Change - again

Just about everyone I know would rather die than change something they believe.

That's too vague.

Let's say I believe I'm too fat. That can make sense if I look in the mirror and see somebody who looks like a sphere. But for an anorexic, when they look in the mirror they see somebody who looks like a stick.

The reason we say they are 'anorexic' isn't because they look like a stick. It's because they look like a stick and think that they are too fat AND they won't change what they believe.

So how do we react to this?

We call something like this a 'disease' and look for something to do to them to make them change. Probably some chemical we can put in a pill or an injection or a patch or a suppository.

Does it really make sense that an inert chemical can cause someone to have a specific idea? Isn't an 'idea' or a 'belief' more complex and specific than a single chemical?

So what can these 'drugs' really do? - other than slow down or speed up thinking?

If that's all they can do, then 'drugging' people just changes their ability to think - their 'thinking environment' - not their beliefs.

So 'drugs' can't 'cure their disease', although they may make it possible for them to think about it differently. Maybe they it makes them think more ssssllloooowwwwwlllllyyyyy. Maybe it makes them stop thinking at all. Or maybe it just makes them passive so we don't have to think about them at all. Or maybe - as my friend who knows these things says - they generally don't work.

But that's not the point.

The point is: if an anorexic didn't believe he/she was fat, she wouldn't be an anorexic. She'd be a skinny person who knew she was too skinny and would do something about it - like eat some more.

So how do you change a belief?

Take football for example. The team which wins consistently believes that they can win. Not only that, they believe they can win this game. Right now. If they think they can't, they always lose.

What makes them believe this?

It's pretty simple: they have a slogan, a mantra, a rallying cry, a whatever to repeat over and over again. So as long as they can keep telling to themselves they can win, they will win, they're going to win - then they believe they can, will and are going to win.

Is a belief anything more than something we keep repeating to ourselves?

What happens when we stop talking to ourselves about one specific belief? Doesn't the alcoholic or a smoker keep reminding himself that he needs a drink or a cigarette? What would happen if he - instead - reminded himself that he needs an ice cream cone? (Besides getting fat and maybe getting diabetes) Wouldn't he eventually go from being an alcoholic to an ice cream-aholic?

A belief is just a thought. It's not made out of stone or steel or even jello. It's 'mind stuff'. There's two kinds of 'mind stuff'. There are memories and there's 'what I'm thinking now'.

All you can do with a memory is either lose it or drag it out to 'think about it now'. Everything you do and experience is the 'what I'm thinking now' stuff. That's where the anorexic and the alcoholic and the smoker 'belief' exists.

There isn't any automated thought loader which pushes thoughts into your 'thinker' and makes you think them. You get to pick and choose.

Don't believe it? Close your eyes and try to count the thoughts which come up over the next 10 seconds.

If you're like I am, there were a lot of them. Ten, a hundred, I don't know. Just lots and lots of them. I'll bet you 'thought about' just a couple - maybe one or two. What happened to the rest of them? They're like the kids you didn't pick to be on your team: they just wandered off.

The stuff you and I believe - about life, goodness, and - especially - ourselves - are just these familiar little thoughts we keep repeating. And by repeating them, we think their real. And that's all a belief is.

So really, how hard is it to change a belief?

It's easy - if you want to and are brave enough to give it up.

Human Development - kind of

So somehow I went from wherever I was as a young guy to this worn out husk who had to deal with with raising six kids. Was nothing I planned to do, but, well, there it is.

That's not the point - it's just to give you my credentials, assert my authority, bolster my claims, etc etc.

This first point is that I'm writing from my experience - not text book theory or some other academic point of view [I have those also, but not about kids]

Here's the Second Point:

When a kid is just born, they don't do a lot and the way they interact is really different from how they are later on. They're kind of like little animals that just crawl or run around. They don't really argue about anything. Their complaints are very personal and immediate - hungry, wet, cold, lonesome, tired.

After a couple of years something happens. You've been going along saying things like: Please don't do that or Please do this - and almost getting used to the fact that they never really pay much attention and don't seem to remember what you said from one second to the next. But then the thing happens: the kid turns around and looks you straight in the eye and says - very firmly and usually pretty loudly - "NO"!

This is a major breakthrough.

The kid hasn't turned into a monster or become a 'Terrible Two' (as I was told by my mother, over and over again). The kid just now finally noticed that you're trying to get him (or her) to do something that wasn't what he wanted to do.

That's the point when you can finally start teaching the kid how to 'not get run over by a car' and 'to clean your plate' and 'to pick up your toys'. It won't work - at least not for the first 10 or 20 years - but you can now get started and be (relatively) happy with the knowledge that you're not just being ignored. You're being Actively ignored and - believe it or not - all of you talking, pleading, reasoning, and (most of all) the example you set is sinking into that little mind.

After mulling this over for a bunch of years - I've come to the conclusion that this is a pivotal point in all of our developments. It's the point where we realize that we live in a context over which we do not have total control and with which we must learn to interact.

And for a Third Point:

Lora (we're married and four of the kids are her fault) is a certified Montessori method pre-primary instructor. She went to school for a year, did a year internship, read all of Montessori's books and practiced on our kids. Turns out that's enough for her - she prefers ponies and dogs to humans.

Anyway, she has creds as well.

Montessori discovered - by observing kids - that kids go through various phases of development where they are really different. She called them sensitive periods and it's fascinating stuff.

But - to get to the point - there's one thing I wanted to write about here. It's the thing which happens when the fish in the classroom fish tank dies.

The pre-primary Montessori classes have kids in the 3 to 5/6 year range. They generally have a fish tank. At some time during the year one or more of the fish will die.

Here's where it gets interesting.

The kids come in and quickly divide into two groups.

The younger kids look at the fish and say 'the fish is dead' and then go do something.

The older kids look at the fish and say 'the fish is dead. I wonder why the fish died. Was the water too hot? Was it too cold? Did another fish kill it? Wasn't the food right? I think that ...'

You get the difference?

Before something changes, it's ok to just see the dead fish and register it as a fact.

After 'the change' we have to 'know Why'.

I think this is the origin of Why.

You should listen to some of the silly 'reasons' 5 and 6 year old kids come up with. Their logic is not all that bad, but the 'facts' they start from are pretty lame. But that makes sense because the don't have much experience.

So do that for a while - - - and then - if you're brave - listen to some of your friends and neighbors talking about stuff. Things like 'the problem with ... is ... because ...'

When I started listening to adults and comparing it with the stuff 5 and 6 year olds come up with, I got really upset. It's the same stuff!!!

I think everybody is acting like 6 year olds - including the guys who run the countries and big companies.

Doesn't that explain a lot of what's going on?

I'm telling you - the problem is the whole thing is being run by 6 year olds and that's why nothing works. The answer is . . .

Choices [Rant Warning]

I've been thinking a lot about the idea of Choice lately. Not so much any particular choice, but the whole idea itself and how it differentiates us from rocks and water and stuff like that.

It seems to me that one of the distinguishing features of 'life' verses 'non-life' things is that 'living' things get to choose what they do rather than just follow the 'laws of nature'. For example, rocks don't do much of anything except just sit where they are or roll down hill or get knocked someplace else by something else, but a bug can get up and go someplace else - even against gravity, if it wants to.

So what? Well, I've been wondering for a long time why we (that is us 'humans') do such stupid things and - even when we realize they are stupid and we are hurting ourselves - keep doing them. We even go so far as to tell ourselves - and everyone who will listen - how hard it is for us to not do them.

Take eating too much. When I eat too much for a while, I get fat and crabby. Then I feel sorry for myself because (I claim) it's oh, so hard to not eat too much. It sounds like there is an army of bad guys stuffing food into my mouth - but what's really happening is that I'm choosing to pig out. It takes real effort to keep eating when I'm full or when I'm not really hungry.

That one's simple and easy to see. And it's easy to see that if I'm fat, I made myself that way and I did it because I wanted to eat more than I wanted to feel good.

But it goes a lot further than just eating.

I think we've made up all kinds of religious garbage to excuse our disgusting behavior. We make up and believe in gods and devils and genetic forces and team loyalty and goals and success and all kinds of other junk to take the heat off of ourselves. 'The Devil tempted me - and I was weak',
'It's in my Genes - I can't help myself', 'We've got to do it for the Team', ' .. or the Company', '... or our Kids', '... or for Honor', '... or Because That's the Kind of Man/Woman I Am'. etc

It's all a smoke screen.

We do it because that's what we choose to do - just like those guys who strap bombs on themselves and kill a bunch of people.

It's a personal, misguided decision.

The hell of it is, it isn't hard to Stop. It doesn't take Effort to not do something. There really isn't any force making us do this stuff. Want proof? Just anethesize your mind somehow - and you won't be doing all that stuff you think is so hard to not do.

So let's get over it and stop kidding ourselves.

We muck things up, piss each other off, get mad about stuff, drill oil wells places where we can't plug leaks, kill people, destroy the whole bloody planet and everything on it because we choose to.

That's all there is to it.

And that's what makes us different from a nice, peaceful rock.

Understanding

To Understand, to Have Understanding, to Know

What does it mean when we say "I understand"?

Like everybody else - or at least I think everybody else - I used to take it for granted. I thought that I knew what it meant.

Now that I'm getting to know more about what goes on in whatever it is I call my mind, I'm pretty sure I was wrong.

Here's what I've figured out so far.

Thinking

First of all, we seem to think that we think.

Some of us think we think "rationally", but most of us have no idea what that actually means.

It seems to me that we - as a species - have been working at understanding what 'thinking' is for a very long time. At least since the Greek philosophers and the Chinese sages. Probably longer than that - at least 2,500 years or more.

Somehow we've latched on to 'logic' as 'real thinking' and everything else as some sort of minor annoyance.

I don't agree that 'logic' and 'rational thinking' are the real kings and queens of all 'mental processes' and that the rest of whatever goes on in our minds is at most second rate.

And here's why:

Logic - a Necessary Digression

We've studied the hell out of Logic. We've formalized it and we know what it is. Well, those of us who've taken the trouble to study it a little know what it is.

First, what it isn't.

Logic is not sticking 'because' in the middle of sentences. It's not making up 'reasons' for things. And it's not asking and then answering 'why'?

Logic is a rigorous, formal method of evaluating the Truth or Falseness of sentences which are constructed according to specific rules.

First of all, what is a sentence?

In 'Logic' it's a string of symbols consisting of 'propositions' and 'logical connectives'. The 'propositions' are just blobs or words that can have any structure and may or may not mean anything. For the logician, the only thing that matters is that they are either True or False. In fact, for the logician, it doesn't matter at all what True and False mean - only that they are different and only that there are only two possibilities.

The 'logical connectives' are special words which can be used to 'connect' two propositions or sentences. When stuck in between two of these things, the three of them form a new 'sentence'. That 'sentence' is either True or False and the value strictly depends on (1) the values of the two things on each side of the connective and (2) the rules of the connective.

Let's get formal:

• P, Q, and R are all propositions or sentences - which means they have truth values.
• * AND, OR, and IMPLIES are connectives
• Let's add in NOT, which isn't a connective, but it's useful. It's 'logical negation' - which means that if P is True, thenNOT P is False - and vice versa.

So we build sentences by writing P AND Q, Q OR R, P IMPLIES R and things like that. We evaluate these sentences according to the rules:

• if P and Q are both True, then P AND Q is True, otherwise it's False
• if P and Q are both False, then P OR Q is False, otherwise it's True
• if P is True and Q is True or if P is False, then P IMPLIES Q is True, otherwise it's False
• if P is True, then NOT P is False and if P is False, then NOT P is True.

If we add in some Parentheses, we can get really wild and use sentences for propositions and write things like:

((P AND Q) OR ((NOT R) OR S)) IMPLIES Z

We could also write the same thing without the parentheses, but we wouldn't know what it means without using some special rules. Why? Because we wouldn't know if

P AND Q OR NOT R OR S IMPLIES Z

means (P AND (Q OR (NOT R)) ) OR (S IMPLIES Z) or the thing I wrote above.

But that's for really studying 'Propositional Logic' - which you can find in a book. For now, it's not really important.

The important thing is this:

The Truth of the sentence depends completely on the Truth of the basic propositions - that is, the propositions which don't contain any 'logical connectives'. These are the 'Axioms'. It's what you start from.

Everything you write using Logic can be traced back to and completely depends on the Axioms - the Propositions you write down and start from.

This means that Logic only transforms the shape of the original propositions. It can't add anything new.

Working with Logic is like walking around a house and looking at it from different sides. No matter what you do, it's still the same house. Nothing is ever added or subtracted from what it was to start with.

There's more Logic - for example, First Order logic adds 'quantifiers' to the Propositional Logic we've just outline. It adds exactly two: the Universal Quantifier and the Existential Quantifier.

This lets us write richer sentences because we can then write things like: All P is True and At Least One P is True.

Having quantifiers makes is easy to tell when someone is saying something stupid. For example, if somebody says "All cats are mean", you can tell they don't know what they are talking about if you've ever met a cat that wasn't. So you object, and then they say you're being picky and that they really meant "most cats are mean". That is supposed to make it better, but it really
means that they don't really know, but want to think of it that way. So, it's better to keep your mouth shut and just know that they say stupid things.

Also, it helps tell what you can know for sure. For example, when somebody says "you can't do that", but you think it would be a good idea to "do that", all you need to do to prove that
it's possible to "do that" is to find one example where it worked. Then you can ignore them. This is a great help when starting a business, because most everyone will tell you it "won't work", but if you can find an example of when "it worked", you can ignore them because you know it's possible.

There are a lot of things like that.

So Why Logic?

Well, if I want to do something AND I can figure out enough things which are True, then I can use Logic to figure out if the thing I want to do will work.

Or, I can take the thing I want to do and I can see if it's Logically Consistent with a bunch of other things that I have to do or something like that.

Or maybe the thing I want to do has to have something which I can't do. If I can figure that out, then I can avoid trying to do something which won't work.

Logic can keep us out of trouble. It can help us predict if something will work or if it won't.

Knowing things like that saves a lot of time, money, anguish, and other things we want to save. It helps us be successful - whatever that means to each of us.

Logic is reliable.

Why is logic so reliable?

Not magic: Logic is a bunch of rules for figuring out if things will work based on thousands of years of experience.

So Logic is the Answer!

Right?

Wrong!

Propositions

Where do the Propositions come from?

Remember, the Logic just transforms our propositions - our axioms - our guesses of what is right or wrong.

If our Propositions are crap - then all the Logical Reasoning in the world won't make them smell good. It will only be looking at the crap from different points of view.

Crap is still Crap.

One place our Propositions don't come from is 'reason' or 'logic'. We get them by following some other rules.

Scientific Propositions

One set of rules are the ones used in Science: a fact is an independently, verifiable experimental result.

Let's take that apart:

• a result is something which can be measured. This means that there is a mechanical method which transforms something which happens into a number. The mechanical method must be reliable. For example, the diameter of an object. If it's a hard sphere, then that's easy to do; if it's a rectangular solid, then we need more rules (for example, measure each width on a line normal to each face and compute the average of the three measurements); if it's a bag of gas, then we're screwed because we can't reliably measure the diameter.
• an experimental result is a _result_ measured from an activity which can be described precisely. The precision must be sufficient to compute the accuracy with which measurements
• a verifiable experiment is one which can be performed again. In order to do this, the activity of the experiment must be completely described in enough detail that the activity can be performed with the same precision.
• an independent experiment is an experiment performed by a different experimenter, using different equipment at a different time and place from the original experiment. This depends on the precision and completeness of the description and removes any bias the experimenter, location, and time of the first experiment may have introduced into the results.

This is pretty restrictive. It's also pretty slow and pretty expensive. It's also pretty good at building reliable knowledge.

So that's one way of getting propositions. We design experiments and do them to see what happens. We verify them to make sure that we know what to expect. Then we try to figure out rules which describe what we've observed and then test them using Logic to look at the results from different angles - so to speak.

How else can we come up with a Proposition?

Guesses

How about we just guess?

Guessing is good. We do it all the time. Most of the time it doesn't work though.

But often, it's all we have.

Say it's election time and you decide to vote. Who are you going to vote for? You know both of them want to get elected and that both of them will say about anything they think you want to hear. In other words, most of what they say are lies. So you guess. You say "I think this one is more likely to do what I want" and then you pull the vote lever.

Now if you were being "logical", you'd do something else because you know both of them are lying. So maybe you wouldn't waste your time voting. Maybe you'd logic yourself into making a lot of money so you could just bribe whoever won. That would be more 'rational', if you want to get a politician to do what you want.

Emotional Propositions

How about we just claim something we want to be trueactually is?

As far as 'Logic' and 'Reason' goes, this is just fine.Remember, 'Logic' starts after you've got the propositions - it doesn't care where you found them. And inasmuch as 'Logic' is formalized 'Reason', well, the same can be said for 'Reason' as well.

When we do that and use 'Logic', we call that 'Rationalizing'.

We're 'just making up reasons for what we want to do'.

This is how a lot of real disasters are created.

Take starting a war.

Does it really make sense to rip everything apart, destroy somebody else's hard work, their lives, etc etc?

Sure - if you're willing to cause that much pain and you want their stuff.

Or maybe you think you need to think they're evil and that you're so right that you have to stamp out the evil.

But enough of this

Back to Thinking

I think you'll agree that - looked at this way - rational thought isn't really much 'higher' than any other form of 'thought'.

We're really just kidding ourselves.

So what is all this 'thinking' and 'understanding'.

What I 'think' about 'understanding'

When I'm really honest with myself, I say that I understand something when I have a feeling of comfort and confidence that I know what that 'something' will be like the next time it comes up.

If it's a freight train moving along - I 'understand' that it will stay on the tracks and I can control whether or not it squashes me.

Of if I'm trying to sell somebody something - I 'understand' that if I get the price right and am patient enough and advertise it enough, somebody will come along and buy it.

Sounds pretty good - doesn't it.

What Happens if things happen like I Predict?

When things happen the way I predict - then I think I'm pretty smart, I get more confident, and I 'lean on' my 'understanding' even more.

Does that mean that I can make accurate predictions?

Experience says: Well, Maybe. It all depends.

What Happens if things don't happen like I expect?

Well, lots of things.

Mostly I used to ask Why?

Then I'd come up with some Propositions to use to build a logical argument explaining how what I understood should have happened, but didn't.

This would usually involve finding somebody to blame. (If they'd only listen to me or do the right thing or weren't so self centered or . . .)

Then I'd can feel comfortable again because I'd 'know why it happened that way'.

In other words, I'd 'understand'.

(I know you would never do anything like this. You understand things a lot better than I do - don't you?)

And So, . . .

It's just one big circle of self delusion.

If you believe this stuff, you probably feel uncomfortable.

So even if you know it's true, you won't feel that you 'understand' it and will want to try.

See the trap?

(c) Copyright 2010 Mike Howard. All Rights Reserved.

Self Image, Self Identity and All That

Who am I?

Or, more to the point, what is the 'idea' of myself that I identify with?

Or, even more to the point, how do I 'like' to think about myself?

I put 'like' in quote marks because 'like' doesn't necessarily mean 'enjoy' or 'makes me happy', but here it means 'what I keep coming back to because I believe it's true'.

In other words, the way I 'like' to think about myself might not be very nice - if I'm convinced I don't measure up to my ideals.

Everybody 'thinks' of themselves as something - has an expectation of who and what they are. In other words, Everybody 'likes' to think of themselves in a particular way.

That's the setup. Now, here are some questions:

• Am I nothing more than an opinion? Or am I real?
• Can I change 'Who I am' by changing my opinion?
• Is my 'World View' a result of 'Who I am' or is it something I create for my 'Who I am' to live in?
• Do I see and hear the world around me OR do I pick and choose what I hear and know?
• Do I really know 'Who I am'?
• Do I really know my friends? Or do I make them supporting actors for myself?
• Can I live without knowing 'Who I am'?
• How can I avoid living in an Illusion if I continue to 'know' 'Who I am'?

First Hypothetical

Let's suppose that 'Who I am' is an opinion.

Opinions are just ideas that can be changed. They aren't 'facts'.

If I hold one opinion today and another one tomorrow, it's unlikely I will be arrested, burst into flame, or that anything else substantial might happen.

I'll just have a different 'opinion'.

So, with my different opinion, won't the World be different?

Won't my friends become different people?

Won't the boundaries between good and bad and Right and Wrong shift? Won't they have changed just enough so I can make my 'opinion' work - at least as well as my old one did?

All I need do to test this is genuinely change my opinion once and see if this is what happens.

If it works like this, doesn't this mean that 'Who I am' is an opinion? An Illusion? and that I am living in a false world of my own creation?

Do I want to know?

Second Hypothetical

Let's assume 'Who I am' is somehow 'real'. It doesn't matter what this means other than that it is something other than an opinion which can be changed at a whim.

Now one part of my World View ranks everything by how 'good' and how 'bad' it is. There is usually a sliding scale from 'good' to 'bad' with 'saintly' on one end and 'absolute evil' on the other.

Naturally, I will think of myself as more 'good' than 'bad' - no matter how I think about how I live up to my expectations. [for example, if I think of myself as falling far short, then I will still think of myself as 'better' for having noticed this and for admitting it to myself]

So how will this effect my World View? How will I tend to filter and interpret that which I see?

Isn't is natural for me look for the evil and bad - so I am - in contrast - much better 'than average'?

Won't I go out of my way to do so? Won't I respond with much satisfied emotion to my discoveries of the evil in others? Satisfied in my own 'goodness by contrast'?

How can we test this?

Isn't this consistent with both the continuous litany of complaint and criticism - in the press, in entertainment, and in our own, wool gathering minds?

What happens if I see lots of goodness around me? Doesn't that push my 'Who I am' down into the muck of badness - or at least shift me down a little?

If I can't change my 'Who I am', then I will not 'like' myself (and remember 'like' means what I said it means up above). Isn't that hard to tolerate? 'Who do those "goody, goodies" think they are anyway?' Doesn't it seem natural for Cain to kill Abel?

Third Hypothetical

Again, suppose 'Who I am' is an opinion.

Then there must be something which has that opinion.

That something must be able to observe - inasmuch as it has thoughts, the 'opinion' being one of them.

So can this 'something' watch it's opinion and the thoughts it's opinion is thinking? (or maybe the thought's it is thinking for its opinion).

If this is true, then 'Who I am' is an opinion and the 'something' can become aware of this.

How can we test this?

Can we watch our own thoughts? As we think them?

If we can, then this is true and it opens the _possibility_ that the 'Who I am' is an opinion and that it can be changed.

If this is true, then can't psychic trauma be impermanent? And if impermanent, can't it dissipate? And if dissipated, hasn't it been healed?

Further, how is an opinion maintained? It isn't made of wood or metal. It has no substance other than thought. If thought isn't thinked, then is isn't. It's not there. It's gone.

So, if psychic trauma is thought, isn't it impermanent and has to be 'thinked' over and over again in order to be? So isn't not-thinking it the path to it's dissolution?

Is the dwelling on 'the bad things' and 'how sick I am' the cure or the cause of disease and despair?

Fourth Hypothetical

'Who I am' and 'Who You are' are different.

It doesn't matter if they are real or just opinions.

You see the world differently from how I see the world because you must shape your 'world' so it fits your 'Who I am' and I must do the same.

But mine is different from yours, so our 'worlds' are different.

Can I really see 'Who You are'?

Can I do more than guess?

Suppose your 'Who I am' world conflicts with my 'Who I am', from my point of view. Won't I filter and squash what I see and hear to fit my 'Who I am' instead of yours (no matter how honest, just, and polite I think I am)?

So how can I ever see where you don't make my 'Who I am' good and right? And can you see me?

Deep down don't you think you're a little better than me? I know I am a little better than you - or at least a little righter.

Doesn't that prove we can never know each other?

How can we converse?

Aren't we having two meaningless conversations with ourselves while we pretend that the other is there?

Fifth Hypothetical

I find that knowing 'Who I am' leads to an expectation that I will continue to be 'Who I am' and that I interpret and bend everything I see, hear, taste, smell, feel and think so that that will be true. I insist on continuing my existence as I envision it.

Doesn't this mean that I've been living in an illusion?

Can I escape the illusion without giving up this expectation, this prediction of the future?

Realizing this, can I continue to maintain the illusion - knowing it is a lie?

If I give up my expectation that I will continue to be 'Who I am', won't this mean I will change 'Who I am' into something else? And can I tolerate replacing one 'Who I am' with another?

Copyright Mike Howard, 2010. All rights reserved.

A Story

Herman

by Mike Howard, (c) 2009

How it Started

The day the Lemmings ran over the cliff, Herman forgot and went to the park.

When it got dark, he went home – but there was nobody there. That’s when he remembered about the Big Cliff Run.

They were all dead now.

That’s the way it is with Lemmings. He remembered.

Then he cried.

The next morning, when he got up, Herman remembered.

He couldn’t understand what had happened. All his life he’d been taught how to be a good Lemming. Maybe he wasn’t a Lemming?

He felt himself. Felt like a Lemming.

He looked in the mirror. Looked like a Lemming.

He was hungry – just like always – and just like a Lemming.

Then how come he’d forgotten the Big Cliff Run? Wasn’t that supposed to be Instinct? Wasn’t it built into his Jeans? (or was it Genes?) Wasn’t it Inescapable and the Source of All Sorrow?

How could he just forget something that was as much a part of him as his nose?

Something was wrong.

So Herman set of to see Marvin – the big, bulky Lemming On the Hill. Marvin knew everything. Marvin knew all the Old Stories from the Old Times by the Old Lemmings who Knew Everything. Marvin was a Great and Good Lemming. The Greatest and Goodest.

Marvin was so Good that he didn’t go on the Big Cliff Run. It made him ever so miserable not to Go – to hold himself back – but he did it for the Good of Every Lemming!

He had to. He couldn’t let Lemmingness be Lost! Someone had to sacrifice for the Good of All Lemmings. Someone had to tell the Stories. Someone had to make sure All the Lemmings made the Big Cliff Run.

It was a Heavy Burden, but Marvin kept the Faith and Did His Duty.

Marvin

Marvin wasn’t happy to see Herman. In fact he frowned and said something Herman hadn’t ever heard before (which was good, because then Herman didn’t understand what it meant and didn’t know how angry Marvin was).

“What happened,” Marvin asked.

Herman blushed under his fur. “I just forgot,” he said.

”!!!!!,” Marvin exploded!!!!

Herman stuttered, “I just woke up and it was so nice and sunny and so I though ‘I’ll go to the park’ and I didn’t think anything else and so I went and it was nice and the birds were out and singing and the grass was soft and . . .” It all came out in a rush.

Marvin glowered.

“Don’t you remember your lessons?” he asked. “Didn’t I tell you to repeat the Lemming Mantra every morning and every night?” “Didn’t I”

“Yes,” said Herman.

“Well? . . .”

“I just forgot. It was such a nice day, . . . and I just forgot,” Herman said lamely.

“Hmmph!!!” said Marvin.

As Herman trudged down the hill he saw Lonny, Marvin’s apprentice and student dragging a big bag of Cheetos up the hill. Marvin was too fat (oops! too important) to go get his own food, so everyone brought him what he needed. Lonny and Marvin were great Lemmings to hold themselves back and stay alive year after year, thought Herman.

Sighing, Herman walked slowly home.

“I’ll remember Next Year,” he though as he sadly trudged along.

Interlude

Over the next year, the few surviving Lemmings rebuilt. They had new babies who quickly grew up and had more. Marvin and Lonny were busy teaching and preaching. Herman attended all the lessons. He worked very hard at fixing himself so he’d be a Good Lemming. He repeated the stories over and over again. He repeated the Lemming Mantra extra times every day.

But Herman loved going to the park and watching the clouds. Every day it was different. Every minute even.

He marked Big Cliff Day on his calender and as it approached, he worked extra hard at thinking Lemming Thoughts. He Felt the Sorrow. He Felt the Doom. He was a Lemming. He knew what had happened last year – he just hadn’t taken it seriously enough. Hadn’t filled his mind with Lemming Thoughts. He hadn’t repeated Over and Over again what a Lemming did and how a Lemming Thought and how Inevitable everything was.

Lemming’s can’t Change! It’s how they’re Built. It’s Innate. It’s Inevitable. It’s who we Are. It’s Lemmingness!!!!

The night before the Big Cliff Run, Herman worked extra hard at remembering. He laid out his special shoes and everything. Then he went to bed.

The next morning was a beautiful day. Herman woke up earlier than usual. Earlier than everybody else, in fact. Since he was early, he decided to go to the Park One Last Time. So he did.

It was so nice. The clouds were making beautiful swirls. It was almost hypnotic. Lovely. Beautiful. Peaceful. Happy.

Herman woke up suddenly.

He remembered – that he’d forgotten again.

He went home.

Everyone was gone and he was alone again.

This time, Herman sat down and shook his head.

“Something isn’t right,” he thought. He started to go to Marvin, but then stopped. He had an idea – well maybe just the start of one.

Could Marvin be wrong? No!

The Idea

Herman thought and thought and thought and thought and then fell asleep. Thinking is tough work and he wasn’t used to it. All his life Herman hadn’t actually ‘thought’. He’d been a Good Lemming and he’d only repeated what he was told. He’d been told Over and Over what to repeat, so he did it. He repeated the Lemming Mantra. He repeated the Song of Sorrows. He repeated the Five Reasons for Melancholy. He kept the Record of His Life in a little book – where he wrote down Every Bad Thing. He read the book from cover to cover every week (it took longer and longer the more he wrote into it – in fact it was getting to where he didn’t have time to do much else)

Herman did his duty and met with the Other Lemmings. They all took turns telling about the Bad Things, reminding each other how terrible life was. Over and over. And when one of them saw something nice and beautiful, they made doubly sure that everyone took a turn telling what was bad about the Nice Thing and how disappointing it would be. They were very, very good at protecting each other against the Unbearable Pain of False Hope.

But as the year wore on, Herman noticed how much work it was to remember to feel bad. He was tired all the time. He didn’t go to the Park as much.

After a while, he found himself just sitting in his chair looking out the window. Not repeating the Mantra. Not reading the Bad Things book. Just sitting and looking.

That’s when he started really thinking.

What if . . . what if . . . what If . . . WHAT IF LIFE REALLY WASN’T SO BAD?

He used to like going to the park. It was fun. It was fun because he wasn’t Thinking the Bad Thoughts. He wasn’t Remembering the Sorrow.

He had the Thought!

“Maybe thinking the Sorrow Makes the Sorrow.”

And then the Discovery.

“Maybe if I don’t think it all the time, it will Go Away”

Interlude (again)

Herman didn’t know what to do. He’d never had a thought on his own before. He worried and worried that it was Wrong. Marvin Thought and Marvin Taught. Lonny will be the new Thinker and Teacher – once he’s ready. “I’m not Smart enough,” thought Herman.

But the Thought wouldn’t go away. It kept coming back.

It was strange because Herman didn’t have to work at thinking this thought. It just kept coming back. Not always the same and not very clear. It was more like a feeling that said “It doesn’t have to be this way” and “That’s a nice thing, let’s think about it for a while”.

It wasn’t so much the Things he was Thinking about, but how the Thoughts felt. Like the nice fluffy clouds and the warm sun. Nice and peaceful. Calm and serene. Not at all strong and hurting – like he was supposed to think.

Herman finally decided he needed to see Marvin.

So he went.

Marvin was even more displeased. He barked and preached at Herman for over two whole hours. He wouldn’t answer any of Herman’s questions - in fact he just ignored them. Then he told Herman to Go Home, Believe, and Behave.

As he trudged home, he say Lonny dragging another bag of Cheetos up the hill to Marvin. Lonny was tired, so he was happy to stop and talk. Herman told him everything he’d tried to tell Marvin. He finished up with “I just don’t understand. I just don’t understand. I just ,” at which point Lonny interrupted him.

“Look, Herman,” he said, “I like you, even though you’ve got some screwy ideas and I wish I could help you. Marvin’s getting kind of old and he just doesn’t have the patience he used to have. But I don’t have the time right now – but if you’d like to borrow my Book, I’ll let you have it for a bit. I’ve got to have it back on Tuesday, but maybe it will help.”

A book? Herman had never heard of the Book before. He knew how to read and write – like all good Lemmings, but he didn’t know there was a Book. He thought Marvin had learned the Stories from his Teacher and his Teacher from his Teacher and like that.

Lonny was holding out the Book, so Herman took it, mumbling something to cover his embarrassment, and scuttled home.

The Book

When Herman got home, he opened the Book and started to read. It made his head hurt because it didn’t make sense.

“I’ll never understand this by Tuesday,” he thought, so he decided to make his own copy. He got to work, copying the Book.

After that, Herman spent every day reading his copy of the Book. He kept looking for what Marvin had Taught him, but it never really seemed to fit.

He read “Our Thoughts make our World, so Choose your Thoughts Carefully” and he remembered how Marvin had droned over and over what thoughts to think. But it just didn’t feel right because the book said, “The Thoughts you hold Dear will Be your Life – so Think Thoughts of Peace and Joy”.

He read and read and thought and thought and became more and more confused. He thought of going to the Great Marvin, but that frightened him. Then he thought of Lonny. Maybe he could explain it.

So, the next day he waited for Lonny to come by on his daily quest for Cheetos for the Great Marvin.

“Excuse me Lonny, I have some questions about the Book”

Lonny stopped and looked puzzled – or maybe was shocked and stopped so he wouldn’t fall down.

“What Book?” he asked.

“The one you lent me and I copied,” Herman replied.

“The one you copied?” asked Lonny. “That’s impossible. There is only one Book. There can’t be two – it’s Forbidden.”

Startled, Herman looked confused. “But I had to copy it so I could get it back to you on Tuesday. I couldn’t understand it that fast.”

Lonny looked worried. “Please don’t tell anyone.” (meaning Marvin) “Please don’t, tell me you won’t.”

“Sure,” said Herman. “But will you help me?”

“With what?”

“Well, I know what I was taught and I know what the Book says and they’re not the same,” Herman began.

“Oh yes they Are!!!” Lonny said. “You just don’t Understand. That’s why there’s only One Book. You have to Taught How to Read It.”

“Will you teach me?” Herman asked.

“I can’t. You’re not the Student – I am,” Lonny said. “I can’t Teach until I’m the Master and the I can Only Teach the Student. That’s how it is.”

“Well, the Book says that the Master taught his students,” Herman began.

“That’s Right,” said Lonny, “and that’s why there can only be One Student and No One can Teach except the Master.”

“But, it says in the Book that the Master taught lots of students - not all of them learned well, of course, but he taught everyone. I don’t understand.”

“That’s right, you don’t. You see, the Master could only really Teach the Students who learned, not the other students. And those other students went around teaching others Wrong Things.”

Herman scratched behind his left ear. “Hmm. So now the Master doesn’t let anybody else Teach or read the Book because they might get it Wrong?”

“That’s Right,” Lonny replied.

“And Marvin knows How to Read the Book because . . .” Herman trailed off, confused.

Lonny sighed and sat down. “Look,” he said, “Marvin’s Master Taught him and he had a Master who Taught Him and so on – all the way back to the Master who Wrote the Book. That’s how Marvin knows how to Read it and How I’m Learning too.” Lonny looked compassionately on Herman. “You’ll just never understand.”

“Will you help me?”

“I’m sorry, but I can’t,” Lonny answered.

“Well, how about just one question then,” Herman asked.

“OK. Sure. But, just one.”

“Marvin teaches us to remember the Bad things, to Write them Down in our book of bad things and to read it every week. And anytime someone thinks that Bad won’t happen, it’s our Duty to remind them of All the Bad things. The Book says that what we Think is our World. Doesn’t that make our World Bad instead of Good?”

Lonny sighed. “See, you just don’t understand. What’s the worst thing that can happen to you?”

“I really don’t know,” Herman said.

“Think about this: suppose you thought you would get a great big Strawberry Shortcake for dinner tomorrow. You’d spend the whole day and night just thinking about how great that would be. You’d plan the whole next day how good it would taste and comfy and fat your belly would be. Can you imagine that?”

“Oh boy, yeah. I can almost taste it now.” Herman started to drool.

“Ok,” Lonny continued, “now think about how disappointed you’ll be when you don’t get it or if it’s filled with ants or the Strawberries are rotten. Think about that.”

“Yech! That’s terrible,” Herman responded. His fur actually started to wilt.

“So you see,” Lonny lectured, “it’s much, much better to never get your hopes up because that makes it so much farther to fall down. You see thinking Bad Thoughts protects use from disappointments like that – and even worse.”

“That’s why thinking Bad thoughts is Really Good,” Lonny finished. “I hope that helps. Do you see why someone has to Teach you How to Read the Book? And why it’s not Good for You?”

Herman just mumbled.

“Well, I hope that helps you – but I have to go about my duties,” Lonny said, standing up and starting to walk away. Then he stopped, “and remember, please don’t tell any anybody.”

Herman started. “Oh, sorry. Yeah, thanks. No, I won’t tell anyone. Bye”

So, Lonny went off to do his important tasks and Herman sat and sat some more. And thought and thought some more. What Lonny said made some sense, but something just didn’t seem right.

Herman went on like this for a long time. Reading the Book and thinking about what he had been Taught and what Lonny had said. His fur got dull.

One night, very very late, Herman snapped. “I’ll never make sense of it,” he said out loud.

From that night on, Herman quit trying to be a good Lemming. He stopped doing what he’d been Taught. He forgot about the Book. He’d decided to just live the best he could.

Herman no longer wrote in the book of Bad Things. He no longer recited the Lemming Mantra. He began to forget the teachings. He didn’t read the Book – in fact, he forgot about it.

Each day Herman went to the Park. He looked at the trees and the grass. Slowly, the Bad Thoughts didn’t come so often. They didn’t Stay so Long. He didn’t feel so bad. The Great Sorrow lifted.

The Realization

One day Herman saw the Book. Wrinkling his brow, he picked it up and opened to a page at random. It made sense. It was simple. Why hadn’t he understood it before? You really are what you Think. And you can Chose what you Think.

Lonny was Wrong. Marvin was Wrong. Thinking Bad Thoughts didn’t Protect you, it made a Bad World. If the Strawberries are rotten, then just forget about it: there will be fresh ones some day.

The Answer is to Forget about the Bad and Think about the Good!

Herman couldn’t wait to tell everyone.

He ran outside.

The End

Well, I won’t tell about how everyone laughed at him. How no one believed. How Marvin was even More than Displeased (luckily he was too fat to move or he might have squashed Herman flat). Or Lonny’s look of pity.

Nobody believed him. After all, the were Lemmings and he was only a lemming – not a Real Lemming At All. He didn’t understand the Burden that came with Lemmingness – the Great Sorrow – the Inevitability of the Great and Senseless Death, crushed at the bottom of the Big Cliff. He didn’t understand.

On Big Cliff Day, Herman walked out to the side of the road and shouted to them as they ran by: “You don’t have to go! Just go to the Park! Just Forget the Bad Stuff! You have a Choice!”.

The ones who heard him clapped their front paws over their ears so they couldn’t hear – which made it very hard to run with their noses in the dirt. But they didn’t care. They wrapped their misery around themselves proudly and – bleeding and with broken teeth – plowed on toward the cliff.

All the while, Marvin sat on his hill – praising their Lemmingness, while he ate his (final) bag of Cheetos. He would not live to see another Big Cliff Day. It was now Lonny’s turn to be the Master.

It slowly dawned on Herman that they would defend their misery with their last dying breath rather than change their minds. “They think they are Lemmings,” he said, softly, under his breath, “They think that if they change their minds about something, they won’t be themselves.”

So, Herman walked to the Park and watched the day go by.

He was sad.

Then he realized that, while he now knew, he couldn’t help them. They didn’t want a better life. They wanted to feel secure in the life they already had – so they only listen to Lemmings who will tell them that they are right. Lemmings who confirm their misery. He was just a lemming.

But that’s OK.

So, he decided – right there – that if anybody asked, he would tell them, but that he wouldn’t bother anybody any more. (the thought of those Lemmings pushing their noses in the dirt was just too much to bear, even though it was kind of funny)

The End

Why I hate Idea Men

Ever shoot a rifle and miss the target? Well, if you haven't here's how you miss: you're aim is off by just a little bit.

The same thing happens when you're building software - or anything, for that matter.

I've spent about 40 years building systems of various kinds - mostly software implementations to 'solve' some problem. The process is pretty straightforward and goes like this:

1. Try to figure out what you're going to do.
2. Pick the most important parts and the most important actions and interactions between the parts.
3. Pretend that is all there is in the world and build some software which mimics everything you've thought of. By the way, these parts, actions and interactions are the 'model'.
4. Test it until it works well enough to do the job.
5. Knowing what you now know, go back to step 1 and do it all over again.
6. Repeat step 5.
7. Repeat step 6.

You get the idea.

Nobody is ever right the first, second, third, or even the 'last' time.

Models aren't reality - we just work on them until they are 'close enough'.

What's this got to do with Idea Men?

Idea Men do parts 1 and 2, then they get somebody else to do step 3.

Then they blame the guys who built the thing in step 3 because they don't want to do step 4.

Finally, they won't do step 5 because they're 'right' and the guys who built it are all incompetent and that's the reason it doesn't work like they said it would.

Then the Idea Men get promotions and raises.

Crap

Reality and Stuff Like That

Believe it or not, I spend far too much time thinking about what is real and what isn't.

It seems a lot of people seem to think that there are lots of realities and lots of equally valid versions of Truth. This seems like fuzzy thinking to me. So fuzzy that it just doesn't make any sense. [where are you going to put all these versions of Truth - if there isn't a universal Truth which contains them all?]

Anyway, here's what I've come up with: (nothing original here - much stolen from Lao Tzu's work)

The first thing to be clear about is 'how do we think'. 'Cause if we understand that, then we can understand what we think is 'real'.

As nearly as I can tell, we start out by classifying stuff as 'this' and 'everything else'. Some people call this 'dualistic thinking', but my opinion is that it's simply a way to simplify the cacophony of sensory input we are inundated with. It also lets us find 'patterns' so we can form 'habits' to simplify plodding though daily life.

Anyway, when you add some properties to these 'classifications', you get a 'model'. It's a model because the 'thing' has behaviors associated with it. Like a window lets in light and a tea pot holds tea.

The BIG CATCH is when we confuse the 'model's we construct with the real world we live in. The 'model' world is really an illusion we've created - but which we treat as real.

What is 'reality'? That's tough because we're so used to classifying, finding patterns, and creating models that we aren't equipped to perceive - let alone process - what's actually out there.

Anyway - that's what I think is going on. It also answers the quest of why we argue so much:

we're all living in different illusions - not different realities - and our illusions are only loosely based on 'reality'.

There are a lot of conclusions you can draw from this - but this is plenty for now.