I have not written anything in a quite a while. There has been so much to digest over these past few years and indeed, my mind and my patience have been stretched; perhaps to the point of feeling that there are not enough words (and sometimes patience) in the universe to fill it.

It is hard to distil it all down into a few paragraphs, and I apologize for not having accomplished that very well here. But when every corner of the human psyche has been and continues to be revealed, and the collective mind (regardless of resistance) is being stretched to such an extent, being ‘too wordy’ seems forgivable.

So here goes.

Here I am, craving an undiluted experience, one which won’t ‘try to convince me’ it is good or good for me: It will just be.

I do not want something that will insist itself upon me and then subversively punish me for not submitting to its unilateral design.

I do not want something that needs editing, vetting, or sussing out. I do not want something obfuscating, or which makes promises but never delivers. I do not want something that constantly reminds me of the mistakes I am making, or have made, or all the ways I or my work is inadequate.

I need something that frankly, I struggle to define.

I know whatever it is I crave is intangible and immeasurable. In my searches, I came up with this: I crave to know how to bring the matters of Love and Trust back into the world – how to truly stretch the mind – and then, to bond more deeply, through action, with this invisible super glue called Love.

I needed and continue to need something Super Natural.

I crave something involving pure sensations, with minimal mind chatter, boredom, doubt, fear or insecurity, which will act like a cancellation wave to all low vibration distractions. I needed and continue to need something so intense it would and will shock me back into myself, and once there, further defibrillate my senses into new dimensions of feeling, gratitude, satisfaction, health, wisdom and love.

I was and am looking to unify and merge with what I consider to be the Ancient Holy essence of ‘no lie and no try’.

That scratches my itchy brain. That was what I craved immersion in: The extraordinary mystery.

Enter ‘The Iceman’. For those of you who are not familiar with Wim Hof, I invite you to make his acquaintance. A most intriguing man, he chose to transform his crushing grief (the suicide of his wife) into vitality and joy, and by doing so, accomplished what had been previously thought to be ‘physically impossible’. Here is a video of him walking Jordan and Mikhaila Peterson through his breathing technique, and a video interview between him and tennis champion, Novak Djokovic.

Wim Hof demonstrates in real time, the magic of the mind and of transmutation itself. I decided to follow in his inspiring footsteps and began dipping my feet into something I was both entirely uncomfortable and relatively unfamiliar with: Cold.

This was not easy for me. I have Multiple Sclerosis and typically, my right leg feels as if it is submerged in a ‘too big for me’ rubber boot filled with icy slush. If stress is bad, this sensation creeps further and further up my body, resulting in a loss of feeling altogether. This ‘short circuiting’ stems from damaged myelin sheaths and nerves, and feels as if it comes from the inside of my bones but has no specific point of origin; no ‘place’ where I can just rub it back to feeling and warmth. It is very strange and hard to live with.

I did not relish the idea of stepping into very cold water, and potentially submersing my whole body in this ‘no feeling’ feeling. It made little sense to do so. But I thought, maybe if I choose to enter this realm, my systems might receive something of a recharge or reboot. Maybe my choice to do this would make a difference in my outcome. Having choice is fundamental to being human, after all. Without it, we are not really free.

As for my outcome, my choice to enter this new, cold dimension has indeed had a massive and powerful impact on my spirit, mind and body, in that order.

Every time I step into the water, a new but familiar, shockingly distilling set of sensations arises. I sense an unfolding of layers; as if a doorway to a mysterious path has manifested. It is cold in there, but it is also so much more than that.

There’s no lie in there. There is no try in there. There is just me and the pure, clear sensations of this perpetually moving water medium; nothing else exists when I’m out there. The cold is true. The cold is truth. The cold is exactly what it presents itself to be, and it asks nothing of me.

There exists just me and the water, in a strangely mesmerizing relationship, where the flickeringly thin and thick layers of it are as sheeted and limitless as my mind is becoming (as all minds are, when they are unfolded).

There is no wanting to be elsewhere. There exists just me, watching and feeling my feet move, abundantly happy that I can. Feeling my feet touching the sand through the water – seeing this through the wobbly diffraction of the clear water on calm days – until numbness takes over and I cannot feel much at all, there is just me, seeing the dance of the sun in the water. There exists just me, merging with something much bigger than me.

On days like today when the air is cold and the water is big, I can float in her, letting the waves bob me around like kelp. I can let go of control because she’s in control. I can just float in this powerful medium, where magical things happen; where poetry flows, like the words of Atticus: “Holding her was never enough. I needed to melt her into me, to mix our colors like paint, to fuse our atoms and make us one— but that as well would never be enough.”

Well, to me, it is. I cannot hold the ocean, but she sure holds me. It feels as if I melt into her and our energies mix and our atoms fuse and we become one. And indeed, that is enough.

Every day in the water, I become like water. Moving, still, fluid, not trying to be anything I simply am not. And this process amazes me. I am amazed that I am here. I am amazed that I have not been crushed by the many things that could have crushed me in the old and even cold dimensions. I am amazed by the ocean’s effortless power to bring me into her fold; to allow me to feel and sense instead of think! I am astonished that I don’t feel electrical shocks from the inside when inside the water, but instead, an electrifying cold from the outside, as if indeed, it is rebooting me. Connecting with me: To me, through me, as me.

I am still not sure if it’s my imagination or not, but after doing this for months, and staying in for up to an hour, the sensation of cold is always replaced by a feeling of pleasant warmth. I suppose this could be hypothermia setting in, but acclimatization is a real thing. It works the same way as desensitization, only in the case of cold water therapy, as far as I can tell, it doesn’t desensitize: It re-sensitizes.

Walking or swimming back and forth in it, breathing in and out in a ‘circle’ pattern, brings me right back to my Self; into the warmest parts of my heart. When I exit, I feel nothing extra, nothing trying, nothing lying, nothing dying; just pure stillness and movement in being.

I cannot live in the ocean, unfortunately. I am not a fish. And I notice now that MS flare ups occur when I do not attend to my morning ritual – cold water walking. I only miss my visits when I have no choice but to attend to other matters, but the cold ocean has taught me that my warm efforts are appreciated and worthwhile: That I AM making a difference; that when I am in there, praying for strength, courage, peace, balance and harmony for all beings, in and for all dimensions, all dimensions echo back.

Today, I asked her if she had anything to impart to me. I heard back: Remember that what you anticipate is only that: An anticipation or an idea of what will be. Whatever anxiety you might feel from ‘what it might be like’ is as real as any idea, and reality is not the same thing as ideas plucked from the possibility realms.

What merges ideas with reality is the fact that everything feels the vibrational effect of our actions. As examples, when I stroll through the water in love, or pick up garbage, or give warm greetings to all – due to the Nature of quantum entanglement – everything feels the effects of it, whether I notice or not. Same thing goes for walking around in hate or fear, leaving garbage on the ground, or being an asshole: Everything feels it. Our actions reverberate and they do matter.

We matter, and since matter is just energy in another form, we energy.

The ocean and patterned consequences remind me that eating good food, drinking clean water, engaging in good conversation and human connection, getting exercise, absorbing sunshine, taking water walks, earthing and meditating are all great ways to nourish – arguably – the most important relationship of all: That with health and vitality. The health of the relationship with Self, others and surroundings – with that which only and genuinely wishes for us to be optimally healthy, in all ways – is here for us, always. We have only to recognize it.

The ocean has taught me how to remove the distractions. When they are gone, one cannot help but feel what exists underneath them. The Undiscovered Self: Remembering the mystery and the super natural state of being.

Beyond a doubt, my entire world has shifted for the better since entering the cold ocean. She has taught me more about patience, discipline, healing, sensation, tolerance, gratitude, humility, truth, purity, balance, harmony, strength, courage and love. To immerse oneself in her is to find much more than one’s self; it is to discover that ideas of self are not what self is.

In my experience, who we are is not created or defined by attempts to identify or delineate ourselves. In fact, this only fragments us further. Who we are is what we are when the distractions and impure influences are silenced, and the poetry in our hearts pours forth; where “everything passes and only the truth remains.” ― Fyodor Dostoevsky

Thanks for reading.

Photo Credits

Photos courtesy of Mary Rose

So I placed my order and waited for the delivery truck.

The company sent me an email confirming the order and provided me with a tracking number and an estimated delivery date. Now, I’m over 40, and I grew up in a less complicated world.

People seemed to be less stressed, and when you purchased something back in the 50’s, you went to a store and handed over the paper money, and the new item was now yours. There was no internet. There didn’t seem to be as many “bad” people around. Maybe there was, but anyway, home delivery from far away places was unheard of.

In any case, I was excited about receiving a sweatshirt and hat with my cousin’s name on it, as this is his “merch” and he’s slightly famous where I live. I waited patiently, and 2 weeks went by – nothing was delivered. Well, that’s what I thought.

When I finally called the contact number, the company said that the parcel was delivered 4 days after it was purchased. I should have my new clothes by now. But I didn’t.

Porch Pirates – Don’t Let them Get Your Stuff!

After much investigating, I discovered that there are dishonest bad people who follow delivery trucks around cities, watching them drop items when no one answers the door, and then they swoop in and steal the item.

These wonderful people are called “porch pirates”. That meant someone other than me is wearing my new hoody and hat with my cousin’s name on the items. Great.

Here’s a news video I found on porch piracy. If you’ve never heard of this before, and you receive a lot of packages, it’s probably time you learned about this!

I soon found out that I wasn’t alone.

According to a survey, 31% of respondents have had a package stolen from their doorstep by these porch pirates.

After chatting with lots of friends, I noticed that over half of them had heard of this very recently and were trying to not let it happen to them.

Online shopping is becoming more and more popular.

How easy it is to buy something from a company with a website and have it delivered to your door in a couple of days.

You save time and money buying from the internet, and especially during busy holidays like Christmas, you avoid the “rush” and the stress. Retailers like Amazon are looking into this matter and are trying to make your online purchases very safe.

If you purchase items online frequently, the bad guys will know where you live, and also watch your house to find out when you are not there. Things could get worse than just stealing from your front door step.

Check out this home owner’s strategy for dealing with this problem.

Walmart, Whole Foods, and soon Loblaws, are providing consumers with online shopping and home deliveries.

These companies are even going to bring the food into your house and put it in your fridge and pantries. This sounds very unsafe to me, but apparently there are enough shoppers out there to get these very large companies to buy into the online home delivery idea.

Homeowners are purchasing secure containers and then providing the delivery company with the access code – not a bad idea! Even though delivery companies like UPS believe that this type of crime is low, they are incorporating different secure pickup techniques for their customers, just in case.

Amazon recently launched something called, “Amazon Key”, where customers install an electronic lock at their homes so delivery personnel can open it and drop packages inside the house, under the surveillance of a camera.

Ways to Prevent Porch Piracy / Theft

While these new online shopping and home delivery programs bring their own set of security issues, there are ways to reduce the theft of packages by the porch pirates. If you love the convenience of online shopping and home delivery, you might want to incorporate some of these tips into your lifestyle …

• Schedule deliveries when someone is home.
• Use tracking numbers and email and text notifications to closely monitor when the package will arrive.
• Use a postal drop locations for receiving packages, and locked mailboxes.
• Have your package delivered to a workplace or a friend’s house, where you know they will be safe.
• Install outdoor security cameras where packages would be placed upon delivery. Make sure the camera is set up so that it captures the person’s face.
• Always shop on secure sites always begin with https:// <– The “s” is very important here, as it indicates security.

Thanks for reading, and good luck thwarting those porch baddies!

Photo Credit

Porch Delivery from pexels

Guest Author Bio
David Fox

My name is Dave Fox and I am a visual artist and blogger from Cambridge, Ontario, Canada. Over the years, I’ve blogged on a number of topics, from travel, to art history, to coffee, musical instruments, and more. I’ve blogged before, and I’ll blog again – just you wait and see!
Blog / Website: David Charles Fox Art

Now, as I’m writing this, a reprinted story of mine –originally written almost a decade earlier – just chimed into my email from a long-time publisher of my work. I kid you not! Wow… the things that make you go hmmm!

What are the odds of having this re-appear at the same time I’m writing about the quality of my current work? As I read it again, I can honestly say that the initial quality has stood the test of time… at least my time.

I ask myself: am I still maintaining and increasing my link to that same standard of quality? It’s like being reminded of a bigger picture. As President Abraham Lincoln said, “I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.”

So, why would anyone rush the process when so much of it is out of our hands? Is this about revival? Sometimes I feel that I should write faster and produce more. But then, I would have to deal with personal disappointment if the piece didn’t measure up to my own standards: first get good; then get fast.

My blog stories also appear in various publications including ‘The Morcom Report and Laffs’ by Editor / Publisher, Pat Moauro. When I reached out about this, he graciously responded with words of wisdom, saying “We often are our own harshest critic – never quite satisfied… one’s writing is never ‘finished’ – we can always improve.” Paraphrasing Ernest Hemingway, Pat added, “Easy reading is hard writing.”

Leonard Cohen also advised against perfectionism… waiting for our perfect offering. Plus, everyone must deal with deadlines which leaves me wondering: Do I lose something by rushing the process?

Or, maybe, the sparse time allowance is a blessing since it forces me to efficiently produce my 500-word type stories so they’re readable and offer something of value. Yet, every word must help make the main thing, the main thing!

A seasoned author once asked me if anything can be said in just 500 words. I said I didn’t know, but it takes all my time. Abe Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address in roughly 300 words; John Lennon wrote “Imagine” in approximately 130 words (plus he had to create the song!) Maybe it isn’t fair to compare myself to pure genius, but their example shows how you can learn to say more with less – be it plain hard work or catching lightning in a bottle. “Whatever gets you through the night (it’s alright)” (172-word song by John Lennon, but who’s counting?)

In the end, writing for the love of it must be the biggest hit of all… we’re always coming back for more.

“With a Little Help from My Friends”
~ The Beatles

That’s the way I figure it. – FP

Photo Credit

Image from Pixabay

First published at fredparry.ca

Guest Author Bio
Fred Parry

Fred Parry lives in Southern Ontario. He is a lover of people and a collector of stories, music, wisdom, and grandchildren. His raison d’etre? “I’m one of those people who believe that if my work serves the common good, it will last; if not, it will die with me. As a freelancer – including ten years as a Torstar columnist – I still believe that’s true.” His book, ‘The Music In Me’ (2013) Friesen Press is also available via Indigo / Chapters.

Blog / Website: www.fredparry.ca

On surface, even the psychologists and sociologists appear to get full meaning of one particular phenomenon only peripherally: empathy. Collectively, they come at it off-center. I say ‘phenomenon,’ not because its origins or explanations for its existence are somehow controversial. But because in its own right it’s a truly remarkable form of intelligence that isn’t given its due. As popularly defined (in the present tense), empathy is a [learned] ability to understand and feel what another person’s experiencing from their frame of reference; from their perspective. Shallow as that may come across, it bears a mountain of profundity packed into a dollop of simplistic words. Borders on sounding trite, as though commenting on today’s weather. Almost ironic. However, less baffling is how so few of us only experience and express baseline empathy with any degree of fluency. That’s because we have to first experience it internally before we can express it externally.

Make that Three Intelligences Instead of Two

Many well-informed readers were just getting used to the notion of possessing two intelligences: the conventional one—ability to think and reason, or IQ—and the new kid on the block, emotional intelligence, or EQ. Baseline and existential empathy are my terms for a third form of intelligence, also having innate origins, but can only develop and flourish through accrual of instructive life experiences and studied examination. That said, empathy therefore is not one of those nice-to-have human attributes. Quite the opposite, we should care deeply about collectively possessing it, and even more so, of having mastered it.

From a natural selection perspective, nature did its part, by selecting for empathy to be passed down to us, so-called modern humans. Along with other mechanisms favoring our ancestors’ survival, many possessed a small cluster of mirror neurons in their brain. They’re a special class of nerve cells that enabled our ancestors to sense when harm and hardship were experienced by their kin; possibly inspiring cooperation and further bonding. This early form of empathy was likely rudimentary, mainly cognitively sensed, absent of an emotional undercurrent (save, perhaps, fear when fear was situationally pertinent). The cognitive side is referred to as explicit or cognitive empathy. Where one’s understanding is clear, direct, and relatively accurate with regard to matching another person’s stated perspective on a personal experience being shared. But there’s an even lesser degree of empathy to first get through developmentally.

The average child is likely to first develop transient empathy: under the right emotional condition, when in the company of a friend or relative (i.e., relater) of close bonds, who then relates some personal experience: the average child is likely to form a mental carbon copy of the relater’s shared perspective—that is, explicit empathy. She or he may also feel a rough equivalent of one or more emotions conveyed, or maybe even being exhibited just then by the relater. But also unlikely to be at a comparable strength of being all-consumed by that emotion, as may be the relater’s case. But at least enough to have stirred the child’s genuine concern. As its name suggests, think of transient empathy as still lacking adequate ‘experiential diversity and instruction’ to apply it accurately and reliably at a baseline level.

Importance & Value of Empathy

Without empathic intelligence, or EMPQ (distinguishing it from emotional intelligence/EQ), our capacity to relate to each other in this increasingly complex and volatile world renders us intellectually and emotionally illegible. As far as straightforward, more or less antiseptic transactions go, we’d be okay; but otherwise, we’re at the cusp of being interpersonally illiterate. We won’t get accurate readings on others, nor they from us. We’ll forever be forming wrong assumptions, interpretations, and conclusions. Instead of helping, for many instances we’ll be hindering. We’ll be self-banished to some away corner of interpersonal relationships, relying continually on shallower forms of relating two-dimensionally to one another. In this manner, submitting ourselves to ineffectualness in the most somber of situations. Even more abysmal, when we’re most needed by a dear friend or relative who’s relating to us an upsetting experience, we’d come up embarrassingly short—worst-possible-moment impotent—as their entrusted confidant for mending and restoring their former sense of life balance.

In short, we wouldn’t have the kind of (existential) empathy that’s capable of fueling the emotions and emotional stamina to go the actionable distance of ‘doing right’ as each situation suggests. More on this, momentarily. An empathy glossary supplies a few relevant terms, eliminating any confusion.

The Six Levels of Rational-Emotional Response Given to Others

As complex as life is, and as humans are, it’s helpful to view this third form of intelligence, EMPQ, through a Rational-Emotional Hierarchy of Responses that are possible for any given personal situation being described by another individual. Strictly factual and instrumental types of responses aside, there are six levels, listed next, in descending order of greater intellectual and emotional dexterity being harnessed:

1. Distressed/Distraught – A blunt emotional reaction to a relater’s account of their personal experience. The ‘relater’ in this instance isn’t relating per se; they’re basically reacting with their own set of triggered emotions, one of those likely being anxiety.
2. Sympathize – feel and express any combination of pity, sorrow, and compassion in response to another person’s personal account of having fallen upon adversity. The strength of their feelings can be intrinsically moving, but it has no relation to an accurate grasp of a relater’s perspective; even less likely, that their feelings will mimic those of the relater.
3. Explicit/Cognitive Empathy – comprehending enough of a relater’s perspective to produce one’s own clear, direct, and accurate account of what they’d experienced. Which means they ‘get it,’ but can’t relate to it on a deep personal level. Its understanding remains more or less academic, two dimensional, distant and detached. Mainly because the emotional component is thoroughly missing. They may be feeling something, but their ability to grasp the relater’s perspective hasn’t raised the same attendant emotions as the relater’s. Persons whose empathic intelligence never progresses to include the emotional component are highly unlikely to give compassion and aid to a relater, no matter how tight is their bond.
4. Transient Empathy – An incipient version of empathy, with adequate explicit empathy on the cognitive side, and less-developed emotional mirroring of what a relater feels on the affect side. In plainer terms, this is beginner’s empathy; raw, immature, inexperienced.
5. Baseline Empathy – Ability to understand a relater’s perspective and feel the same or a similar feeling state to a modest degree. The empathizer has been ‘moved’ by what they know-and-feel; but if a relater’s hoping for some form of behavioral response from the empathizer to somehow improve their situation, movement is likely to be between minimal and deficient. Naturally, the empathizer cares about the relater’s circumstance; it’s the attendant feelings that lack sufficient strength and stamina to be actionable and go to whatever behavioral distance appears expedient. Yet for many interpersonal situations, just lending a compassionate and supportive ear is more than enough show of caring.
6. Existential Empathy – This is a well-rounded, seasoned, versed to a fault, form of empathy. It is a practiced and instructed level of empathy said to be accomplished because of its predictable accuracy both in grasping a relater’s perspective and in mirroring the feelings or feeling state of a relater. And for predictably experiencing empathic charge and insightfulness as well. Empathizers who’ve empirically gotten to this level of empathy usually possess high emotional intelligence as well: they’re able to regulate their own emotions and not let emotional mirroring become self-injurious and destabilizing. Such empathizers are intuitively versed to apparently know the right action to take on behalf of a relater when some form of follow-on action appears to be indicated. Their emotional stamina enables them to see their way through to bring about resolution to whatever ensuing action had been undertaken.

As just alluded to, existential empathizers possess empathic insightfulness: the capacity to fairly accurately extrapolate from a relater’s personal account of their experience other additional meanings and implications that were inadvertently omitted in the telling. A seasoned empathizer would be able to discern which, if any, extrapolated meanings and implications would benefit the relater if the empathizer were to share them; or perhaps they’d be shared to further embolden or improve a relater’s current condition.

Existential empathizers, as some readers may have already surmised, have a rich history of experiencing personal hardship, challenge, and a myriad of positive and negative emotions accompanying a diverse range of difficult-to-traumatic life situations. They’ve coped, survived, failed, and succeeded along the way. For their effort they’ve also accrued empathic drive: those same copious experiences with observing and expressing empathy now enable them to bring a richer, more robust, repertoire of prompt and total comprehension of a felt-moment than can that of a baseline empathizer, for example. Existential empathizers’ internal inspirational drive, or élan, is already there, latent for the moment, until they’re again moved to feel and express empathy.

Capacity to feel and express empathy can be lopsided. Some baseline and existential empathizers may be far more fluent in relating to other persons’ adverse experiences than to their positive ones. But especially noteworthy is the double-bind situation: where the culprit of a bad situation has imposed adversity on another person, the relater, who now relates to the culprit exactly what s/he has instigated. Is the culprit able to empathize at all from baseline? Or only explicitly at best, with their emotional side defensively shutdown to preserve a wounded ego, fantasized self-image, and reeling self-respect?

Based solely on personal experience—which is both anecdotal and empirical—the majority of persons in such double-bind roles are going to be baldly inept at empathizing. In today’s reality, they’ve a hard enough time getting to the mile markers of admission-of-wrongdoing and sincere apology. The marker for tapping into empathy’s too much farther along, too remote. Even research bears this much out: in general, American ability to empathize is declining.

Empathy Epicenter for Interpersonal Literacy

I encourage readers to kindle their innate sparks of empathic expression. To put themselves in front of, and embrace, personally harsh and trying circumstances, because—seemingly paradoxically—the more they do so, the better person they become. We’re built to overcome adversity, the sine qua non of survival. Not turn away from it. It’s what makes us ubiquitously relatable to others’ misfortunes.

One cannot shop for the kind of repertoire we’re talking about. It has to be earned, learned, well-versed, and reality-tested before it can ever be owned. It has to be diverse in order to represent life as we know it. It has to be prudent and practical to merit actionable undertaking on a relater’s behalf.

There are no downloadable apps, either, to turn to. It all comes from inside. Its genesis lies within EACH READER of this paper. Hopefully, their parents have made a significant contribution during those formative years. If not, there may be some ‘catching up’ to do before they achieve baseline or, more trying yet, existential mastery status.

But the reward is that their baseline- or existential-empathy quotient means they’re at least less likely to be: ending cherished relationships for wrong reasons; reading people incorrectly, drawing false inferences, and thusly taking inappropriate action; making matters worse when interceding on behalf of a maltreated friend or relative; proving to be the wrong choice when a disgruntled coworker turns to them for moral support; the dumbfounded, fumbling bystander when an absolute stranger gets injured or psychologically paralyzed by an accident or equally traumatic incident where they’re first on scene. In a word, people will need them. Especially in these uncertain, self-absorbed times, they need them to be that kind of person with a high level of empathic fluency.

So, please: be that kind of person.

Guest Author Bio
Benjamin Ruark

Benjamin Ruark’s first career was in behavioral psychology before shifting to business and industry in the practice of performance engineering under the title of Learning & Development consultant, also Continuous Quality Improvement consultant. Now retired, he writes essays on a number of eclectic subjects of personal interest.

But, here’s the rub. According to the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, for centuries after his death, there were thousands of tribute copies of the classic Strad violins made bearing labels that read “Stradivarius.” Therefore, the Smithsonian advises, “… the presence of a Stradivarius label in a violin has no bearing on whether the instrument is a genuine work of Stradivari himself.”

The Strad – likely played at the church concert – could still be valuable in today’s market; but, the odds of it being a genuine Stradivarius would be like winning the lottery… which is good because you’ll need millions to buy one.

But are original Strads, like the famous 300-year-old “Red Violin”, worth all the movie hype and expense over newer ones made today. The answer appears to be no. Professional violinists are unable to consistently tell the difference.However, classical cellist Yo-Yo Ma, who plays a Stradivarius, declares it “has a soul and imagination.” This ‘X’ factor may be because of the density of old growth wood then – not available now. It’s a classic blend: aged-old beauty and sonic science.

Yet, just putting an expensive instrument into someone’s hand does not a beautiful sound make. As Malcolm Gladwell states in his bestseller, The Outliers, genius is over-rated. Success is not just about innate ability. It’s combined with a number of key factors such as opportunity, meaningful hard work (10,000 hours to gain mastery), and your cultural legacy.

I remember as a kid playing our piano for hours long into the night, privately grieving some profoundness hard to articulate (It happens!) …slowly, painfully, pulling another scab off of my soul only to be healed with my own tears. As author and poet Charles Bukowski declared, “Find what you love and let it kill you.” With passion comes pain… and 10,000 tears, maybe.

For years, meeting at various hotels for business, I’d seek out and quietly play their publicly available piano. Every piano was different; but, early one morning playing some melancholy tune – lost in my own thoughts – an old man came over seriously asking, “Boy, how’d you learn to play like that … in prison?”

I’m as nothing; but, tapping into something special, ethereal even, is everything.

It got me thinking: how often have I really thought of others and their well-being? One way or another, we all have ‘Red Violins’ worth of service. We may think it’s trivial; but, it may be priceless to others. I stand in awe of the genius that exist all around us: from the creation of a Stradivari, to the artistry of a Yo-Yo Ma bringing it to life.

We have opportunities to provide a grand symphony of building things up, note-by-note.
So, “Roll over Beethoven and tell Tchaikovsky the news” – like Chuck Berry proclaimed it!

Photo Credits

Photo by Fred Parry – All Rights Reserved
First published at fredparry.ca

Guest Author Bio
Fred Parry

Fred Parry lives in Southern Ontario. He is a lover of people and a collector of stories, music, wisdom, and grandchildren. His newspaper column, Music in Me, can be found in ‘The New Hamburg Independent’ Metroland Media. His book, ‘The Music In Me’ (2013) Friesen Press is Available from Amazon and Indigo / Chapters.

Blog / Website: www.fredparry.ca

Dear World
when I saw
you for the first
time, there was
a deep sigh
in my soul –
I knew idealism was a lie
 

Part of a series of short verse

Photo Credits

Photo is public domain from Pixabay

There are
secrets poets keep
deep within their hearts
like the first time
it was broken
then the last time it was taken
and we keep the secrets of quiet days
when God speaks such gentleness in us
that we cry, cry from the depth of meaning
meaning so many miss
and we share them
in words
eloquent
sometimes simple
sometimes with a hyphen
to join one thought to the next

But those secrets are hard for us to share
they aren’t the secrets of who we forgot
who we never loved, who we loved 
and sometimes who we never knew
they are the secrets of the universe
tucked somewhere between our pen
and our desire to be heard
it is as if, as if
God is asking us
“what are you going to do,
sit there and say nothing?
sit there in your writer’s solitude
while the world falls apart?
do something…”

So we do
and for most of us
if not all of us
it is the most painful
of experiences
we go from those quiet days
into louder ones
filled with know-it-all critics
and blow-hard agents
and then rejections of poems
we kill something in that quiet
but we want to break it
break it and for that
we are willing to have the world
gaze upon our words as if they knew us intimately
and they want to
and they need to
how else will they explain their very
existence

Photo Credits

Photo of hand from Flickr – some rights reserved
Photo of Poetry Blast courtesy of Melinda Cochrane – all rights reserved 

I suppose it could come from the fact that the term “Atheism” is often used in conversations.  The addition of that “-ism” to the end of a word tends to identify something as an ideology – Catholicism, Fundamentalism, Islamism, Buddhism, etc.  So it is possible that it is through this unfortunate terminology that people have come to misunderstand what identifying as an “atheist” means, at least at it’s most basic definition.  

Sans Deities  

The word “atheist” comes from the Ancient Greek word atheos which means without gods or godless.  It is a simple statement of disbelief in a god or gods.  Unlike many other “-isms”, it does not bring with it any other doctrinal requirements. There is no creed.  There is no standard set of beliefs that all atheists accept.  That makes being an atheist in today’s society all that much more complicated.  

But it should be simple.  My understanding of atheism, being an atheist, is a simple thing – I am not convinced, as of right now, of the existence of any supernatural being I would acknowledge as a “god.”  Interestingly, many people prefer to use the term “agnostic.”  Agnostic derives from the Greek agnostos meaning “that which is unknown or unknowable.”  Which raises a subtle and interesting question.    

If an atheist is not yet convinced of the existence of a god and an agnostic believes that the existence of a god is unknown or unknowable with any certainty at this point in time, are they not the same thing?  Well, to my way of thinking, yes.  They are the same thing.  The atheist who remains open to possible new evidence in the future is indistinguishable from the agnostic who openly admits that they do not know whether or not a god exists.  It is the difference between answering the question “Do you believe in god?” with a “not yet” versus a “maybe.”  It is a subtle difference that may mean something to others, but doesn’t seem all that different to me.  

Different ways to be godless   

People come to their lack of belief in a god in different ways.  The path that any of us take to reach our beliefs and conclusions in this life is always informed by many experiences and ideas that we encounter along the way.  So it can be tricky to simply state that I am someone who does not believe in gods.  It seems that there are always assumptions from other encounters with those who do not believe in gods.  There are many reasons people do not believe in gods.  

Just as there are those who are fervent in their belief in a god, there are those who are similarly committed to their unbelief.  It seems no amount of evidence will ever convince them of the existence of a god.  I would call them “anti-theist”; convinced that a god could not possibly exist.  Others have come out of a religious past and may have anger or animosity toward their former faith.  They are “anti-religion” for personal reasons.  Still others view the role that religions have played in societies as overwhelmingly harmful and hold “anti-religious” beliefs for philosophical reasons.  There are many reasons that people decide not to believe in gods.  

The bottom line is that identifying as an “atheist” does not tell you a lot about me or what I believe.  It does tell you one thing that I do not believe.  Perhaps this is why many atheists bristle when they are treated as if they have a “faith” or a religion.  When someone identifies as a Christian, you can make a fair number of assumptions about how they approach life and relating to others.  The same is not true of atheists.  They can be as different from one another as they are from a Buddhist or Muslim.  Sharing a disbelief in gods is the same as sharing a love of banana bread.  It’s just one facet of who I am.  

It’s not like a club  

I have heard it said that thinking of “atheism” as a religion or ideology is like thinking of “abstinence” as a sexual position.  That someone does NOT do a thing isn’t the same as describing how they would do it!  There is tremendous diversity among atheists.  There are liberals and conservatives, rich and poor, people from all walks of life.  

No, I don’t believe in The Devil.  But not because I am an atheist.  I don’t believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy either.  There are a lot of things I believe in and many that I do not believe in.  The fact that I don’t believe in a god makes me an atheist.  And that is all that being an atheist should tell you about me.  I don’t think people who believe in a god are wrong.  I don’t believe that religion is necessarily bad for society or that people shouldn’t attend the church, temple, or mosque of their choice.  

I have heard a lot of things said about atheists.  That we are not moral.  That we do not respect the beliefs of others.  That we seek to bring down the religions of the world.  And many more outrageous claims.  I live a life without gods but I am none of those things.  There is no set of beliefs that comes along with my atheism.  If you wish to know what I do or do not believe in, we can have a conversation and you can ask me.  But unlike a Christian or Hindu, the simple label of “atheist” cannot tell you anything about me.  It only tells you that I do not believe in a god.  

If you talk with an atheist, you might be surprised what you might learn.  You will almost surely learn that many of us have different views on a diverse set of subjects.  More importantly, you might learn that many of the things you have heard about atheists are just not true.  We are people first; human beings just like you.  

Photo credits
 Magenta Dusk- Francis Vallance 2015 from Flickr

Such was my salvation. In the weeks that followed, members of the group would quietly talk with me. I was told that questions were perilous. They were concerned that a lack of “faith” would endanger my relationship with “God” and that my immortal soul would be in jeopardy. I learned that it was a part of Christian teachings to try to “save” those who could be saved. Just as I had been saved. To try to bring all people “into the fold” in order to spare their souls from torment in the afterlife. It was a Christian’s duty to “spread the good news” and salvation to any and all who would hear.

In the end, it may have been that aggressive approach to selling the Christian idea of salvation and rewards in an afterlife with their “God” that put me off religion for good. I had been raised by parents and an educational system that encouraged me to understand things, to ask questions if need be to understand clearly. But I was being told that if I wanted to continue to enjoy the benefits of that Christian community, I had to set my questions aside and accept what they told me without questions. That just didn’t sit well with me.

I moved on from Christianity. But I found that this marketing of ideas was not unique to that faith. The 1970s were a time for many nontraditional beliefs to find a place in Western Culture. From various Eastern religions and philosophies like Taoism and Buddhism to more radical and obscure ideas like Spiritualism or belief in various meditation methods or other fringe philosophies, it seemed like there were many groups trying to attract followers to their particular path to “enlightenment.” They all claimed to have the answer. It seemed to me that many different groups were concerned with my salvation.

What’s good for the goose…

Fast forward many years and here I am, a non-believer. An important part of my life is a reasoned search for truth and meaning. So far, I have found nothing that has convinced me of the existence of any supernatural force I would call “god.” I’m still open to new evidence so that may change tomorrow but that’s where I am today. Remarkably, having arrived at this view of life and living, I feel no desire or need to convince others of what I believe. It just isn’t a priority for me. I don’t need to “save” others from thinking differently than I do.

But apparently that isn’t true of everyone who has abandoned a belief in “gods.” There are those among the unbelievers who feel the need to market their beliefs to others. The Internet provides a forum for quite a number of very vocal and eloquent atheists and nonbelievers who seem intent on “saving” the religious from what they see as the error of their ways. To spread their non-belief. Whether it be blogs, videos, or discussions on social media, there are plenty of places online trying to convince people who believe in gods that they are wrong. I suppose you could call it salvation of a different sort.

As an atheist myself, I understand the desire to help others come to a rational and well reasoned view of life and the world. I think the difficulty for me is that conversations about such things are very personal. Because these beliefs are so personal, any attempts to challenge these fundamental beliefs would be something of an intrusion. I have always been taught that it is rude to talk about very personal things without being invited first. But for some reason, religious or philosophical questions do not seem to have the same social restrictions as, say, discussions about money or sex. People seem just as comfortable telling you how your god is the wrong one as they are to try to convert you to their particular faith. And I don’t know if that is a good thing.

Dangerous thoughts

There are atheists who feel that it is dangerous to allow the religious to believe in the gods. They fear that their use of faith to accept the teachings of their religion will compromise their ability to think and reason in our everyday world. While there may be something to that, I’m not sure I’m comfortable restricting how and what people should be allowed to think and believe. Religion and gods have been a part of human society since our very beginnings. They have played a role in our development just as science and reason have. To deny the benefits humanity has enjoyed from religion seems as myopic as focusing only on the tragedies religion has caused in human history. Babies and bathwater.

Personally, I’m a great believer in the principle of Occam’s Razor – that given that all things are equal, the simplest explanation of something tends to be the correct one. Occam’s Razor requires me to continually question and get new information. I cannot just sit back on my existing stockpile of information and make my decisions from there. I have to continue to question whether there might be a different answer, a simpler answer out there. Sometimes that means talking through what I think I know and sometimes that means listening to what others have to say. Even if I don’t agree or understand it.

In the end, I don’t think salvation will come from thoughts or beliefs but from actions. Our human history is stained with the blood of countless conflicts over nothing more than ideas. The only life of which I am certain is this one. For me, salvation begins and ends here. My opportunity is to save others from pain or suffering. To lend a hand where I can and show compassion knowing that each day is a new turn of the card. The small act of kindness I show today may be the thing I need tomorrow for my own life.

Whether or not there are divine forces and gods, it is within my power to improve the lives around me. If someone is hungry, I can give them food. If they are hurting, I can try to ease their pain. It doesn’t matter to me which god they pray to or what they may believe. They are fellow travelers on this world. If we do not have each other, does the epistemology matter? Knowing is important. Believing is important. But the doing is what I think will save us.

Photo credits
Starry Horizon – Karl Lindsay 2013 from Flickr

I was raised by grandparents. They were people who were born and raised in the early 20th century. They had lived through the hardships of the Great Depression and World War II. They raised me during the tumultuous 1960’s with all of the hope and despair and promise that the decade brought with it. And even though they were both “Christian” in the sense that Jesus Christ was at the core of their respective faiths, they differed in how devoutly they followed those beliefs. In spite of their different views and adherence to their church doctrines, they taught me what they believed was the best way to conduct myself in society.

Their advice was remarkably simple: don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t be unkind or mean to people, be wary of strangers but help them if they truly need help, and other common sense suggestions. Work hard, be loyal, be fair, and be appreciative. Occasionally there would be some words about “God” being happier if I did these things or that there would be some price to pay in the “next life” if I didn’t try to stick to their suggestions But by and large, the advice was always practical and ignoring it would likely mean I would come to regret it in THIS life.

Objective Morality

I recently read a blog post by Matt Slick on the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry website entitled “The Failure of Atheism to Account for Morality.” In it, the author suggests that because the atheist does not appeal to some divine, supernatural authority (in this case the Christian “God”), they cannot have “true” morals. Slick’s main point seems to be that, while atheists may be morally “good” people, it is only a coincidence that their behaviour happens to be consistent with what “God” wants. This, according to the author, is insufficient. Atheists, he claims, are free to assign whatever moral judgement they choose to things like lying, cheating, and causing others harm. By contrast, he suggests that “believers” have the benefit of “God’s” unchanging and objective morality set down in a holy book as a guide.

Remarkably, this same article allows that “atheism offers a subjective moral system that is based on human experience, human conditions, and human reason.” The sentence struck me because it sounded remarkably like my upbringing. It’s how my grandparents frequently talked to me. They told me of their experiences, their lives, and how the morality they were suggesting helped them along in this world. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that I was shocked that the next sentence suggested that such a way of approaching morality is “dangerous” and “can lead to anarchy.”

Dog is god spelled backwards

This article is not the only example I’ve run into where people have suggested that without the authority of “god”, there can be no valid sense of morality. It has been suggested to me more than once that “right” and “wrong” cannot be determined without the guidance of a deity. I guess it was just luck that people who raised me had advice that seems to coincide with a lot of what most people think is “right” and “wrong.” Or was it? Secular philosophy and religion have grappled with the questions of morality for centuries. And it was always done in the context of our human experience and it may be that experience that provides the common thread when it comes to morality.

I’m a dog lover and I have spent the last dozen or so years studying modern training techniques based on psychology and behavioural science. It’s remarkable to me that the notion of an externally imposed morality such as that suggested by Matt Slick’s article looks very much like the “because I said so” approach to dog training that was so prevalent in the 1960’s and 70’s. Much of what I’ve learned to do in training my dogs is to show them how cooperation and certain behaviours will benefit them in both the short and long run. It’s a comfortable format for me because, after all, it is how my grandparents taught me about “right” and “wrong”!

For me, it is compassion and a desire for community that informs my moral choices rather than a desire to adhere to the rules passed on to me by some authority.  I am a human in a society of humans.  My first responsibility may be to myself but my very survival depends on the others around me.  I have a responsibility for them as well.  It is easier for me to understand that I can do kindness or harm to the people around me than to an all powerful god.  My moral choices are for the humans I share my life with and not for some check list in a book.  I don’t think that life is a test to pass or fail but a journey to share with others like myself.  Moral choices make that journey more satisfying for me and those I meet along the way.

Relatively moral

Some might call this a relativistic approach to morality. That what is “right” or “wrong” is dependent on the society and culture I live in. And I think that is essentially correct. As I was taught, it is “wrong” to steal from others because I would not want others to steal from me. Similarly I shouldn’t cheat because I don’t want others to cheat on me or lie because I don’t want others to lie to me. And suddenly this all sounds very much like the “Golden Rule” as it appears in the Christian Bible in the gospel of Matthew 7:12 – “do unto others what you would have them do to you.” Interestingly, “God” is not mentioned in that verse. There is no “because God says so” clause in there.

I was taught that the most important thing in this life was to keep the machinery of society running smoothly. Nearly every moral lesson passed on to me in my childhood has helped me in my life to do just that. The moral choices I have made have provided me with good relationships, a way to interact with others on a daily basis, and a way to get along in the world. Somehow that upbringing also taught me how to make new moral judgements without the need to consult a rule book for each and every new situation. Apparently I was taught how to “do the right thing” even in situations I haven’t encountered before.

It troubles me that someone might feel that, as someone who doesn’t believe in gods, I would not have a sense of “right” and “wrong.” That all of the rules of civilized society would seem arbitrary or optional to me. That without the threat of some divine retribution or the promise of some divine favour I would immediately fall into criminal or anti-social behaviour. And then there would be question of WHICH god and WHICH set of rules are the most truly moral. Given the wars and conflicts throughout human history, it seems to be a question that doesn’t have a universally accepted answer yet.

Martin Luther King, himself a Christian minister, once said that he had a dream that his children would be “judged by the content of their character.” Like Dr. King, I prefer that all people be judged for who they are and not by the labels that society places on them. I live a life without gods but I do not often refer to myself as an atheist. Too often “atheist” and “amoral” are confused. Too often “godless” is taken to mean “dangerous” or “evil” and that is just wrong. The Golden Rule – “Do unto others…” provides us a good way to measure the content of someone’s character. How a person treats others in society means more to me than which god they may believe in or what church or mosque they may attend.

In my view, a life without gods is decidedly NOT a life without moral choices.

Photo credits
Moral choices – Clayton Parker 2006 from Flickr