Swedish, Norwegian, and Dutch. And their dialects. 

In early Germanic societies a ‘thing’ was a governing assembly made up of free people of the community and presided over by a ‘lawspeaker’. They provided legislative functions, as well as being social events and opportunities for trade.

The earliest trace of the word ‘thing’ is purported to be used by the Germanic
peoples of northwest Europe and Scandinavia during ancient history and into the early Middle Ages (~476-900 AD). The first detailed description (98 AD) of a ‘thing’ was made by Roman historian and politician Tacitus. He suggested that ‘things’ were annual delegate-based meetings for some early Germanic tribes and served legal and military functions. ‘Thing’ was used in Norway before the country’s first Viking king, Harald Finehair who ruled 872-930 AD. It is here where the word and it’s original meaning became famous.

In the Viking Age, ‘things’ were public assemblies of the free men of a place.* They functioned as both parliaments and courts at different levels of society: local, regional, and transregional. Their purpose was to solve disputes, establish laws and make political decisions. Earlier local ‘altings’ were a common assembly where all free farmers had the right to participate.  

‘Thing’ sites were also often the place for public religious rites. Norway’s ‘things’ provided the institutional and legal framework for subsequent legislative and judicial bodies, even in the modern Western world, and remain today as superior regional courts.

‘Things’ took place at regular intervals, usually at prominent places that were accessible by travel. The place where a 'thing' was held was called a "thingstead" (Old English þingstede, Old Norse þingstaðr) or "thingstow" (Old English þingstōw). The Vikings and early Norse settlers often brought their culture with them to new locations abroad, including their legal systems and establishment of ‘things’. The collaborative Thing Project has discovered and documented historical locations of ‘things’ in Norway, Iceland, Sweden, the Faroe Islands, Scotland, and Isle of Man. 

Was ‘thing’ always a thing?

Well, no and yes. Depending on where and when, the original word evolved over time from one language to another, from one definition to another.

In Old Norse, Old English, and modern Icelandic ‘thing’ was pronounced ‘þing’, where ‘þ’ is pronounced as unvoiced "-th". In Middle English, Old Saxon, Old Dutch, and Old Frisian, it evolved to ‘thing’. The difference between ‘þing’ and 'thing' is mostly spelling. ‘Thing’ is pronounced as ‘ding’ in German and Dutch; ‘ting’ in modern Norwegian, Danish and Swedish.

In Middle English, the word ‘thing’ shifted to mean an entity or matter (sometime before 899 AD), and then also an act, deed, or event (after 1000 AD). The original definition of ‘meeting’ or ‘assembly’ did not survive the shift to Middle English. In modern usage, the ancient meaning of ‘thing’ in English and other languages has been displaced to mean not just an assemblage of some sort but simply an object of any sort.

 The meaning of personal possessions, commonly in the plural, first appears in Middle English around 1300, and eventually led to the modern sense of "object". This semantic development from "assembly" to "object" is mirrored in the evolution of many words throughout history. Yet, the most ubiquitous word, at least in English, is ‘thing’. 

And it can mean……. any thing.

 * According to Norway's Law of the Gulathing (the historic ‘thing’ at Gula), only free men of full age could participate in the assembly. In written sources, women were present at some ‘things’ despite being left out of the decision making bodies, such as the Icelandic Althing. Women elders, however, were often consulted on in decision making. 

AI R Us

This should not be surprising.* AI models are a mirror to human behavior. So shit that goes in results in exporting shit. 

AI models are trained to learn, consolidate, collate, and regurgitate. We don't like what we get, so we change it afterwards. But that doesn't change the mirror effect. It's a Band-Aid approach: Cover the abscess so we don't have to see it. Or, as Nikhil Garg, a computer scientist, eloquently puts it, “simply paper over the rot”.

This brings to mind a sci-fi series I'm watching on TV, "Beacon 23". AI, a common component of most sci-fi, is represented as two important components in the series, and are almost complete opposites: "Bart" and "Harmony". The latter is a logical Spock attached to an individual human and created by a major company that controls almost everything.

Bart is an AI developed hundreds of years prior to the primary time event of the series and serves the structure, Beacon 23, in space (it's a 'lighthouse' stationed near a flux of dark matter.  The Beacons guide space craft away from detected nearby dark matter 'clusters', like a lighthouse.) 

Bart learns and adopts human nature/behavior from all the beacon "keepers" and those who visit. He also controls all the communication and mechanics of the Beacon station. As such, Bart is just like a human, with all the messiness, assumptions, errors, etc: he lies, whines, plots, complains, quotes Shakespeare, and often acts like a child.  But Bart also significantly sets the course for what occurs on the Beacon. Whereas Harmony is logical and attuned only to her individual human, but also capable of Beacon control, including Bart (she scolds Bard many times).

Humans created AI, and in its current state in our world is like a young Bart. That we can't see that is human blindness. AI is not, and won't be our savior. We can't even save ourselves. 

"Even though human feedback seems to be able to effectively steer the model away from overt stereotypes, the fact that the base model was trained on Internet data that includes highly racist text means that models will continue to exhibit such patterns."

* "Chatbot AI makes racist judgements on the basis of dialect," Elizabeth Gibney. Nature, March 13, 2024.

Which Reality is Real?

What is 'reality'? Ask 10 people that question and you'll likely hear 10 different answers, including "I don't know." The question may be as old as human consciousness. However, it may not be a realized 'thing' [1] that all humans ponder. 

A quick summary in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia present reality as..

"Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within the universe, as opposed to that which is only imaginary, nonexistent or nonactual. The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their existence. In physical terms, reality is the totality of a system, known and unknown."

Is reality a thing? Or is a way of looking at 'things'? 

Reality may be both. No one may have understood this more than physicist Erwin Schrödinger, famously known for his thought experiment (1935) in quantum mechanics, Schrödinger's cat, . It was as an argumentum ad absurdum (reductive argument to absurdity) intended for questioning the then proposed behavior of atoms and larger manifestations as being one or the other, as in "dead or alive", and which depends on the observer. Or, simply put, it suggests that reality is relative to the organism that observes or experiences it in one way or another.

Recalling an old platitude: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is looking or hearing it, did it really fall?

 Yet, Schrödinger's paradox legitimately questioned, 

"When does a quantum system stop existing as a superposition of states and become one or the other?" (More technically, when does the actual quantum state stop being a non-trivial linear combination of states, each of which resembles different classical states, and instead begin to have a unique classical description?"[2]

More simply put, 

"Our intuition says that no observer can be in more than one state simultaneously—yet the cat, it seems from the thought experiment, can be in such a condition. Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer?" [2]

This may bring to mind Einstein's "Theory of Relativity," which is associated with quantum mechanics. Indeed, Einstein considered each alternative as absurd. He wrote to Schrödinger,

"You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gun powder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation."[3]

Many interpretations, both technical and popularized,  provide explanations and answers to Schrödinger's paradox. However, the quantum world is full of counterintuitive ideas, which was strongly implied in Schrödinger's thought experiment. Several physicists contemporary with Schrödinger and after his passing proposed their own perspectives. 

Of note, American physicist, Hugh Everett who  proposed (in his 1957 PhD thesis) what is now known as the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. I'm sure most readers here are familiar with the popular "multi-verse' of science fiction genre and even modern physics. Everett's idea of quantum mechanics does not single out observation as a special process. His many-worlds interpretation of Schrödinger's paradox explains that, 

"...both alive and dead states of the cat persist after the box is opened, but are decoherent[4] from each other. In other words, when the box is opened, the observer and the possibly-dead cat split into an observer looking at a box with a dead cat and an observer looking at a box with a live cat. But since the dead and alive states are decoherent, there is no effective communication or interaction between them. 

When opening the box, the observer becomes entangled with the cat, so "observer states" corresponding to the cat's being alive and dead are formed; each observer state is entangled, or linked, with the cat so that the observation of the cat's state and the cat's state correspond with each other. Quantum decoherence ensures that the different outcomes have no interaction with each other. The same mechanism of quantum decoherence is also important for the interpretation in terms of consistent histories. Only the "dead cat" or the "live cat" can be a part of a consistent history in this interpretation. Decoherence is generally considered to prevent simultaneous observation of multiple states."[5]

Quantum mechanics is often used in contextual explanations of reality. One could possibly, and loosely, refer to Everett's hypothesis as 'alternate' realities. Is this a real 'thing'? Or just another thought experiment or interpretation of reality?

This all begs the question, is there just one reality? If so, then what is it? Afterall, a 'real' reality could exist for non-living things (we know they exist, but the non-living have no consciousness), and another for living things (because we have consciousness and are aware). Which suggests that an infinite number of personal realities may exist. A shared reality may be then be overlapping personal realities like many flexing Venn 4-dimensional boxes that overlap, constantly shifting, temporally and spatially. 

As mentioned earlier, reality is the the totality of a system with known and unknown existences.

Or perhaps reality is like the smile of the Cheshire cat: it remains even when the cat becomes invisible.
_______________________________________________

[1] I'm compelled to explain my use of 'thing' as in it's most recent etymological context: used colloquially since 1600 AD, as a word to substitute for what a person cannot think of it's meaningful name. However, this ubiquitous word 'thing' has an interesting history back to the Vikings. 
[2] "Schrödinger's cat," Wikipedia
[3] Letter to Schrödinger in 1950.
[4] In quantum physics, decoherence is the process in which a system's behavior changes from that which can be explained by quantum mechanics to that which can be explained by classical mechanics.
[5] Hugh Everette III, Wikipedia. As an aside, both Hugh and his son, Mark Oliver Everett, are thought by many to be Asperger's (on the autism spectrum).

Speaking Out

What convinces me that our species is 'doomed' (I wish I could avoid using that term, but can no longer deny the applicability) is the global pathological denial of the train wreck. Additionally, human civilization has already dragged down other species, and continues to do so at alarming rates.

As a scientist, I intellectually understand that denial is a defense mechanism to help cope with anxiety (coupled with explaining away problems and blaming others). Denial enables ignoring or refusing to believe an unpleasant reality, protecting psychological well-being in any situation that produces anxiety or conflict including challenges to one's standard of living or power status quo. But when one is looking into the jaws of a lion ready to bite off your head, or staring at the giant wall looming before the speeding train, denial no longer serves as a defense mechanism. Here I lose understanding, and I blame my science colleagues as much as the politicians and financiers that perpetuate the fuel of denial.

Most of the scientific community, including medical, is either in denial, or running to look for technological solutions rather than evaluate the root origins of our problems and address 'how we got from there to here.' Our politics, economics, policy, and, many times science are based on 'bandaid' cures. Put a bandaid on it, cover it up, and it will go away. Ignore the festering wound underneath; its origins, the process and interrelated changes of its development. Ignore the peripheral interacting relationships and far-reaching impacts. "Let's amp up production; don't pay any attention to consumption." "Give them a pill; who cares about prevention?" "Collect the species DNA and we can ignore life extinction."

At this rate, our civilization will collapse. As history teaches us, it will also arise again like the Phoenix. But perhaps a Phoenix with a limp. My sympathies and grief are for the non-human species on this planet. Their collapse and extinction is finite. And they have no concept of denial. The ubiquitous law of supply and demand is a part of population dynamics. The changing supply of resources -water, food, shelter- will trigger changes in population. I suspect that without modern industrial sustainment of large scale food production, water collection and long-distance distribution, human population everywhere will decline, possibly quickly collapse. Earlier civilizations, even other species, have experienced these cycles; we are not immune.

Sometimes I have to look beyond the doom and gloom and find specks of hope that we can change this trajectory. But my brain isn't convinced.

No One Knows...

We get some rules to follow
That and this, these and those
No one knows…..”

(‘No One Knows’. Song by Queen of the Stone Ages; album Songs for the  Deaf, 2002)

 Since the beginning of human civilization, especially with expansion beyond the extended family groups to form societies, rules and guidelines were established for everyone to follow. These rules were either dictated by a top power or agreed upon by consensus of the people. In early history, those rules and regulations were shared and broadcast verbally. Later, by written laws. They were communicated to the masses and became expectations.

As societies grew larger, and industrialization/capitalization expanded, most of the important rules and regulations, especially those that saved lives and livelihood, were taught in organizations: schools, churches, clubs, etc. As children we learn many of those rules, yet they vary by time, location, country and nation. Even family. For instance, many social rules and laws of Victorian England are no longer practiced or even known about; they don’t apply to us in this modern time. 

Numerous implicit social rules that are no longer communicated continue. Yet people were, and still are, expected to know and practice them regardless of if we are aware of them. They are the “unspoken rules”: behavioral constraints imposed in societies that are not typically voiced or written down. Any divergence is often considered abnormal, impolite, and intolerable. 

This isn’t a topic relegated to only social conduct. Many of these rules also exist amongst and are often reinforced by scientists. That does not mean that they are “science”, or infallible facts. Instead, they are interpretations and conclusions derived by experimentation, data collection, and interpretation by scientists. Scientific conclusions can be tested and either validated or flawed when a new investigation reveals another understanding. That’s the scientific way.

One almost universal human trait is humor. Ironically, a myriad of social unspoken rules and expectations exist surrounding humor. Despite the number of ways humor can be expressed and perceived, several strict rules are embedded in human conversation and body language. Humor, like most diverse human traits, can be experienced in a number of ways, often requiring personal and interpersonal assumptions and expectations. 

To be, or not to be, funny.

Humor is a human quality experienced as amusing, comical, or funny. Nearly all humans have the ability to feel or experience one or more of the aforementioned states. It evokes a range of responses in humans and even some other animals, such as non-human primates. Responses range from laughter (vocal and silent), play, panting “laugh”, and play facial expressions.

Likewise, the way humans express humor, or their response to other’s humor, is diverse. Some people laugh loudly, some simply smile or smirk, others shake their heads, roll their eyes, or do nothing. These behaviors are not always obvious amusement or expressions of fun. At least, in honesty. Many people pretend they are amused but in reality, they are not. Perhaps the joke or story is misinterpreted or, for some other reason, unappreciated as being amusing and funny. Perhaps there is no rewarding feeing of “getting it”: understanding and appreciating the humor. Some people don’t react at all.

An unspoken rule in most of our societies is to react in a way to express amusement or appreciation at another’s joke, comical act, etc. If a person does not react in this expected way, they are perceived as rude or stupid. That person may also be perceived as abnormal, even pathological. 

Two examples portray the latter. First, Parkinson’s, a neurogenerative disease, may affect functions (memory, reward, etc) of the brain that are involved in recognition and understanding humor. Many psychologists and even neuroscientists believe that laughter is the “glue” to relationships, society, and individual mental health. A neuroscientist studying Parkinson’s regards the lack of humor in afflicted patients as “symptoms that really affect the quality of life and relationships, so it’s really a pertinent thing to study.”(1) But is it really? Or just an unspoken rule and expectation of all human beings?

The second example is a perceived difference or pathology of many, if not most, neurodivergent children and adults on the Autism Spectrum. They often don’t laugh or understand all the conventional jokes and comical behavior of neurotypical people (not on the spectrum). It’s not always amusing or understood for various reasons. 

Briefly, autistic people don’t lack a sense of humor. Many like comedy and can be amusing. However, they don’t often engage with neurotypicals in “social interaction” laughter (unless they pretend to fit in). They don’t respond to the social cues to laugh at various things, funny or not. 

Another reason is that some autistic people simply don’t understand or make conventional-type jokes, especially contrived jokes. They may also not “get” humor because they think literally and logically. Or they may interpret things with different meanings. 

(These are the main reasons I don’t get sarcasm: I think literally and take a while to try and understand conventional joke "punch lines". However, I love dry humor; it is usually delivered very literally and directs attention to funny aspects by pointing out the obvious. I also like satire, which is usually riddled with dark sarcasm in conjunction with dry humor. Slap-stick comedy and Seinfeld-type delusional humor are too painful to watch.)

On the other hand, an expression of humor or laughing too loud by a neurodivergent person may be deemed inappropriate by neurotypical people. Too often the response by the latter is anger, resentment, or embarrassment. It “breaks the rules”. As one organization(2) that “embraces autism” states, “These differences in humor production and understanding may have a negative impact on social participation and the development of interpersonal relationships such as friendships.” This is biased.

Many neurotypical people believe and postulate that “individuals with autism do in fact want to laugh and make others laugh.” Is that true? Or an expectation and assumption by neurotypical people? Is it just another rule? 

The point being is that our society considers those that don’t align with the norm, aka don’t follow the unspoken rules, are abnormal, sometimes pathological, and therefore must be “fixed”. They are “broken”. The neurodivergent must always be trained or changed to conform to the norm, the convention, and abide the rules”, silent and communicated. The same organization referenced above states “it is crucial to teach individuals with autism humor to equip them with an important social skill to improve their social interactions with others.” Or to pretend to be normal, even when they don’t know or understand the rules. 

“You’re either with us, or against us.”

Us and Others

Modern society is highly homogenous, glued together by sameness that keeps the machine moving smoothly. But smoothly for only a relatively small section of the total population. They are the “Us”. They develop, consolidate and enforce the rules, the norm.

Those people that are different are the “Others’. They are either excluded, punished, or “invisible”. They must conform to the norm or be further excluded or punished. Rather than trying to learn and understand how the “others” think and feel, they must be fixed to be like everyone else. Again, referring to the website of the aforementioned organization, 

“In conclusion, humor is vital for one’s personal and social growth. Producing and responding to jokes appropriately helps to facilitate one’s interpersonal relationships. As individuals with autism may perceive jokes differently, we can use various strategies to equip them with the social skill of understanding humor in a conventional way.”

Doesn’t this seem biased, one-sided? It is! 

Perhaps us “Others” do have a sense of humor; it’s just different than that of the “Us”. However, it’s not terribly hard to try and better understand each other. People on the Spectrum have feelings, too. 

"We get some rules to follow

That and this, these and those

No one knows

We get these pills to swallow

How they stick in your throat

No one knows..."

 

1. "We now know why we find some jokes funny - thanks to Seinfeld," New Scientist, December 8, 2023.

2.    Autism and Humor (healisautism.com)

Coming out of the closet. Finally.

I know I'm not alone in this. So many ghosts linger in the void who didn't know, didn't have a word for it. They, we, were strangers living in a strange land. 

I and a close friend from long ago used to call it "The Outliers' Club". We didn't fit into the belly of the area under the curve called 'Normal.' In retrospect, I had many friends like that. My father was like that. They were 'different' (sometimes I used the term "abby-normal"), but not from me. We were different, to various degrees, from most of the multitudes that occupied life around us. 

This realization wasn't obvious to me for too long in my life, although as a teenager I felt something about me was different. Or everyone else was different. I just didn't understand it nor other people. After graduation I moved to live in the Maine woods. It was quiet: being surrounded by the natural world (which I felt more at home in), my books and music, apart from the trappings of society. I could enter and leave it when I wanted. Keeping my distance from people, physically and emotionally, I was able to form my own reality closer to my own preference. The solitude was, and always has been, my friend. My silence was comfortable. Most of my expression, when the urge came, went into writing. 

After my daughter was born I forced myself to integrate and participate more in society for her sake. I fell into a relationship with a man who was kind, patient and undemanding of conformity (mostly). I sought to organize and channel all my weird thoughts and ideas into a productive university education and profession. I followed my strongest interests: the living sciences. All of them, at the micro- and macroscopic level. 

How it started

My first realization of problems was with numbers, and one I hid as best as I could for many decades. I had the equivalent of dyslexia with numbers (now called 'dyscalculia'). In high school, I failed algebra twice. The third time, the teacher recognized I had issues with ordering/reading/thinking in numbers, but not arithmetic concepts. He patiently reassured me I wasn't stupid and tutored me in how to negotiate the world of numbers. I had to write all numbers and equations down on paper, methodically solve equations step by step, and slow down to avoid increasing anxiety. His recommendation of separating long strings of numbers into groups of three by using dashes is still helpful.

I had nightmares (still do) for as long as I can remember of being unable to correctly dial phone numbers, transposing the numbers over and over. It was worse when in those dreams a person was in distress and I was trying to call for help. I would wake up in panic attacks. All through university and my years in academia, this was a deficit that I managed to hide well. Until I learned later (after I retired) that several scientists, even mathematicians, also had dyscalculia. 

Back in high school, there was no name for this. I remember how much relief I felt when I learned about dyscalculia as an adult in my 50's. My 'stupidity' finally had a name and I didn't feel stupid about it anymore. Regardless, I didn't reveal it to anyone, even my family, until a few years ago. I came out of that 'closet' intact. 

Most of my childhood, teen years and early adulthood, I was a person of few words. A few traumatic events resulted in total silence: I literally could not talk for periods of time. It was like my throat was paralyzed. I remember that vividly to this day. When I was 17, my mother sent me to a therapist in the city, where she found me a room at the Y to stay for a few days. I think that being away from the rest of the family provided me the space I needed to deal with a private event. But, even now when I am angry or distressed, I freeze up vocally and I want to be alone.

On the other hand, because my interests vary widely, even outside of my academic career, I now enjoy talking about topics in history, philosophy and science. My father was similar, which I didn't acknowledge until much later. He was a polymath: well-read and versed in physics, chemistry, all the life sciences, music, history, philosophy, and languages. Even theology. Just not other people (unless they were notables in history, science or music). Oddly, he was also interested in poetry, and could recite poems verbatum from memory. 

After I realized we were alike, we often had long phone conversations along these many topics on the phone. Likewise, my conversations with others were also on topics that interest me. I had no interest in meaningless chats and especially gossip. I still don't but try my best to engage in a limited amount of it for social ease. However, I sometimes realize that I am talking too much about things other people have little or no interest. 

Once, my date and I were sitting around a campfire with other people, and I rambled on too long about a recent discovery that red fire ant queens clone themselves. My date quickly interrupted a question from another person by saying aloud, "You don't want to ask her!" I didn't then and still don't catch sarcasm. 

I still struggle with picking up facial expressions of others when my discussions have gone on too long. Or when I mention aloud data points or observations in my current thoughts. I see blank stares and realize they have no idea what I'm talking about. 

What higher education did for me was learning to organize the constant barrage of thoughts in my head into a cohesive stream of consciousness that made sense, and that I could use to form questions and answers. They were always there; I just didn't know what to do with them. It was like the universe opened up and invited me in. 

A former close male friend from forty years ago recently asked me why I chose to be a biologist; he never expected that. "It was always there in me. I just didn't know what to do with all of it. 'I can't help it; I was drawn this way.'" (Referenced from Jessica in the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit.)

Hypersensitivities

I exhibited negative reactions to certain stimuli during early childhood, not realizing that I had sensory hypersensitivities until my early teens. I abhorred loud noises and certain sounds, running away from loud parades, covering my ears and humming with sirens, and having to wear earmuffs during fireworks. Some sounds (triggers) make my head 'explode' (loud mufflers, engine breaking, snoring, incessant dog barking, loud chatting, screaming children, leaf blowers, and, ironically, the German language). Noise cancelling earplugs have been a godsend. 

Certain smells also bothered me, to the point of physical distress. Anything perfumed like most laundry and bathing soap, but especially body perfumes, made my head pound and being nauseous. Much to my father's chagrin, limburger cheese did the same. I would run up into my bedroom and shove clothes or bedding under the door to stop the smell from entering.  I can smell the weather changes in the air, and people give me strange looks when I mention it.

My department on the 13th floor in my last position dubbed me the 'canary'. A common issue was poor air cleaning/circulation. I could sense the sour odor in the restroom across from my lab of backed up wastewater in the building long before anyone else could. And the metallic smell of industrial air on our floor that escaped the air cleaners on top of the building. After realizing I had a heightened sense of smell, the office laughed when I called to alert them. 

I also had, and still have, an aversion to crowds. Malls gave me anxiety; sometimes panic attacks and I'd get dizzy and can't breath. A visit to a mall to find work suits decades ago was my first real awareness of this. It was crowded and I felt dizzy and nauseous, having to lean against a wall to keep from collapsing. My body screamed "Escape!".

My personal space is bigger than most and I'm not a huggy person. Except for my immediate family, I feel like shrinking into myself; stiffening and becoming invisible when hugs are attempted. I avoid isles in stores with a lot of people; getting in and get out as fast as possible (and I hate shopping.) When I am in amongst groups of people, I try to move to the edges and 'lurk'. My whole life has been lurking on the edges.

While visiting a friend in Manhattan (shortly after 9/11), he took me to Time Square. It was a disaster. With a long-standing sensitivity to light, the crowds, noise and flashing lights prompted a panic attack. Only many years later did I learn that my responses to such stimuli was really that: a hypersensitive panic attack. Otherwise, I only knew one thing: fight or flight, and I had to get out.

Lack of social graces

In grad school I became aware that I had trouble speaking to groups of people. Apparently, I was too direct and said the 'wrong things'. I took a technical writing class (two, in fact) that included presentations. I forced myself to learn how to quiet the animal inside to speak clearly and eloquently. As a faculty member at three academic universities, I learned to mingle and communicate better. My first decade as a researcher required giving presentations at conferences, which became easier. My sister-in-law took me shopping to help choose proper suits for me. I had no sense of fashion (still don't). 

During those early years I also had to learn about sensitivities with other people. Unlike many (most?) people in the autism spectrum, I engage with others by strong eye contact. If I don't, I fumble in 'reading' people. (I also have hearing loss in one ear from childhood illnesses. I read lips to fill in blanks that I can't hear.)  Apparently, this distresses some people. While in New York City, my friend strongly advised me to look down when amongst strangers, especially on the street. I still don't understand why, but it bothers people. 

I tend to be blunt and honest to a fault. Evidently, some people can't handle that, either. A student worker told me almost in tears that I am "intimidating". The department head diplomatically told me she would rather I did not attend a meeting with others discussing my research budget. She would serve in my stead. That was a hammer that made me realize I needed to learn how to talk to other people with more sensitivity. (Ironically, years later at a different university and lab, I was asked by a colleague to coach him on how to talk to his all-female lab staff so they wouldn't cry.)

Despite that I occasionally joined colleagues in the lunchroom or for coffee, I was branded as being "unfriendly and anti-social" in the departments. I avoided volunteering for committees (they were a waste of my time) and hardly ever attended social and holiday functions. It appeared this behavior was unacceptable, even jeopardized promotions during more than half of my career. Ironically, a colleague, who became a good friend, chastised other department members during one of those meetings, commenting that I am not unfriendly or anti-social; "She's just careful about who she chooses as friends and likes her privacy."

All those decades, and through failed intimate relationships, I never stopped being a stranger in a strange land and asking myself "What's wrong with me?". My mother used to yell at me, even as an adult, "You're just like your father!". It wasn't until several years before my father passed away, and I learned I had Asperger's Syndrome, did I understand my father's weird quirks and his lack of social graces. I was much like my father, who also was (undiagnosed) Asperger's. But I learned to understand and adjust better than he, even if some of it requires pretending.

I was teased (still am) about being a bit more OCD than the normal person. I managed my labs and office tightly and was referred to as the 'Lab Nazi' in one department. Another time (different university), the department head mentioned in an introduction to a visiting speaker that our lab was the cleanest in the department. I wanted to shrink during the laughter after that. 

My fortune was working with a MD/PhD in neuroscience and psychology who is very ADHD with no apologies to anyone. I would steer him back to finish his sentences when he often went off tangent. We worked together very well appreciating the complementation of our strengths. I was glad I could confide in and discuss my recent Asperger's diagnosis with him. He assured me I've already adapted well and will continue to. "Learn to appreciate who and what you are. Don't let anyone tell you differently."

I also realized that most of my closer friends, at least in adulthood, were also on the spectrum. I think we tend to gravitate to those who are like us. My closest friend was a male 15 years younger, yet we thoroughly knew each other, possibly better than we knew ourselves. We complemented each other intellectually. Because he also was graduate of the life sciences, we shared thoughts and ideas and collaborated in business and projects during my hiatus from academia. His mind was very linear, whereas I think in systems and patterns, complementing each other in our pursuits. I also helped him adjust with his issues by suggesting he observe and mimic other people in social interactions. Unfortunately, his wild mood swings challenged our relationship more than once. After over a decade of close friendship, it completely fell apart. But I still very much miss his friendship.

-------

It's now 16 years after learning why I have always felt like a stranger. Because I have feared the stereotyping and stigma by other people, especially during my academic career but also my own family, that knowledge has been buried. No headstone, no obituary, no memorial; just buried in an unmarked grave. I even refused to learn more about neurodiversity and being a functional adult on the spectrum. The diagnosis of being Asperger's has explained most of my oddities, and I still learn to adapt. 

Discovering as an adult that you are Asperger's is like you feel fine most of the time. But you don't know if that because you've dealt with it, or you've buried it.

Recently I discovered a local friend who is also neurodivergent. And she has an autistic son. She recognized my neurodivergence quickly without any prompts from me. She is also an advocate for neurodiversity. It was a relief for me to finally be accepted for what I am in a long time. We have talked long about how we adapt and about the lack of awareness of neurodivergent people, young and old. She has given me the courage to take steps and "come out of the closet", especially to my remaining family, my sister and daughter. I mentioned once that it would be easier to come out and tell people I'm gay (if I was gay). 

But she and Phil are right: I need to accept and appreciate who I am. Keeping this secret is exhausting. 

This is MY reality. Welcome to it!

Whose afraid of Virginia Woolf?

While reading this post about Virginia Woolf,  I was reminded of an internal and eternal dialogue pondering the question of how we perceive 'alone' and 'lonely'. The problem is that the two are not synonymous, although the wide perception often is. 'Alone' is not always 'lonely'. Yet, we are conditioned to think that anyone that is alone is 'lonely'. 

Semantically, 'alone' can mean 'solitude'. A person can be literally alone: by one's self away from other people. It may feel comfortable or uncomfortable. I can be alone, the only human on a mountain top, and not lonely; I feel solitude and connected to all life round me. Likewise, a person can be 'alone' and unconnected in a crowd of people, but comfortable with it. It's usually a choice. It's less about our circumstance, but how we react to them.*

But 'loneliness' is less ambiguous: it's a feeling of being alone, unconnected, and not liking it. Both are internal states, but loneliness is less related to what is going on around us. It's a fear of solitude. 

Individually there is a wide area-under-the-curve for each on what is comfortable and what is not. Yet, the cultural definition and expectations for everyone, including children, are quite narrow and contradictory. We are expected to know ourselves, but to always be 'social', e.g. with other people. Unfortunately, too many people don't know themselves, or are uncomfortable being alone with themselves. They fear it.

So it's an illusion, created by ourselves and society. 

In the medical community and the public mindset people are expected to always be surrounded by other people. Those that prefer to be alone are almost always considered 'unwell' or 'abnormal' because, culturally, 'alone' = 'lonely'. Then comes the judgement deluge.

Those two terms don't take into consideration the time element: always, occasionally, mostly, etc. Those adverbs are important because they quantify the the amount of alone time. Or even when feeling lonely. 

Some people feel they have to be with another person, or amongst other people, all the time. I've known a few people (mostly women, but a few men, too) who almost have panic attacks when they are alone. Their loneliness is overwhelming, usually because they don't know themselves, or they fear being alone with themselves. Perhaps they even fear not knowing themselves; they lack self-esteem.

There's also a gender bias: women are expected to always be surrounded by people, and in a personal relationship with another (usually a man, but that's another topic...). Men.... not so much, if at all. In a few countries, cultural acceptance of a woman alone in public, especially without a male, is prohibitive. It's like requiring your dog on a leash when in public. 

Alternatively, because I'm a woman that prefers solitude most of the time and lives alone the all too-common perception is that I'm lonely. I've had to fend off questions and comments from others implying judgement, such as pity or concern of unwellness. Especially, 'You don't have a man so you must be lonely and helpless'. Or, 'There's something wrong with you.' That's the expectation associated with perceptions of 'alone' and 'loneliness' of many women.

'Alone' and 'lonely' are illusions we create about ourselves and others (Virginia Woolf refers to it as 'a reality', which is partly correct). And with those illusions, we place judgement and expectations on ourselves and others. We celebrate self-esteem. But we stigmatize spending time with the person we should know, and like, the best: ourselves.

Woolf's writings exemplified the strong pervasive feelings of loneliness and the illusions of it. In a diary entry she wrote of this as being a 'reality': 

"That is one of the experiences I have had...and got then to a consciousness of what I call “reality”: a thing I see before me: something abstract; but residing in the downs or sky; beside which nothing matters; in which I shall rest and continue to exist. Reality I call it."

Woolf's angst (she was bipolar) with what was 'real' for her, and the societal illusions and expectations about being alone and lonely (especially as a woman), ultimately influenced her choice to end her life. Ironically, over a century later, that societal perception still exists. 

In her post, author Maria Popova writes,

"There is a kind of loneliness that lodges itself in the psyche and never fully leaves, a loneliness most anguishing not in solitude but in companionship and amid the crowd. If solitude fertilizes the imagination, loneliness vacuums it of vitality and sands the baseboards of the spirit with the scratchy restlessness of longing — for connection, for communion, for escape. And yet it is out of this restlessness that so many great works of art are born."

On the other hand, solitude lacks an illusion, or sense of loneliness, and it also feeds imagination and creativity. Journalist and Buddhist Zat Rana writes, 

"When you surround yourself with moments of solitude and stillness, you become intimately familiar with your environment in a way that forced stimulation doesn’t allow.

The world becomes richer, the layers start to peel back, and you see things for what they really are, in all their wholeness, in all their contradictions, and in all their unfamiliarity. You learn that there are other things you are capable of paying attention to than just what makes the most noise on the surface."

Being alone does not always have to mean 'loneliness'. Not all of us are afraid of Virginia Woolf, of living life free of illusion.

* Some people like feeling lonely, but that is more of a pathological issue and I'm not delving into that except for my reference to Virginia Woolf. 

A-Z Challenge: M is Message and Meme.

What is a meme? What is a message? What is a gene? What is the basic denominator of life?

If you consider on a broad scale, information is what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things. That covers all scales, from a phone call, to nanoparticles and electrons, to sound, to firing neurons, to light traveling the universe. Any thing conveyed from one point to another, the 'message', is a transfer of information.

A unit containing information can be thought of as a message. For example, the well-known and greatest significance for the gene is its information transfer in living material. The content of this message carries instructions; it is what determines the structure and function of life. The exchange between a hormone and an organic tissue is an active and dynamic process of information transfer. 

The same can be said of any interaction at any scale and reduced to the laws of physics: for every action there is a reaction. The degree and direction of both action and reaction are dependent upon the information that is exchanged between the two points. Our attempts to understand that information is analogous to decoding the 'message'.

To add another related word to the 'M' box for the day, the information transfer in human social life contains messages that we may or may not be aware of, and which propagates through the social hierarchy like a gene. It is called the 'meme'. A meme is an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture.

In the 1980's, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins likened our social information transfer to genes in that our ideas can replicate, mutate, and evolve. It was Dawkins that coined the use of the term, 'meme'. Just like in physical and biological systems, information is actively communicated in a network, transmitted and received, coded and decoded. Messages that we receive are processed in our brains and then transmitted into the same or another network where it exponentially mutates, evolves and replicates. 

Dawkins wrote:

“Memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. They compete with one another for limited resources: brain time or bandwidth. They compete most of all for attention." (The Selfish Gene)

Messages, memes.....They all transmit, replicate, and evolve information. “All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities.” (R. Dawkins)

It's a meme life out there.

A-Z Challenge: H is for Heart.

How many times have you asked yourself, "Why am I doing this?", "What am I doing?", "Am I on the right path?"

We've all been there at one time or another. Perhaps several times. For many decades I have always asked myself this: 'Does this path I am on, or about to embark on, have heart?' 

What does that mean?  Our heart is the organ that pumps our life's blood to all of our internal tissues. When it stops pumping, the body dies. Metaphorically, heart is also our inner-most truth-sayer; it tells us the truth. It is the source of our compassion, love, determination, our weaknesses and strength. It is being 'whole' instead of being lost in strewn bits and pieces. It is also the source of our 'knowing', despite our awareness or lack of. When we lose 'heart', we lose our direction, motivation, commitment, our strength, and our happiness. We lose ourselves and we are not whole.

The heart knows the way home; it knows the truth. It knows when we are off-course. It also knows when we are betrayed; by others or by ourselves. A path with no heart can suck all our self-esteem and self-worth from us. Or it can instill false hopes. Losing heart will leave us empty, angry, and unbalanced, leaving us blundering blind on a heartless path.

Embarking on a path may be full of uncertainties. But if we have heart, and we know that our direction is true; if we accept that we may have to change course along the way, and if we learn from all the obstacles along our path, then that path has heart. And as we journey forward, we become stronger and whole; and more happy.

"You must always keep in mind that a path is only a path. Each path is only one of a million paths. If you feel that you must now follow it, you need not stay with it under any circumstances. Any path is only a path. There is no affront to yourself or others in dropping a path if that is what your heart tells you to do. But your decision to keep on a path or to leave it must be free of fear and ambition. 

I caution you: look at every path closely and deliberately. Try it as many times as you think necessary. Then ask yourself and yourself alone this one question. Does this path have a heart? All paths are the same. They lead nowhere. They are paths going through the brush or into the brush or under the brush of the Universe. The only question is: Does this path have a heart? If it does, then it is a good path. If it doesn’t, then it is of no use." - from The Teachings of Don Juan, by Carlos Castaneda

I look forward to my new Path with Heart. I hope you all do the same.

A-Z Challenge: C is for Culture

What is culture? Is culture dead? Or is it just running on autopilot in chaotic traffic on a busy highway immersed in a plethora of signage which no one reads or cares?

“We seldom realize, for example that our most private thoughts and emotions are not actually our own. For we think in terms of languages and images which we did not invent, but which were given to us by our society.”  ― Alan Wilson Watts

“The decay and disintegration of this culture is astonishingly amusing if you are emotionally detached from it. I have always viewed it from a safe distance, knowing I don't belong; it doesn't include me, and it never has. no matter how you care to define it, I do not identify with the local group. Planet, species, race, nation, state, religion, party, union, club, association, neighborhood improvement committee; I have no interest in any of it. I love and treasure individuals as I meet them, I loathe and despise the groups they identify with and belong to.”  ― George Carlin

“While much psychology emphasizes the familial causes of angst in humans, the cultural component carries as much weight, for culture is the family of the family. If the family of the family has various sicknesses, then all families within that culture will have to struggle with the same malaises. There is a saying cultura cura, culture cures. If the culture is a healer, the families learn how to heal; they will struggle less, be more reparative, far less wounding, far more graceful and loving. In a culture where the predator rules, all new life needing to be born, all old life needing to be gone, is unable to move and the soul-lives of its citizenry are frozen with both fear and spiritual famine.”- Clarissa Pinkola Estés

Culture, cultura, is the cultivation of an integrated system of learned behavior patterns which are characteristic of the members of a society and which are not a result of biological inheritance. It is our ideas, beliefs, our morals and our self-identity as a collection of individuals. It is a collective 'Us.' And a collective 'Them'. It was once the fabric of our civilization. Now it is becoming our collapse. 

Perhaps our redemption lies in the following words:

“What sets worlds in motion is the interplay of differences, their attractions and repulsions. Life is plurality, death is uniformity. By suppressing differences and pecularities, by eliminating different civilizations and cultures, progress weakens life and favors death. The ideal of a single civilization for everyone, implicit in the cult of progress and technique, impoverishes and mutilates us. Every view of the world that becomes extinct, every culture that disappears, diminishes a possibility of life." 
-  Octavio Paz  (Mexican poet, writer, and diplomat, 1914-1998)

“Culture is not your friend. Culture is for other people’s convenience and the convenience of various institutions, churches, companies, tax collection schemes, what have you. It is not your friend. It insults you. It disempowers you. It uses and abuses you. None of us are well treated by culture.” - See more at: http://www.endalldisease.com/73-mindblowing-terence-mckenna-quotes/#sthash.bPR5UuXg.dpuf

“Culture is not your friend. Culture is for other people’s convenience and the convenience of various institutions, churches, companies, tax collection schemes, what have you. It is not your friend. It insults you. It disempowers you. It uses and abuses you. None of us are well treated by culture.”
– Terence McKenna - See more at: http://www.endalldisease.com/73-mindblowing-terence-mckenna-quotes/#sthash.bPR5UuXg.dpuf

“Culture is not your friend. Culture is for other people’s convenience and the convenience of various institutions, churches, companies, tax collection schemes, what have you. It is not your friend. It insults you. It disempowers you. It uses and abuses you. None of us are well treated by culture.”
– Terence McKenna

“Personal empowerment means deconditioning yourself from the values and the programs of the society and putting your own values and programs in place.”
– Terence McKenna
- See more at: http://www.endalldisease.com/73-mindblowing-terence-mckenna-quotes/#sthash.bPR5UuXg.dp

Who are we really?

Alan Watts wrote in 1966 (1):

..the prevalent sensation of oneself as a separate ego enclosed in a bag of skin is a hallucination which accords neither with Western science nor with the experimental philosophy-religions of the East..

Here is a source of confrontation I (and some others) have had with modern science since beginning my studies:

"....our attention — which has been aptly called “an intentional, unapologetic discriminator” — works by dividing the world up into processable parts, then stringing those together into a pixelated collage of separates which we then accept as a realistic representation of the whole that was there in the first place." (2)

Alan Watts wrote:

Attention is narrowed perception. It is a way of looking at life bit by bit, using memory to string the bits together — as when examining a dark room with a flashlight having a very narrow beam. Perception thus narrowed has the advantage of being sharp and bright, but it has to focus on one area of the world after another, and one feature after another. And where there are no features, only space or uniform surfaces, it somehow gets bored and searches about for more features. Attention is therefore something like a scanning mechanism in radar or television. . . . But a scanning process that observes the world bit by bit soon persuades its user that the world is a great collection of bits, and these he calls separate things or events. We often say that you can only think of one thing at a time. The truth is that in looking at the world bit by bit we convince ourselves that it consists of separate things, and so give ourselves the problem of how these things are connected and how they cause and effect each other. The problem would never have arisen if we had been aware that it was just our way of looking at the world which had chopped it up into separate bits, things, events, causes, and effects. (1)

But this is the way we are trained from birth. Dissect, tear apart, and stuff all the pieces in boxes, unable to see and grasp all that ties everything together. I remember experiencing how hard this is to unlearn when I was taught tracking in my early 20's by a Native American. Who always shook his head and wondered aloud how Europeans and their descendents ever survived, and only so because of technological invention. For which we pay the price of losing our ability to 'see' and thus continue falling down into our own holes that we dig ourselves into.

"....And therein lies the crux of our human struggle" (3):

The real reason why human life can be so utterly exasperating and frustrating is not because there are facts called death, pain, fear, or hunger. The madness of the thing is that when such facts are present, we circle, buzz, writhe, and whirl, trying to get the “I” out of the experience. We pretend that we are amoebas, and try to protect ourselves from life by splitting in two. Sanity, wholeness, and integration lie in the realization that we are not divided, that man and his present experience are one, and that no separate “I” or mind can be found.

To understand music, you must listen to it. But so long as you are thinking, “I am listening to this music,” you are not listening.

The last, I was taught by my father.

These are the foundations of Zen, of meditation, of phenomenology, of tracking, of being present in the world. Of really being alive.


(1) Excerpt from The Ego and the Universe: Alan Watts on Becoming Who You Really Are, by Maria Popova and the website, "brainpickings". 
(2) Quote from: The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are (1966), by Alan Watts.
(3) Excerpt from An Antidote to the Age of Anxiety: Alan Watts on Happiness and How to Live with Presence, by Maria Popova. Quote by Alan Watts, The Wisdom of Insecurity: A Message for an Age of Anxiety (1951).

Climate Change Cometh

Loosely following the debate, discourse and arguments surrounding climate change, sometimes I just have to look away. Like watching a bad wreck. A very complex subject, where there are no accurate and reliable models and predictions. The projections fit into a very wide area under the curve and outliers will probably be shifting that range more than not. More than regional, even global, this is a solar system-dependent phenomenon.

Anyone denying climate change during our lifetime is more than ignorant; it is stupidity. I understand that humans do not like change, but to base ignorance in a belief system that climate change is not eminent is truly stupidity. The evidence is not only a well-documented scientific observation, it is an experience at our personal level. The real issues are not if climate change is real, but how much of that change is attributable to anthropogenic causes. 

With any knowledge of geological and geographical history at a middle school level, we know that global and regional climate and weather change. To disbelieve and/or deny that is unacceptable. Supplementing that knowledge with how regional and global climate is influenced by long-term subtle and traumatic events - volcanic explosions, rampant wildfires, asteroid collisions, sunspots, changes in ecosystems, etc - will aid understanding the connections between systems on and above this planet. Now add centuries of human intervention and technological contributions, sometimes rapid, to changes in regional and global-wide systems. To deny anthropogenic impact on our planetary systems is inexcusable.

The question that remains, and which may remain unanswerable, is the degree of human impact. At this point in time, the question may remain moot. The question requiring attention is how we can reduce our impact.

Weather and climate have a long history of cyclic changes, as long as the life of this planet and our solar system. We cannot deny our current climate change. Unfortunately, the politically hot term that is mistakenly embroiled world-wide, 'global warming,' has been misconceived. But the damage is done. Now we must move beyond that and accept that climate change, with possible accompanying extremes of hot and cold weather, is here. We are feeling the impact. Now.

Yet, like little ants, we continue to embroil ourselves in useless arguments and self-serving blame and flame throwing. This gets us nowhere. It's time to discard the disbelief, bottle the self-serving useless tirades, promote more accurate and constructive discourse; it is time to act and prepare ourselves for cooperation and adaptation. Reduce our contributions to climate change and learn to adapt to the global-changing weather patterns as a global community.

I was somewhat encouraged to read on a more-than-useless forum  debate the following intelligent post:

I know many weather and climate factors are the product of non-man based cycles. We cannot stop major long-run Global and Solar cycles, but the sudden changes we are seeing the last 50 years seem to be producing a lot more energy due to how quick the changes are occurring. (aka more instability)

However we do need to recognize that warming is a serious issue -- and one that Man likely cannot stop. But instead of trying to prepare and do what we can to slow it --- We are accelerating it now, and have a whole contingent of Americans that believe we should just ignore it --- which just seems foolish.

Man didn't cause all the European Glaciers to severely melt 4000 years ago. (see what's happened in Africa and the Middle East as all the Glacial-melt-fed Rivers dried up --- It's amazing to try to think of Iraq and Egypt as fertile plains, not dust-bowls.)

So we know climate change is a real threat regardless of Man -- but exacerbating it, certainly seems to be ignorant and foolish, just as much as thinking we can fully control it.

 Let's put aside our ignorance, our self-serving demonstrations, and join as a community to reduce human impact and adapt to the coming changes.

My First Law

A friend suggested I post my Laws. So I shall.

First Law: Where there's a positive, there is a negative.

Everything operates in systems; everything is a trade-off. My first law parallels one of the most basic laws of nature: the conservation of energy. It cannot be created or destroyed. It simply flows from one system to another in a variety of forms.

As British scientist and author C. P. Snow interprets the First Law of Thermodynamics [1]:

"You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved)."

This of course precludes its sibling, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, addressing the direction of that conservation. Again, in the words of Snow:

"You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases)."

Natural proccesses that involve energy transfer go in one direction and that process is irreversible. Steven Hawking explains it thusly using time as an example: when time moves in a foward direction and one breaks a cup of coffee on the floor, no matter what happens, in our universe, one will never see the cup reform. Cups are breaking all the time, but never reforming.

Another parallel is Newton's Third Law of Motion: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Forces always involve interactions and they always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs. Examples of this law abound in nature: the wings of a bird push air downwards. In turn, the air reacts by pushing the bird upwards.

Thus the Tao of physics, the yin and yang. Yet it is not a simple Descartian duality for which there is an invisible division. Opposites are always in motion, transitioning from one to the other; it is the complementation of natural proccesses.

The natural order requires complementation between the harmonious rule of order and a continuing respect for the fertility of chaos. Order needs to be at all times suppliant and responsive to fertile transition so that new order can emerge from the natural ferment of chaos.

Our reality is a paradoxical complement of our subjective consciousness and the physical universe. That physical universe is itself a paradox of relativity and quantum uncertainty in which the future and the past become lost in probabilities. The description of physical reality is no more and no less than a narrative told about the stabilities and correspondences of our conscious experience.

Thus the philosophy that attempts to understand the fundamental nature of all reality, whether visible or invisible; it seeks a description so basic, so essentially simple, so all-inclusive that it applies to everything: metaphysics.

This is the First Law. It is the Tao.

Quantum physics will always be controversial, it hinges on the metaphysical thus it is almost like trying to describe God.

[1] The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (1959)

A Test of My Humanity

“By knowing things that exist, you can know that which does not exist. That is the void.” - Miyamoto Musashi

To suffer a loss of spirit is a test of your humanity. Losing someone dear to you; a parent, a child, a spouse, a lover - the emotions that tear through your being like a hurricane and leave you stranded on a desert in pain, every drop of life sucked out of you. Left on your knees, empty and dry, not knowing how to live or die. Your soul is ripped out of your chest and your heart lays beating in your hands. The emptiness is a bottomless pit once filled with love and presence. 

How does the spirit feel such pain? No other physical ache equals that of a grieving soul and a heart in pain. In the aftermath of a recent personal trauma I traveled to find my spirit again and heal the pain inside while wrestling with a gaping hole of emptiness. A spirit torn asunder, scattered in pieces and I knew I would never be the same.

Intellectually, the scientist I am realized the internal pain resulted from stress and shock; thousands of neurotransmitters and hormones raging uncontrolled in my brain and my body (beta-blockers would have helped). The same neurochemicals that regulate physical pain control psychological pain. Yet, what makes me human struggled to resolve the conflict of the pragmatist and the humanist within. I had to dissociate from the pain and grief to find humility and peace. Needing to find the remnants inside and nurture their growth to fill what had been lost, I returned to old medicine for my soul: the mountains.

As I gazed at the deserts and mountains passing below me the world became bigger and I became miniscule. Sprouting metal and mental wings, I watched time unfold, shape the earth and terraform history. I saw time guide the waters as they cut through the earth, smoothing mountains and eroding layers of colored sediments. Rivers and creeks gouged deeply into the land leaving threads that snaked through the terrain below. It reminded me of yards of speckled velvet thrown from above, lying quietly ruffled and wrinkled. Colored mesas and tabletops reached up to the sky above like stalagmites. Scattered straight and winding roads transected the land like large pencil marks made by humans and their machines. 

I imagined the singularity of elements and the bonding between them, the evolution of nucleic acids and proteins transforming into creatures, and the dynamic complexity between the inanimate and animate. I imagined life being born and dying, all within a blink of an eye.

Nothing is static and nothing acts in isolation. Everything is connected in a measurable or immeasurable way. Everything is mutable to some degree. The dichotomy of our consciousness to reason and make choices between our biology and our environment scares most people. Yet that is what makes us human: the capability of making decisions and choices. Even indecision is a choice. And every decision and choice is a trade-off with consequences, good and bad. Sometimes, that requires considerable strength.

Relative to the stage below, I realized that my pain, my thoughts, my drama, my life were inconsequential to the play. All before and after me are actors on this stage of time forever caught in a play billions of years old and which never ends. I don’t need to rationalize my existence nor that of others. The meaning of my life does not derive from without but from within and my interaction with my surroundings. My life, my death are one in the same. It is Humility. I again resolved myself with the world around me, acknowledging my capabilities, fears, faults and desires and the essence of who I am and can be. 

No one can take that away.

At 11,000 feet in the air and without hesitation I faced an old fear and conquered it. By embracing my fears, my death, my weaknesses, I regained my strength. Again life infused my soul and my spirit soared like an eagle over the mountains upon which I stood. My only remaining fear was to act without honor or in dishonesty to myself. And to unconditionally give it all away. That will not happen again.

I have found what I am made of: something transient yet tenacious, not dismantled by loss but recomposed by it.

Let the healing begin.

“The truth is that strength lies in the interior of the Warrior: in his heart, his mind and his spirit… The heart is essential in helping the intellect to understand the spirit.” - Miyamoto Musashi, ‘Book of Five Rings’