What you say?

My wife and I watched a very bad movie recently and it seemed the film makers felt they could make it better if it was laced with profanity.  I mean, it didn't serve a purpose, didn't drive the plot,  wasn't for shock value, didn't emphasize tense or emotional points in the story.  It didn't even serve one of the main reasons people use to justify profanity in a movie, "That's how people in <name the setting> actually talk."  As far as I could tell it was there to give the movie an 'R' rating.

I remember when I was in my late teens, working as a dishwasher at a restaurant, I said something to one of my co-workers and he looked at me.  He said that was the first time he had ever heard me swear.  I had never really thought about it.  In no way was I a well behaved kid in those days but I won't list the ways.  My parents or kids may read this and they don't need to know the things I did.  I was a follower and like most teenagers, I wanted to be cool and accepted.  But I guess that never included trying to impress people with my lack of language skills.  Like I said, I hadn't really thought of it up to that point. 

Currently, I am writing my first novel.  So, language has taken on a new importance in my life.  As I was writing a scene where "That's how people in biker bars" talk, I found I didn't want to put that language in there.  It would be justified because, that's how people in biker bars talk, but I fought the urge and in the end wrote around it.  Consequently the concept of profanity has been on my mind lately.

I was talking to a couple of very intelligent writers lately, who don't mind profanity in their writing and brought this up.  There were a couple of themes about the topic.  One, words are words.  We as humans assign meaning and we as humans make words naughty or nice.  Words are tools of the craft.

Well ... I don't know. That doesn't seem like a complete answer to me.  I went to the ultimate source for answers.  Sadly,  when I did the Google search today when writing this I couldn't find the link I really found interesting.  Basically, it said, the brain processes profanity in a completely different place of the brain than other words.  It comes from the automatic parts of the brain which is why, when you stub your toe, you are likely to say ouch or s*** rather than,  "The quality of this experience is less than optimal."  So, we can say words are words but our brain thinks they are different.

Another theme is that words are tools.  I love tools.  I have a garage floor full of them.  When I was in high school autoshop, the Snap-On truck came and I bought a 13mm combination wrench;  the main wrench anybody working a 1970's VW Beetle needs.  I paid a good sum at the time for it but it is a marvelous tool.  Thirty years later, that wrench is in my tool box and not on my garage floor.  I go through screw drivers like mad and buy more packages of them at Harbor Freight.  If I had a Snap-On screw driver I would be able to tell you right where it was but those things are expensive.  If language is a tool then we are in great luck!  It doesn't cost me anymore to use high quality words than it does to use cheap words.  We have a language full of Snap-On words so why use Harbor Freight words?

Let me entertain you

I was reading a book the other day on writing and it kept talking about the conflict in a story.  I thought that was interesting and tried to think of a story that was not based on a conflict of some type.  Every one I came up with contained some type of struggle, an obstacle to overcome, or any other way you want to describe a conflict. Some stories are tragedies which pull hard at our emotions and others are heroic triumphs pulling our emotions in a different direction but they are all based on someone else's hardships.  Basically, we entertain ourselves with other people's problems.  Some of their problems end well, some end very badly, but we are entertained.

This got me thinking about Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. It has been many years since I've read it so I don't remember all the details, but I remember it talking about humor being based on someones misfortunes.  Other than word play, humor has a victim.  We laugh, we find it funny when things go wrong for someone else.

This seems to be a universally human trait and can be seen in some primates as well.   This may not be a bad thing and since it looks like we're hardwired this way we might as well make the best of it.  What we can pull from this is the realization that what goes wrong in life, the conflict we face in everyday life, is what makes life interesting.  Just as a movie or book without conflict wouldn't be a story worth telling, a life without conflict wouldn't be a life worth living.  I think the challenge is, when at all possible, to be the wise architect of our own conflict rather than a foolish victim of misguided conflict, eg: college education vs. crack.

Hilltop Mansion

A friend from my early childhood became a minister when he grew up.  We got connected on Facebook and every so often I read his posts. Today he posted the whole hymn/spiritual "Mansion Over the Hilltop."   I love to hear my wife sing that song in church because it is a beautiful, catchy song.  The church sings it with a faster upbeat than other versions I've heard and standing next to my wife, one of the most talented singers I have ever heard, makes it all the better.

I like the song until I think about what it's saying.  For those that don't know the song, here it is with the repeats of the chorus removed.

---

I'm satisfied with just a cottage below, a little silver and a little gold. But in that city where the ransomed will shine, I want a gold one that's silver lined.

I've got a mansion just over the hilltop, in that bright land where we'll never grow old. And someday yonder We will never more wander, But walk on streets that are purest gold.

Tho often tempted, tormented and tested, and like the prophet, my pillow a stone. And tho I find here no permanent dwelling, I know He'll give me a mansion my own.

Don't think me poor or deserted or lonely; I'm not discouraged, I'm heaven bound. I'm just a pilgrim in search of that city; I want a mansion, a harp, and a crown.

---

The song tells us not to worry about this life because the life after is what is important.  Heaven is where our riches are and if we suffer and endure in this life, our wants for riches will be our reward.

How can a song with that message ever be sung in a Christian church?  Greed is okay in Heaven but not here?  Lusting for material possessions in this life is wrong but lusting for them in Heaven is right?

I am reading Rob Bell's Love Wins right now.   I like his perspective to say the least.   Focus on making the life you are living now right.  Make this life your Heaven.

Imagine what the world be if all the Christians in all the countries quit focusing on the reward of Heaven in an afterlife and started making this their Heaven. What if 'love your neighbor' was more than a catch phrase?  What if "WWJD" was more than a great way to sell T-shirts and wrist bands?  What if the compassion Jesus talked about was the driving force of our life instead of enduring this life until our afterlife reward is granted to us?

And, if there really is a mansion waiting for us in Heaven, I think God is more likely to bestow that blessing on the ones who spent their time in this lowly life making a positive difference than the one only doing what they have to to get a reward.

Embrace Doubt

I hear people say, "I'm spiritual but not religious."  It's one of those phrases that let's me know I most likely have little to talk about with that person.  Generally, what I've found is that phrase gives the person a way to avoid the details of religion but not sound like a heathen. It excuses them from an in-depth study of different faiths and allows them to just be a nice person that the grandfatherly, gentle, nice God looking down at them would be pleased with.

On the other hand, when someone claims to be religious, I'm not 'most likely' going to have little to talk about with them,  I'm very likely going to have little to talk about. 

In Karen Armstrong's book, Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life, she says not to enter into a discussion with someone unless you are willing to truly listen to them and change what you believe if what they are saying makes sense; if it is right. I think it's safe to say that when a religious discussion starts, neither side is interested in changing their own mind based on what the other is saying.  Our lexicon even has changed to define religions as things that people will not change their mind about, such as Windows vs. Linux, Chevy vs. Ford, Republican vs. Democrat.

So, what is the path of religion? Most think it is a path to truth and certainty. I say it is simply opening your mind to the unknown and to seek answers.  It is to accept you have doubts, to accept that you don't know and it is humanly impossible to know the ultimate truth, yet to long for the truth.

When it comes to talking to religious people I always think about a scene in Crossroads (1986) where Willie Brown says to Eugene, "You got your mind made up about how everything works. How you gonna learn anything new when you KNOW everything already?"

Paul Tillich says, "Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith."  I think the truly religious/spiritual people are the ones who realize they don't know the truth, embrace their doubt, actively search to answer questions and all the while push themselves to be a blessing to the people around them.  Those are the people I want to listen to.

The Act of Will

I was walking through Half Price Books one day on lunch break and saw a book sitting there titled, The Act of Will.  I liked the title so, without much thought I added it to my stack of books.  It ended up floating around in my computer bag for a couple of months and I would see it there when I pulled my laptop out but ignored it much like the other papers and stuff I should really clean out of my bag instead of lugging around.   Then, after ignoring it for so long, I decided to take it out and look at, with the plan to shelf it.  It was, after all, a random book I bought for a silly reason.

The introduction let me know that my random act was one of those mysterious events which makes you wonder about coincidence.  I'm in the process of writing a fictional book and the introduction of The Act of Will echoed the main philosophy behind my book. The author, Roberto Assagioli, asks us to imagine an ancient man coming to our time.  He would see us as demigods with all the technology he could only understand as magic or divine power. But now, imagine that person coming to our time is one of the great minds of the past, such as Plato.

Assagioli says, "He would soon notice that, though man has acquired an impressive degree of power over nature, his knowledge of and control over his inner being is very limited. He would perceive that this modern "magician," capable of descending to the bottom of the ocean and projecting himself to the moon, is largely ignorant of what is going on in the depths of his unconscious and is unable to reach up to the luminous superconscious levels, and to become aware of his true Self. This supposed demigod, controlling great electrical forces with a movement of the finger and flooding the air with sound and pictures for the entertainment of millions, would be seen to be incapable of dealing with his own emotions, impulses, and desires."

After I started reading this book I had to go back and revise mine and it influenced the rest of the book moving forward.  My belief is that technology has actually made it easier for us to become less connected, less in tune with who we are.  It is easy to escape thinking the hard thoughts about our purpose and just watch a TV show.  It is easy to find entertainment, find pleasure fixes, and avoid searching ourselves to find fulfillment. We can find ways to live a pointless and meaningless life and never strive to reach our potential.  Before many of the technological advances people didn't have much free time to reflect on who they were.  Their daily lives were filled with getting food and other necessities just to survive.  With each technological advance people were granted more free time.  This spawned some great mind such as Galileo and Da Vinci. But, for the most part, the path much of humanity has taken is to use the technology to avoid any inward look at themselves.


Assagioli started a branch of Psychology called Psychosynthesis.  He seems to carry a lot of Freudian Psychoanalytic theory forward as far as the parts of the personality but then he expands on it. One interesting thing is that he brings the concept of spirituality into his theory which Freud either ignored or rejected. But, Assagioli says he only takes people to the door of spirituality.  Which path they take is for them to search out.

So, when I was thinking about writing a blog and coming up with a name, The Act of Will seemed a logical fit.  In this blog I want to explore some of the concepts that drive me forward.  Many of these concepts are in my book but I think there are many that I won't actually have a solidified idea of what they are until I do the work of organizing them into words.  The public forum gives the chance to do so with the potential for input from others in a civil exploration of concepts.  Please feel free to join me in this exploration.

Here is a link to download a PDF of Roberto Assagioli's The Act of Will You can also find a link to buy it on Amazon on the "Book list" page of this blog.