on miracles and such: the miracle of language

The truth is, the mere fact that I am standing here writing this blog post (I have a "standing" desk, in case you're wondering; just imagine me standing at a bar) is a miracle. My existence is a miracle. Your existence is a miracle. My consciousness is a miracle; the fact that I am able to write this blog post is a miracle. Your consciousness is a miracle; the fact that you are able to read this blog is a miracle.

Language is a miracle.

Christine Kenneally, author of the book "The First word: the Search for the Origins of Language," essentially states that nobody really knows how humans initiated language; it's a complete mystery to this day; she call it science's greatest mystery of modern times.

Actually, I don't think it's mysterious; I think it's a God-given innate ability that all humans have - yes, miraculous. She positioned language as this "virtual world" that we inhabit, that's different than the physical world we inhabit. And it's amazing how just "words" have the power to both wound and comfort so profoundly.

Karen Armstrong, in her biography on the Bible, states it this way:

"Human beings are meaning-seeking creatures. Unless we find some pattern or significance in our lives, we fall very easily into despair. Language plays an important part in our quest. It is not only a vital means of communication, but it helps us to articulate and clarify the incoherent turbulence of our inner world. We use words when we want to make something happen outside ourselves: we give an order or make a request and, one way or another, everything around us changes, however infinitesimally. But when we speak we also get something back: simply putting an idea into words can give it a luster and appeal that it did not have before. Language is mysterious. When a word is spoken, the ethereal is made flesh; speech requires incarnation - respiration, muscle control, tongue and teeth. Language is a complex code, ruled by deep laws that combine to form a coherent system that is imperceptible to the speaker, unless he or she is a trained linguist. But language has an inherent inadequacy. There is always something left unsaid; something that remains inexpressible. Our speech makes us conscious of the transcendence that characterizes human experience."

Brilliant.

wherever you go, there you are

I had the pleasure of watching Sam Mendes's Revolutionary Road this week (well, maybe I shouldn't characterize it as, "the pleasure," as it was actually quite difficult to watch... but I am an incorrigible Winslet fan, so whenever I get the chance to see her render emotion in the way she does, I seize it). If you haven't seen it, I recommend it. Many things about the movie, about the performances, struck me. This post will address only one.

April and Frank, the young married couple at the center of the movie, are suffering through the mundane realities of 1950's American suburbia; Frank is less-than-thrilled with his 9-to-5 job and daily commute, April is suffocated by her role as wife, mom, and housekeeper. April suggests to Frank that they could essentially fix everything (their boredom, their restlessness, their quiet devastation) if they simply uproot themselves and move to Paris. Money? Oh, well, they've got enough savings to last them 6 months... Job? Oh, well, April suggests that Frank should simply quit his job so he can "find himself" and she, why, she can get a job as a secretary in Paris.

Well, who can blame them for conceiving of and nursing this fantasy? The mundane realities of life strike all of us; the challenge becomes, how do we respond to the mundane aspects of the routine nature of modern life? Do we pine for someplace "better"? Do we convince ourselves that we could make everything better, "if only" we could move to someplace better? Or do we embrace the aspects of routine that can offer us comfort? The truth is, "home" is wherever we happen to be living at the time. As John Lennon once said, "Life is what happens while you're making other plans." And, although I don't know who coined this phrase, it is apropos: "Wherever you go, there you are." You can move to a new place, but you cannot do so without bringing your emotional baggage. Frank realized the folly that was the plan; April did not, and it led to her demise.

The Ultimate Commandment for Achieving Inner Peace: the Promise

"The Ten Commandments" - quick, can you rattle them off without even thinking? What meaning do these commandments play in our lives? Let's examine them one by one.

Of course, there is the most obvious one, the "duh!" one that is irrefutable as a moral foundation:

• Don't kill - ok, it seems, on the surface, to be obvious. But, dare I say, what about abortion? Over the past 20 years, ultrasound technology has improved markedly; it has literally changed the debate on abortion. When it's possible to see, in vivid clarity, tiny fingers and toes at 10 weeks in utero, it shakes us to realize that we're dealing with a God-created soul. I can remember, when I was about 10 weeks pregnant, I went to the ER with severe abdominal pain. It turned out to be nothing more than a gall bladder attack, which we treated with pain killers. But it rocked my world to hear the baby's heart beat via the ultrasound machine. 20 years ago, I was pro-choice. Now, having reached middle age, having suffered through many dark nights of the soul, I have come to a massive personal revelation, brought on by my faith, which is that "don't kill" includes abortion. I think it also includes the "death with dignity debate." So while "don't kill" may seem like an obvious moral foundation, I think it's actually quite controversial in terms of beginning- and end-of-life matters.
  

How about the rest of them:

• Don't steal - ok, what exactly qualifies as "stealing"? When you take home a package of post-it notes from the supply cabinet at work, is that "stealing"? What about when you enjoy a few grapes in the produce department at the grocery store? Or how about when you leave a good waiter a measly tip, is this stealing? Commandments challenge us to take a stand and hone our moral compass.
  

• Honor no other Gods; do not have false idols - this one, to me, is actually quite simple; let nothing in your life become more important than your faith in God. This one is the ultimate frame of reference for keeping things in perspective. We tend to pursue endeavors that we believe will grant us fulfillment (careers, family life, hobbies, etc., et al.,); the challenge is to ensure that none of these endeavors supplant our faith by becoming idolatrous. Because nothing else can or will fulfill us; only our faith can do so.
  

• Do not take the Lord's name in vain - you may be inclined to just sum up this commandment as, "don't swear." But I think it's more than that. It's a recognition of the power of language. It's a recognition that we diminish the sacredness of God by speaking casually or irreverently. And, as my now-deceased father-in-law used to say, "people who swear are simply unable to express themselves intelligently."

• Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy - What is the "Sabbath" and how does one keep it Holy? This depends on your religious tradition. For Orthodox Jews, the Sabbath is the utmost expression of reverence for God and God's laws; they cannot do anything that might be construed as work on Saturdays. For most of the Christian traditions, the notion of the Sabbath is less stringent. In my life, I respect the Sabbath by attempting to attend my church service every Sunday morning, and also by doing something outside in nature every Sunday afternoon (whether it's tending the garden or taking a walk or some such endeavor). To me, respecting nature is a manifestation of respecting the Sabbath.
  

• Honor your parents - Seems simple, right? But how do we actually "honor" our folks? Tensions frequently arise in the complex parent/adult-child relationship. Parents "just want us to be happy," while adult children are desperate to forge their own identities in the world. Can we still honor our folks while blazing a trail that may not align with our parents' vision for us? Certainly; it has to come down to mutual respect.
  
  
• Don't commit adultery - Seems like another no-brainer. Again, this one's also about respect. Respecting our own relationships and those of others. It seems, doesn't it, that trust and respect are common themes in these commandments.
  

• Don't bear false witness against your neighbor - Again, respect. God had it right long before Aretha, "R-E-S-P-E-C-T."
  

The last one, I think, is the most powerful and the least understood. It is the "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife or anything that belongs to your neighbor." The common ethos of this commandment is that it is seriously over-reaching; why would God issue a command that seemingly is designed to control our thoughts/feelings/emotions? How could my thoughts/feelings/emotions be in violation of God's Law? Does "coveting" actually have any behavioral manifestation?

Let's read into it more deeply. Rather than a command, it is actually a promise. By following God's Laws, you hone your moral foundation and practices. You grow spiritually. You deepen your faith. As such, you become content with what you have. You are not stricken with the agony of unfulfilled desire. You are liberated from the conflicts that inevitably arise from thoughts/feelings/emotions that stem from coveting.

It is a promise, not a command.

Fumbling Towards the Top of Maslow's Hierarchy: Faith as a Context for Meaning

Maslow's Hiearchy is a brilliant snap-shot of the human condition. At the bottom of the pyramid, we address our basic human needs such as food on the table and a roof over our heads.








Then, as we progress higher up the pyramid, we start to address the more difficult conundrums of human existence; the "why am I here, what's it all about?" questions. The higher needs are all about "self-actualization," and include aspects such as:

• Embracing the facts and realities of the world rather than denying or avoiding them.
• Feeling a closeness to other people, and generally appreciating life.
• Being spontaneous in ideas and actions.
• Being creative.
• Having discernment and viewing all things in an objective manner.
• Being interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others.

For many Americans, and indeed for much of the "1st world," the "bottom row" of our needs are met. Even if tenuous and at risk, we usually have enough to eat, we have a place to live, and access to clean water is not an issue. It occurred to me last night, as I was walking the dog, that so many of us are struggling with the upper rows of the pyramid; the "how to find meaning in a broken world?" questions.

Then I had an epiphany: what if all of us, as we work our way up the pyramid, focus on the various means of helping all those folks just struggling with the bottom row of the pyramid? Inherently, we simultaneously find meaning. This, I believe, is one of the foundational aspects of religion; because most religions instills in us a framework that challenge us to:

• put others' needs ahead of our own
• diminish our egos
• focus on the "common good" rather than our own selfish gain
• do less narcissistic navel-gazing and do more to contemplate our existence with awe and reverence for a higher power

All of these challenges are designed to temper our natural human tendencies of aggression, selfishness, and hostility.

Rabbi David Wolpe, author of a recently-published book called "Why Faith Matters," eloquently renders arguments for faith as a context for meaning. Essentially, he argues that the human condition yearns for something bigger than itself as a path to meaning. Religion has, he posits, provided humanity with a framework for meaning. It provides a framework for exploiting our virtues (loving kindness) and mitigating our vices (selfishness and aggression). Though he doesn't deny that great harm has been done in the name of religion, he deftly refutes the argument that religion is responsible for all violence in the world. Rather, he articulates how it's usually much more complicated than mere "religion" that exhorts violence; that political, national and other social constructs are also at work. He then points out, which I think has great merit, that atheistic societies induced much greater violence and oppression than those with the freedom to practice faith. He cites the 20th century, which was the most violent in recorded history; this violence was rendered by atheistic regimes, by Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, to name a few.

Rabbi Wolpe's book affirms one of my core beliefs: that faith matters as a framework for seeking meaning in human existence. My faith journey is fundamental as I try to scale Maslow's Hierarchy.

STC Relevancy in 2009

The "Society for Technical Communication" (STC) is currently undergoing a grave financial crisis from which it may not emerge. What, you might ask, is this STC organization? Is it as compelling as its scintillating name suggests? What exactly does it offer its members? And why is it experiencing financial duress? Well, "they" (the administration of the organization) say that the financial problems stem from simple accounting: the annual dues are not covering the actual expense of the various and myriad offerings to its members. Also, the annual conference - which is supposed to be the big breadwinner - is not bringing in projected revenue due to a reduced number of conference attendees. Hmmmm.... ok, let's explore this.

What Is STC?

A Brief History: Way back in the early 1950s (yes, the 1950s - how many of you were alive in the 1950s? Or even a glimmer in your daddy's eye?), two organizations were founded that pertained to "technical writing and editing": the "Society of Technical Writers" and the "Association of Technical Writers and Editors." These two organizations merged in 1957 to form the "Society of Technical Writers and Editors" (STWE). Then, in 1960, "STWE" merged with the "Technical Publishing Society, which was founded in 1954 on the West Coast. The merged organizations became known as the "Society of Technical Writers and Publishers." This name sufficed until someone decided to give it a make-over in 1971, at which point it became known as the "Society for Technical Communication." And this name, "STC," has stuck ever since.

Why People Founded This Organization: I don't know enough of the history, but if I were to guess about why people founded an organization of writers and editors, it was because of an inspired critical mass of people, across various industries, developing and delivering technical information (in printed manuals, of course). These inspired people wanted to leverage each other's experiences and share best practices. In essence, they wanted to hang out, grab a beer, and talk shop.

Where it's At Today: STC touts itself as "an individual membership organization dedicated to advancing the arts and sciences of technical communication." They claim to have 14,000 members, from all over the world. Each one of these members must pay annual dues (these vary, based on location and various categories and components). In North America, the dues range from $60 for students, to $175 for the "classic" membership. Despite these annual dues, the organization is deeply in the red.

So What Does a Member Get for His/Her Membership?: First let's take a look at STC's "Vision" and "Mission" statements. This might help us get a handle on the "value" that STC provides to its members.

"Vision: Technical Communication is recognized as an essential part of every organization's competitive strategy."

"Mission: STC advances the theory and practice of technical communication across all user abilities and media so that both businesses and customers benefit from safe, appropriate, and effective use of products, information, and services."

Now, these both seem remarkably Dilbertesque, don't they? I'm not sure, based on these two statements, how STC provides value to its members.

Let's parse these two statements. As for the "Vision," since it's crafted with a passive voice, I would ask, "by WHOM" is technical communication recognized as such? Oh, and just what is "technical communication" anyway? And what if my organization isn't "competitive"? What if it's a non-profit or an educational institution or a research house or a think tank - does that mean we don't care about "technical communication"? Suffice to say that I am underwhelmed by this "vision" statement; it does not make a compelling case for why anyone would care about "technical communication."

As for the "mission," yet again we haven't defined "technical communication" (though apparently it's part "theory" and part "practice"). It is going to address all "user abilities" and "media." Really? All "user abilities"? What about people with various disabilities? Learning or intellectual disabilities? Or, how about people who are intellectually gifted? Oh, and all "media"? Really? So it's going to encompass visual and auditory communication, in addition to online textual mediums? What about video? These are all ways to communicate "technically." Then it goes on to say that it targets "businesses" and their "customers." But again, don't other people use technical information? How about people who interface with the government? What about students and academia? What about scientific researchers? The last part of the mission statement is the most troubling. Who is to judge what is "safe," "appropriate," or "effective" in terms of product usage? How do we go about ascertaining "safety," "appropriateness" and "effectiveness"? And is it exclusively all about "product usage" when consuming technical content?

So, in my mind, both the Vision and Mission statements are diffuse and vague enough to be useless. Both statements fail because, ironically, neither of them "communicate" vision or a mission. When an organization cannot crisply define its vision nor its mission (especially one that touts its expertise in "communication"), it wallows in irrelevance. It finds itself in a crisis because the membership does not believe in its value.

OK, So, What Does My Membership Buy Me?

Based on the vague mission statement, how might one ascertain whether we're getting real value for our membership? Well, I have been a card-carrying member of STC since 1997, when I embarked on my first official job as a "technical writer" (though arguably I had been "technically communicating" since high school). (And yes, "card-carrying" is another anachronism that STC employs - though I'd heard recently that they're going to instead email a membership statement, instead of mailing a membership card.) In my experience, STC has been a "place" where I can go to network with other people in the trade. I've attended local chapter meetings and conferences, and read the STC publications, to learn about best practices and see what others in the industry are doing. It's been all about the networking and sharing tips and tricks about tools of the trade.

Eureka! That's why STC is fading into irrelevance. Because STC's "place" has slowly been supplanted by something called the Internet. More precisely, by something called "Web 2.0" and "social networking." Now of course, the Internet as we know it did not exist in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, or 80s. Thus, STC thrived; it had no competition in terms of its "platform." The STC publications and its annual conference were among the only resources to tap for networking, sharing best practices, and learning about the latest tools of the trade.

In the 90s and the 21st century, we're now dealing with a whole new "platform" for exchanging ideas, best practices and "talking shop." STC now has fierce competition. The Internet works particularly well as a "level playing field" for the group to engage each other about a broad array of ideas and issues. I no longer need to peruse STC's monthly publications to keep up on industry trends; I can surf the web, post comments to my blog and others' blogs, hang out in "virtual" cafes, and pursue trends and issues that are of particular interest to me. (STC of course is not immune to the implosion of the publishing industry; one key to their survival will be to end distribution of printed copy, and figure out how to deliver content online, exclusively.) Perhaps most significantly, I no longer feel compelled to fork over my annual dues to support the salaries of STC's administration. (Here is a list of full-time STC employees.)

Now, does this mean that I will only "talk shop" online? That I will hide in my office or my home, huddled over my computer screen, interfacing with my peers only virtually? No, of course not. I will use online "social networking" sites such as meetup to "virtually" arrange actual physical meetings. This new world of social media does not rely on monthly meetings arranged months in advance, or annual conferences arranged a year in advance; this new world is dynamic and spontaneous, and perhaps chaotic, but it is the new world that STC must "adapt to" or "die" (see link to article below).

Now if I haven't already painted a picture that renders STC irrelevant, let's go through one more parsing exercise and look at STC's "Strategic Plan Goals":

• Define the profession of technical communication
• Communicate the value of technical communication and STC
• Establish and expand strategic partnerships
• Globally improve the practice of technical communication
• Ensure the long-term viability of the organization

Let's briefly analyze each one:

Define the profession of technical communication: Though it may sound defeatist to state such, I am completely in Bogo Vatovec's camp. This is a school of thought that basically says (and I'm paraphrasing here, so bear with me) that "technical communication" is NOT a profession in and of itself; that technical communication does NOT exist in a vacuum; that "technical communication" exists only to render meaning to a given subject area. So,"technical communication" is a relevant and critically important skill for people in every professional industry. We tend to think of software endeavors as being "high tech," and of course they are. But medicine is also technical; law is technical; government is technical; the insurance and financial industries are certainly technical. And of course many other industries have technical aspects as well. "Communication" is our lifeblood as humans. So, it becomes equally important for "technical communicators" to develop their skills WITHIN THEIR professional domain (software, law, government, finance, etc.).

So now this leads me to the March 2009 of the STC "Intercom" magazine, the "Adapt or Die" article. I have to agree with Bogo Vatovec when he says, "My belief is that the number of "technical writing" jobs will decline over time. Technical writing will be an entry-level position for a trainee to learn the subject matter. Instead, the industry will look for people with a broad range of skills who can also write. That is, technical writing and writing in general is becoming an “essential skill” and not an “added value” skill for the future. The universities offering master’s and similar degrees in technical communication are hitting in the wrong direction." He continues: "The skill set of “technical writers” is expanding continuously as technical writers are being confronted with new technologies and other related disciplines. Many technical writers transit to these other disciplines through job rotation, job change, larger added value, and never come back to technical writing. That positions technical writing as an entry-level discipline."

So, the reality that STC must embrace is that "technical communication" is paramount for every working professional and student; the role of "technical communicator" is morphing into the "entry level" position within a given domain of expertise. That is, it is the DOMAIN that matters; tech writing jobs and the like are the vehicle to enter the domain. Essentially, technical communication is like breathing; it becomes a necessary skill we develop as we master our domain. If we do not master it, we cannot master our domain.

Communicate the value of technical communication and STC: Umm, serious red flag here, folks. If we have to explicitly endeavor to "communicate the value," we've failed.

Establish and expand strategic partnerships: Yikes, this sounds Dilbertesque, doesn't it? Seriously, I have NO idea what these "strategic partnerships" might provide. (Can't you see the brain-storming session now? "yes, yes, that's it! we need 'strategic partnerships'!)

Globally improve the practice of technical communication: Hate to say it, but this reminds me of that cliched bumper sticker, "think globally, act locally." Frankly, if I were to endeavor to improve things "globally," it would be to install a well in every village in the world, to provide clean water to the people. Improving "technical communication" globally is not high on my priority list.

Ensure the long-term viability of the organization: This one, folks, is downright scary. As soon as an organization exists in and of itself, for itself; as soon as it loses focus on WHY IT WAS CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE (for the sake of its members) and starts to think of MAINTAINING THE INSTITUTION FOR ITS OWN SAKE, we're in serious trouble.

So, at the end of the day, I believe that the reason why STC is undergoing financial hardship is that its members do not see the value of being a member, and are applying their "membership dues" to other causes. Period.

The Vision statement, Mission statement, and Strategic Plan Goals are posted on STC's web site.

"All's well that ends"

Another one of my favorite quotes comes from my beloved step-father, Gene Miller. Gene is a soft-hearted teddy bear, dressed in a cynic's clothing. When his cynical side emerges, you may hear him utter one of his oft-cited quotes, "All's well that ends." (This is of course a pun, if you will, on Shakespeare's "All's well that ends well.")

And indeed, if in fact, "All's well that ends" is true, then that other oft-cited cliche is also true, "It's all good." Because surely, everything ends.

Except for one thing:

And that is, God.

Yes, God.

God is constant.

God is unchanging.

God is eternally the Creator, the Sustainer, and the Redeemer.

And this, my friends, is what I believe with my whole heart and my whole soul.

So, dear Gene, "all's well that ends," but God does not end. So does that mean He is not "well"?

On the contrary, God is much more than merely "well." God is the answer to our salvation.

Look folks, we are all sinners. Yes, all of us. Even you. Especially me. We are all vulnerable. We all make mistakes. We are all fallible human beings. And the context for the entire World, the entire breadth and depth of the cosmos, is Yahweh. God. The context to give meaning to our lives and salvation for eternity, is our faith in Jesus Christ.

I have reached this state of faith after many years of introspection, Scripture reflection, and prayer. This has not been a casual discovery or flippant epiphany. This has been a "born again" experience that has led me towards "the way, the truth, the life."

We, my friends, are the light of the world. We are the salt of the earth. And we are only here because God is our Creator, our Sustainer, and our Redeemer.

And when it all ends, God will still be there.

A quote from my grandfather

God rest his soul, my maternal grandfather, William Downs (aka Bill), had a penchant for sayings that tell it like it is. One of his favorites was:

"Nothing is very good or very bad for very long."

Now, this may seem trite. But ponder it for a minute. I think it's fundamentally true. But if I were to quibble with it, here is my rationale:

* Truly ecstatic experiences are infrequent and short-lived. (Think of your latest orgasm. And the one before that. And the one before that. Notice a pattern? Or how about your honeymoon? Geez, that went by quick, right?) This, I believe, may explain our addictions; we're always trying to make it all better, for a longer period of time. We're frequently chasing that elusive state of feeling "very good." (What are the things that make us feel "very good"? Hmmm, the short list is, of course, sex, drugs and rock-and-roll. Then as we get older, we realize this short-list no longer fulfills us - for very long.)

* Truly awful experiences are also equally infrequent, but perhaps not as short-lived. (Think of something awful that happened to you recently; what was it? A car wreck? Yes, that would definitely put a damper on your day, but as long as you're not terribly injured, you move on eventually. Or how about those things you learn about from the "dreaded phone call" - a loved one is sick, dying, or has died. The impact of these events are not at all short-lived, but fortunately, are relatively rare.)

So, I think when my grandfather said, "Nothing is very good or very bad for very long," he was speaking at a very granular level. That even during hard times (a dying loved one, facing unemployment and foreclosure, a sick child), there are glimmers of ecstasy. And even during periods of utter delight, there are twinges of sadness or at least ambivalence.

I think what he was saying is this: that life ebbs and flows, and that the majority of our daily routine is spent facing the mundane realities of life. And that's OK. The only sustainable model, in fact, is one in which "nothing is very good or very bad for very long."

When we are really sick or injured, and then recover, we realize how good we feel most of the time.

When a friendship expires and causes us sadness and remorse, we savor the fond memories and grow from it.

When we don't get that promotion we'd worked so hard for, we decide to consider other options that we may not have considered otherwise.

When we try to enter this door, but find it is locked, we notice that another one is open.

a sunrise

Last Saturday morning, around 6am, my daughter hurried into our bedroom.

"Mom, come quick! Hurry, mom, hurry!" she said, as she stood by the side of our bed and shook me awake.

Initially, I have to confess, I was filled with dread. "What's wrong..." I thought to myself. Could it be one of the animals? Did one of the cats puke? Or did the dog relieve herself on the floor? Or yet again, is the toilet clogged? Or is some other neglected home repair rearing its head?

What, I wondered, was it?

I stumbled out of bed, half-conscious, while she dragged me to her room. We hurried to the window.

"Look," she simply said.

I stared out the window to take in one of the most lovely sunrises I've ever seen. All glowing and pink and misty, with wispy clouds and a hint of the blue expanse to come.

I was overcome with the simple beauty of the moment. I was thrilled to think that I've passed on this appreciation for this simple natural beauty. Indeed, nothing was wrong at all. In that moment, all was right.

The Buddha on Compassion

A young mother was wailing in agony because her only child had died unexpectedly. The Buddha approached her; she remained inconsolable. "Tell me, Buddha, how can I ease this pain? I have never been so overwhelmed with agony. Please, please, please, can you bring back my son?" The Buddha felt compassion for this young mother. "Go into the village and seek the villagers; if you can find one villager who has not suffered as you have, I will bring back your son."
The woman's spirit was renewed! She quickened her pace toward the village. "The Buddha has promised to bring back my son!" The woman approached the first villager she saw. "Tell me, surely you have not experienced agony like this!" But the villager told her a tale of agony. The woman proceeded to the next house. "Surely," she asked, "you haven't experienced this level of agony?" But the villager told her a tale of agony. She approached the next house, and the next, and the next; every single villager reported a tale of heart-breaking agony. The woman returned to the Buddha, despondent but also somewhat unexpectedly consoled. "I have not been able to find a single villager who has not suffered as I have." The Buddha assured her that her journey yielded the expected result. "And now," offered the Buddha, "you have a sense of compassion for all those who have suffered as you have."

The Power of Withholding Judgment and Maintaining Equanimity

A long time ago, a man lived on a farm with a dozen white horses. He took good care of the horses; he fed them, groomed them, loved them. One spring, the corral's gate broke in the middle of the night, and all the horses escaped.

"What a tragedy, all your horses are gone!" the townspeople exclaimed.

"Well," the man replied, "what we know is, all the horses escaped and are now gone."

The following spring, all the horses returned. Three of the mares were pregnant, and eventually gave birth to three beautiful foals.

"What wonderful news, you now have all your horses back, plus three foals! You must be delighted!" the townspeople exclaimed.

"Well," the man replied, "what we know is, the horses are back, and now we have three more."

That fall, the man's son was riding one of the horses. He fell off the horse and broke his back.

"How terrible, your son has been injured! He is now disabled!" cried the townspeople.

"Well," the man replied, "what we know is, my son has been injured and is now disabled."

That winter, a war broke out. All the young men throughout the land were called to serve in battle, except for the man's son, who was unable to go to war because of his disability. The battle was the bloodiest the land had ever seen. All the young men were killed.

"What good fortune! Your son is now alive because he didn't go to war!" cried the townspeople.

"Well," the man replied, "what we know is, my son is now alive because he didn't go to war."

The True Message of "Turn the Other Cheek"

At one point or another during your life, as you struggled with conflict or tried to deal with an abusive situation, you may have been advised by a well-meaning but misinformed friend, “turn the other cheek.” Your friend is of course referring to the oft-cited Biblical text. The precise Biblical passage is in the Gospels, Matthew 5:39:

"If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also."

Actually, your friend offering such advice is not merely misinformed but missing the point entirely. If you are the victim of violence, your friend may even be putting your life in jeopardy with such misguided advice.

Many of us interpret the adage in the Bible to “turn the other cheek” as advice to “suck it up” and passively encourage our abusers to continue on, unabated. But this is absolutely NOT the message that Christ had intended to convey. During Christ’s time, masters would strike slaves (and any others subjugated by the patriarchal, institutional and religious powers of the day) with the back of the right hand (not the fist). The back of the hand was used to exert power, not inflict physical injury. It was corporal punishment to demean the spirit. It was a raw exertion of power to put the slave in his or her “place” by means of humiliation and degradation.

There is an important nuance of how such degradation was administered. Masters used the back of the right hand because to use the left hand would violate cleanliness laws. The left hand could be used for “unclean” tasks only. (You might argue that exerting corporal punishment is “unclean,” but this is not how the masters saw it.) Why didn’t a master just use his fist? Fist-fighting was strictly reserved as a means to fight amongst equals. Thus, a master could never strike a subordinate with his fist. If he did, he would imply a “fight among equals,” which a master would never intend to imply to a slave.

Here’s where Jesus’s advice is startlingly assertive as opposed to passive. By “turning the cheek” to the left side, the slave would be forcing the master to use his left hand or his fist, neither of which he could do without violating the legal framework of the punishment. So in essence, the slave has turned the tables on the master. The slave has said, “go ahead, break the law of the land, sully yourself and your actions.” The slave has successfully emasculated the master. This gentle act of defiance renders the master incapable of asserting his dominance in this scenario. He can beat the slave, but he cannot cow him. The inferior contests the situation by essentially acting in a way that says to the master, “I am a human being, just like you. I have dignity and worth. I refuse to be humiliated. I am a child of God, just like you.”

Clearly, such defiance on the part of the slave is no casual passivity. The slave is acting courageously, challenging his or her abuser in a non-violent way. Jesus’s message was for the oppressed to stand up, defy abusive authority, assert their humanity, but not to “stoop to the level” of the abuser’s violence. This is what we often hear described as Jesus’s “third way,” in which the oppressed “fight” their oppressors with clear-headed non-violence. It requires the oppressed to truly recognize, name, and expose abuses of power. This “third way” is neither cowardly submission nor violent reprisal; it is a beautiful, loving expression of an oppressed peoples’ humanity, and it is the only way we can diffuse the dehumanizing aspects of institutionally entrenched power structures. It is the only way we can transform human relationships to that of equality rather than dominance.

“The first principle of nonviolent action is that of noncooperation with everything humiliating.” –Gandi

"Godly Play"

Jerome Berryman founded a methodology of teaching "Sunday school" called "Godly Play." What, you ask, is "Godly Play"? Jerome Berryman was an Episcopal priest; he wanted to tell children stories so that they could develop tools to tackle the four existential conundrums that haunt us all:

• freedom
• death
• loneliness
• meaning

On Quitting Smoking

I quit smoking on December 26, 2007. This time, for good. I have been smoking on-and-off since I was a teenager. Recently, I had quit in December of 2005, and hadn't smoked until April of this year (yes, a 16-month stint without a single drag; such long stints without smoking were not uncommon for me).

What prompted this recent cessation? And why do I say "for good," this time? Well, I think a lot of it has to do with my phase in life. I am squarely in the "mid-life crisis" phase, approaching my 40th birthday. (And I haven't yet succumb to a red convertible.) Mid-life is often a time when people take stock of many things, including personal health. I fully realize, as Bill Clinton frequently says, that I likely have "more yesterdays than tomorrows." I have to take full responsibility for those behaviors that I CAN control that will impact my health. The science is not in question; smoking greatly increases the risks of serious and even fatal health complications.

Now, do I miss smoking? Unquestionably, I do. I don't believe I was "physically" addicted to nicotine, as I quit cold-turkey (as I always have, with no 'cessation devices'), and I suffered none of the common physical withdrawal symptoms. But I miss the sensation of striking a match and taking that first drag (especially after a meal). I miss the oral occupation. I miss the time of "reflection" I often had when standing outside with a cigarette (as of course, these days, smokers are relegated to the outdoors). I miss the social camaraderie with other smokers in the "smoker's hut" at work. I miss how a cigarette can be a comforting experience, a brief "break from it all," when it seems too much to cope with.

However, there are many things I don't miss. 5$ per pack (and lining the pockets of the disingenuous Corporate machines that manufacture cigarettes). The moral implications of spending money on an ill-conceived product, while millions starve. The way I reek of smoke and probably offend people. The discoloration of my hands and teeth. The time out of my day it takes to smoke (while certainly there are "better things" I could be doing). Even though I always responsibly disposed of the butts, knowing that I'm being "greener" by not contributing to the landfill. Not even to mention, the ill-effects the smoking has on my health.

So, I will need other coping mechanisms to fill the void. How else might I cope? Take a walk. Say a prayer. Meditate. Do yoga. And then gloat in my victory over cigarettes.

I quit smoking. But I believe I will always be "a smoker," even though I don't smoke anymore. I think humans derived great satisfaction from smoking tobacco, and enjoyed it for eons, before understanding all its negative aspects (and before many of its negative aspects emerged).

Goodbye, 2007

How could it be that I haven’t posted a blog since July? I guess you could say that the 2^nd half of 2007 was a bit crazed for me. On the personal front, my mom and her husband visited the Oregon Coast for two weeks in August. On the business front, business is good; customer engagement to new heights; trips to Atlanta, Austin and Baltimore; a new self-imposed, earned title of “Information Architect and Field Liaison.”

Overall, 2007 was a year of enormous Spiritual, emotional and professional growth. I was confirmed as an Episcopalian (what I call "the thinking person's Christianity"; where a woman leads the U.S. contingency; a gay man in New Hampshire is a confirmed Bishop; and "priests" do not have to be celibate). I had a significant epiphany about life - (and I will do my best to make it NOT sound like a cliche); that our major objective is to live a daily life of loving-kindness; to give love always in the expectation of zero recompense. What does this mean? It’s really mind-blowing in its simplicity. It is a core tenet of Jesus Christ; that we must give love even though we know we may get nothing in return, except for the joy we get from giving unconditional love. That we must find a sense of equanimity from kindness and calmness, rather than vicissitudes from discord and strife.

I am eagerly anticipating 2008, for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that I turn “the Big 4-ZERO” in September. Allelulia! I feel like I’ve been waiting to turn forty my whole life. (There’s a reason people often refer to me as “an old soul.”) I clearly, distinctly remember when I was 9 or 10 years old, calculating the fact that I would be "32" at the turn of the Century, and then just "8 more years" until I'd turn 40. What would possess a 10-year-old to contemplate such a thing?

Living by “The Four Agreements”

I read many fascinating books in 2007; probably one that most influenced my perspective is “The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom, A Toltec Wisdom Book,” by Don Miguel Ruiz. It’s a short book and very accessible; nothing Earth-shattering in terms of depth and complexity. In a nutshell, the author cites ancient Toltec Wisdom as the thrust behind the following mandates for living a full and joyous life:

* Be Impeccable With Your Words: Think carefully about what you say; remember the power your words have to give love. Speak the truth, speak with integrity, and speak lovingly.

* Don't Take Anything Personally: What others say and do is a projection of their own reality. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless suffering.

* Don't Make Assumptions: Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want.

* Always Do Your Best: Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse, and regret.

Be Impeccable With Your Words

I wholeheartedly agree with this idea of being "impeccable with your words." I think we underestimate how powerfully our words can affect people, both positively and negatively. I think this power emanates from the various aspects of the human condition. For example, the wide variety of sensitivity amongst humans. Some people are just much more sensitive than others in terms of how they respond to people's words. What one person may brush off as a casual but marginally offensive remark, another person may be devastated by its implications. Also, think about the richness and ambiguity of language itself. For example, the word "love." Love has so many different definitions and manifestations. I "love" my partner, my child, my friends, my parents and siblings, my dog; but I might also "love" vegetarian lasagna, traveling to New Zealand, a pint of Guinness, the Oregon Coast. With no ambiguity whatsoever, I do love God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. And then I also "love" the fantasy I have of seducing Natalie Portman. We can "love" concrete things such as people and places, but also ethereal things such as ideas and fantasies. (This discussion reminds me of that rather cynical Howard Jones song from the late 1980s, "What is Love?") So we have to remember the richness of language, the ambiguities of language, when we speak to other people, in terms of how our words may affect them. And also, we have to remember the various ways our words will be interpreted by various people.

Don't Take Anything Personally

I'm not sure I fully understand, "Don't take anything personally." If we never take anything personally, how can we engage deeply enough with other people to achieve intimacy? Or, is it saying we should avoid intimacy? I guess a lack of intimacy would diminish some pain, but would also cause other kinds of pain. The point, I think, is to not obsess over another person's words or behaviors in terms of what we may or may not have done to "cause" the other person to speak or act in such a manner. That is, I am in no way "responsible" for another person's words or actions. It's easy to dismiss the comments or behaviors of strangers and not take them personally; the challenge is to not take personally the comments and behaviors of our intimates.

Don't Make Assumptions

This is a tough challenge, to not make assumptions. We are conditioned to respond to the world from our own perspective; we're constantly making assumptions based on our own perspectives and our personal filters for how we interface with other people. I think this edict throws a wrench into one of our beloved mantras, "Treat others as you wish to be treated." Because this mantra "assumes" that everyone likes to be treated in the same manner; it allows for very little nuance. Of course, in general, we all like to be treated with respect and kindness. But overall, the way we wish to be "treated" will vary, based on culture, gender, religious beliefs, personal attitudes, and so on.

Always Do Your Best

This one seems like a no-brainer to me. Why wouldn't people always do their best? Well, I guess it depends a lot on our personalities; on what we find inspiring; on the "incentive" factors. I "do my best" to take care of my body, because I want to be healthy and live a full life. I "do my best" at work, because I enjoy the challenges and I need the monetary compensation. I "do my best" with my personal relationships, because I know that personal relationships are a key to providing meaning in life.

"Lead Us Not Into Temptation..."

One line from the Lord's Prayer reads as follows:

”And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

I thought of this prayer as I watched a fascinating movie over the weekend, Todd Field's “Little Children,” starring Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson. Based on a book by Tom Perrotta, the movie is richly layered, superbly acted, deeply moving, and profoundly provocative. This review is categorized into two sections: “temptation” and “evil.” Let's look at the following questions:

* Is falling into “temptation” necessarily a bad thing? Are there circumstances in which we become enriched by indulging in temptation?

* How do we characterize “evil”? How do we interface with “evil”?

Warning: the following contains "spoilers" - if you haven't seen the movie "Little Children," and you don't want to know the plot, skip reading this!

"Temptation"

Winslet plays Sarah, a disillusioned young woman, bored with her life as a mother to young Lucy. As a housewife in an upscale New England suburb, many aspects of her life are alien to her, except for her “Room of One's Own,” (Virginia Woolf reference duly noted), where she reads and contemplates her beloved novels and poetry. To make matters worse, she is estranged from her husband; one afternoon she discovers to her disgust that he regularly masturbates while surfing Internet porn (“Slutty Kay” and kitchen utensils?!). This discovery imposes a wide gulf between Sarah and her husband. So wide, in fact, that she relegates her husband to the couch, implying a complete lack of intimacy.

Sarah has a Master's degree in English (she never quite finished her dissertation), and she longs for the intellectual stimulation that her studies provided; but instead she spends her days at the local park with other local moms and their children. The other stay-at-home moms cause conflicting emotions within Sarah. She is alienated by what she perceives as their smallness and cattiness; and yet she also feels inadequate because she's not a militantly organized “super-mom” as the other moms are. This is the community she's “supposed to” feel close to, but she can't bring herself to identify with these women.

Then, a local “house-husband” named Brad enters the picture to stir things up. Though they never actually speak to him, the women at the park have tagged Brad the “Prom King,” as he is exceptionally handsome. Sarah agrees with their assessment, but isn’t as intimidated. On a dare from the other women, Sarah approaches him at the park one morning. (She perceives this as an opportunity to differentiate herself from the other women.) Brad and Sarah strike up small-talk as they push their respective children on the swings. Sarah is struck by how authentic and vulnerable Brad seems as he describes how he’s failed the bar exam twice. As Brad prepares to leave the park, Sarah makes a bold and spontaneous move; she proposes to Brad that they hug in front of the other women. Though they’ve just met, Brad plays along. Immediately after the hug, Sarah follows an impulse to crank up the tension; she suggests that they kiss. Suddenly they share an awkward but intimate kiss on the playground, to the great shock and horror of the other women at the park. This hug and kiss assuages Sarah's sense of alienation and inadequacy (temporarily, at least). And so begins an adulterous affair between Sarah and Brad. The two share their summer days at the local pool with their kids, and then, while the kids nap, indulge in steamy unbridled sex.

The emotional aspect of the affair is most interesting to me. Clearly, both Sarah and Brad share a lustful appetite for each other. But Sarah longs for something more; she covets an emotional connection to mitigate the idea that this affair is exclusively sexual. One afternoon, during sex, Sarah asks Brad, "is your wife pretty?" (According to the book, the character of Sarah is supposed to be a somewhat homely, frumpy woman who feels insecure about her looks. But frankly it's hard for Kate Winslet to look homely and/or frumpy; she's such a beautiful woman, though not the typical "Hollywood-type" beauty.) Brad pleads, “do we have to talk about this now?” and ignores her inquiry, as if it's an inconvenience. She asks again, saying this time, "it's a simple question." But Brad lacks any pretense of emotional intelligence. "Yes, she’s very pretty," he says, without a hint of irony. Later he confides that his wife is “a knock-out,” but then follows up with, "but beauty is overrated." As the narrator points out, this is an easy statement for a beautiful person to make. Sarah is quietly devastated. The subtext of Sarah's question was to engage Brad to notice and acknowledge her own beauty, as he saw her. Rather than sing the praises of Sarah's beauty, Brad answers the question literally, and he completely fails to respond to her desire for an emotional (rather than a purely sexual) connection. We also gain insight from another brief exchange; Brad asks Sarah as they're having sex, "Do you feel bad about this?" "No, I don't," replies Sarah emphatically. Brad replies, "I do. I feel really bad." (Though his “feeling bad” doesn’t seem to diminish his carnal enjoyment.) Sarah's lack of guilt and shame is an offering to Brad of her genuine emotional engagement in this affair. To Sarah, this isn't just sex; she perceives this relationship as having the potential to grow into something "real." But for Brad, this affair is a happy carnal diversion, with none of Sarah’s earnest emotional engagement.

Brad's narcissism ultimately dooms the affair. Sarah is so desperate to “legitimize” her relationship with Brad that she tells Brad that she “can't go on” in the shadows anymore. Brad takes the bait and tells her, “...let's run away together and figure this thing out.” Sarah is elated with the prospect of it. Like two teenagers, they agree to “run away together.” Except that Brad's cowardice combined with his allegiance to his wife (and perhaps his fear of his mother-in-law) ultimately triumph. (Or perhaps it is not entirely fair to characterize Brad as a “coward,” since I think he feels somewhat emasculated as a “house-husband,” completely reliant on his wife and her family for income. Surely it is a blow to his ego when his wife chastises him for ordering magazine subscriptions that he doesn't really “need.” But Brad may be too comfortable with his house-husband status, and unwilling to grapple with the implications of entering the work-force to earn a living in this “man's world.” He might have to actually study and take the bar exam!)

Within this context of compromise, Brad writes a “Dear John...” letter to his wife, but takes the letter with him rather than leaving it where she'll find it. Then, on his way to meet Sarah to enact their great escape together, Brad decides on a whim that it would be more entertaining to skateboard with the local teens at the skate park. When Sarah realizes that Brad has stood her up, her devastation is compounded by her ultimate realization that she was willing to risk her child's safety and future to pursue this ill-fated relationship with an emasculated man. Sarah returns home with her daughter and tucks her in bed, utterly crushed by Brad's choices as well as her own perceived failings.

So what's the “moral” here? Both Sarah and Brad freely chose to “live in the moment” and indulge in temptation. Both Sarah and Brad were dissatisfied with their respective home lives, and found passion and excitement in each other. Despite the ultimately ill-fated course of the relationship, was there nothing redeeming about it? Sarah was able to live out her “Madame Bovary” complex and indulge in an affair that briefly assuaged her assaulted sense of self as a suburban housewife. She took solace from the idea that she was different from other stay-at-home moms. At the end of the affair, she can go on knowing that she made choices and took actions to free herself from her current unhappiness, even if these choices and actions resulted in an outcome she did not anticipate (or perhaps she did anticipate, but chose to ignore). Brad was less vulnerable to the emotional entanglements of the affair (since he was “the beautiful one” and clearly a narcissist), and he benefited from realizing that, despite the alienation from his wife, he did not want to risk losing her and all the comforts that she provides for him. And both Sarah and Brad learned that while we may no longer be teenagers, we can still experience the same ferocious euphoria and profound devastation that can come from indulging in lustful desire. Indulging in temptation can have the temporary but profoundly real effect of making us feel “alive.” Are Sarah and Brad “sinners,” or are they fallible human beings subject to the most basic human frailty of desire and longing, despite the inherent risks and unknowable outcomes?

"Evil"

If the core of the movie is "temptation," the sub-plot of "Little Children" is "evil." A sex offender named Ronnie, having served time for exposing himself to minors, lives in the same neighborhood as Sarah and Brad. Ronnie lives with his elderly mother, in an old house filled with antique clocks. A local ex-cop leads a campaign to inform the community of this sex-offender within the neighborhood, posting flyers and harassing Ronnie at all hours. He even goes so far as to spray paint "EVIL" on the front walk leading to Ronnie's house. The relationship between Ronnie and his mother is touching but also somewhat unnerving. During one conversation, Ronnie's mother prophetically marvels at how fragile life is. "You're a miracle, Ronnie. We're all miracles. Know why? Because as humans, every day we go about our business, and all that time we know... we all know... that the things we love... the people we love, at any time now can all be taken away. We live knowing that and we keep going anyway." His mother, growing concerned at her failing health and the prospect of Ronnie living alone, decides to put a singles ad in the paper for her son. "Mom, I have a psycho-sexual disorder," Ronnie protests. But he agrees to go on the date. The date seems to go well, as Ronnie gently attempts to relate to the young woman - a tragic victim of mental illness herself. At one point during the date, Ronnie says to his her, “…you’re not so bad.” (Pathetically, the woman finds this bland attempt at a complement as rather endearing.) But gentleness evolves into monstrosity on the way home, as he asks her to stop the car and then proceeds to perform a lewd act in her presence. Aghast and terrified, she drops him off at home and speeds away.

Clearly, Ronnie is mentally ill, and he is aware of his illness. But is he "evil"? The tragedy is that he isn't getting the treatment or attention he needs. He is cast as a social pariah, rejected and scorned where ever he goes. One afternoon, he visited the local pool and was publicly humiliated; the entire pool was vacated and the cops arrived to demand that he leave the premises. "I was just trying to cool off," he protested. The mob mentality exhibited at the pool surely cemented Ronnie’s feelings of isolation.

Ronnie certainly suffers from tendencies that are arguably "evil," but society's “mob mentality” and lack of empathy and compassion are arguably just as evil. When his mother dies, he decompensates, as the only thread he had to humanity unraveled. He reads a note from his mother that she wrote on her death bed, which simply states, "Be a good boy." Utterly distraught, because he knows he can't be a "good boy" without her, he mutilates himself with a knife, and the tragedy is complete. Despite his illness, Ronnie is a human being who deserves our compassion and mercy to help him treat his illness, instead of ostracizing and dehumanizing him. But as long as the "evil-doer" (in this case, Ronnie) is available as the easy target for scorn and fury, it exonerates the local suburbanites from looking too deeply at themselves. Ronnie's "evilness" is insidious precisely because it's too obvious, and because it diverts us from the genuine Spiritual path of examining our own behaviors, actions and attitudes toward our fellow humans.

We're All African

The following article originally appeared in Vanity Fair's "Africa" Issue, Summer 2007.

Get this: every single one of us is from Africa! Read this, it will blow you away. It really underscores the fact that everyone is our neighbor.

Out of Africa

Somewhere between 80,000 and 50,000 years ago, Africa saved Homo sapiens from extinction. Charting the DNA shared by more than six billion people, a population geneticist—and director of the Genographic Project—suggests what humanity "owes" its first home.

by Spencer Wells July 2007

For more about the Genographic Project, visit nationalgeographic.com.

Guest editor Bono as a toddler, circa 1961, with maps showing the migrations of his matrilineal (top) and patrilineal ancestors (middle), based on analysis of his DNA. His father's ancestors were among the first modern humans to enter Europe. Courtesy of the Hewson family.

Do you think you know who you are? Maybe Irish, Italian, Jewish, Chinese, or one of the dozens of other hyphenated Americans that make up the United States melting pot? Think deeper—beyond the past few hundred years. Back beyond genealogy, where everyone loses track of his or her ancestry—back in that dark, mysterious realm we call prehistory. What if I told you every single person in America—every single person on earth—is African? With a small scrape of cells from the inside of anyone's cheek, the science of genetics can even prove it.

Here's how it works. The human genome, the blueprint that describes how to make another version of you, is huge. It's composed of billions of sub-units called nucleotides, repeated in a long, linear code that contains all of your biological information. Skin color, hair type, the way you metabolize milk: it's all in there. You got your DNA from your parents, who got it from theirs, and so on, for millions of generations to the very beginning of life on earth. If you go far enough back, your genome connects you with bacteria, butterflies, and barracuda—the great chain of being linked together through DNA.

What about humanity, though? What about creatures you would recognize as being like you if they were peering over your shoulder right now? It turns out that every person alive today can trace his or her ancestry back to Africa. Everyone's DNA tells a story of a journey from an African homeland to wherever you live. You may be from Cambodia or County Cork, but you are carrying a map inside your genome that describes the wanderings of your ancestors as they moved from the savannas of Africa to wherever your family came from most recently. This is thanks to genetic markers—tiny changes that arise rarely and spontaneously as our DNA is copied and passed down through the generations—which serve to unite people on ever older branches of the human family tree. If you share a marker with someone, you share an ancestor with him or her at some point in the past: the person whose DNA first had the marker that defines your shared lineage. These markers can be traced to relatively specific times and places as humans moved across the globe. The farther back in time and the closer to Africa we get, the more markers we all share.

What set these migrations in motion? Climate change—today's big threat—seems to have had a long history of tormenting our species. Around 70,000 years ago it was getting very nippy in the northern part of the globe, with ice sheets bearing down on Seattle and New York; this was the last Ice Age. At that time, though, our species, Homo sapiens, was still limited to Africa; we were very much homebodies. But the encroaching Ice Age, perhaps coupled with the eruption of a super-volcano named Toba, in Sumatra, dried out the tropics and nearly decimated the early human population. While Homo sapiens can be traced to around 200,000 years ago in the fossil record, it is remarkably difficult to find an archaeological record of our species between 80,000 and 50,000 years ago, and genetic data suggest that the population eventually dwindled to as few as 2,000 individuals. Yes, 2,000—fewer than fit into many symphony halls. We were on the brink of extinction.

And then something happened. It began slowly, with only a few hints of the explosion to come: The first stirrings were art—tangible evidence of advanced, abstract thought—and a significant improvement in the types of tools humans made. Then, around 50,000 years ago, all hell broke loose. The human population began to expand, first in Africa, then leaving the homeland to spread into Eurasia. Within a couple of thousand years we had reached Australia, walking along the coast of South Asia. A slightly later wave of expansion into the Middle East, around 45,000 years ago, was aided by a brief damp period in the Sahara. Within 15,000 years of the exodus from Africa our species had entered Europe, defeating the Neanderthals in the process. (Neanderthals are distant cousins, not ancestors; our evolutionary lineages have been separate for more than 500,000 years.) We had also populated Asia, learning to live in frigid temperatures not unlike those on the Moon, and around 15,000 years ago we walked across a short-lived, icy land bridge to enter the Americas—the first hominids ever to set foot on the continents of the Western Hemisphere. Along the way we kept adapting to new climates, in some cases lost our dark tropical skin pigmentation, developed different languages, and generated the complex tapestry of human diversity we see around the world today, from Africa to Iceland to Tierra del Fuego. But the thing that set it all in motion, the thing that saved us from extinction, happened first in Africa. Some anthropologists call it the Great Leap Forward, and it marked the true origin of our species—the time when we started to behave like humans.

Africa gave us the tool we needed, in the form of a powerful, abstract mind, to take on the world (and eventually to decode the markers in our DNA that make it possible to track our amazing journeys). Perhaps just a few small genetic mutations that appeared around 50,000 years ago gave humans the amazing minds we use to make sense of the confusing and challenging world around us. Using our incredible capacity to put abstract musing into practice, we have managed to populate every continent on earth, in the process increasing the size of our population from a paltry few thousand to more than six billion. Now, 50 millennia after that first spark, times have changed. A huge number of things have contributed to Africa's relative decline on the world stage, perhaps most important geography. As Jared Diamond describes in his masterly book Guns, Germs, and Steel, Eurasia, with its East-West axis, allowed the rapid latitudinal diffusion of ideas and tools that would give its populations a huge advantage after the initial leap out of Africa. Couple that with the results of colonial exploitation over the past five centuries, and Africa, despite many strengths and resources, is once again in need, as it was 70,000 years ago. This time, though, things are different.

The world population that was spawned in Africa now has the power to save it. We are all alive today because of what happened to a small group of hungry Africans around 50,000 years ago. As their good sons and daughters, those of us who left, whether long ago or more recently, surely have a moral imperative to use our gifts to support our cousins who stayed. It's the least we can do for the continent that saved us all thousands of years ago.

For more about the Genographic Project, visit nationalgeographic.com.

Dr. Spencer Wells is explorer-in-residence at the National Geographic Society and the director of the Genographic Project.

Dr. Weil's "8 Weeks"

Dr. Andrew Weil is one of my heroes. He's written many books abouts about health, and many revisions thereof. Perhaps his most widely read book is called "8 Weeks to Optimum Health." This book is a God-send for people in this crazy, modern world. In a nutshell, he espouses all the "standard" healthy behaviors that we should all aspire to, such as:

* quit smoking
* exercise (gently; walking is great - no need for torture machines at the gym)
* eat nutritious, whole foods; nothing processed, fried, transfat-ladden, etc., et al.
* drinks lots of water
* limit alcohol consumption
* get enough sleep
* reduce your stress levels
* ...blah blah blah, and all the other pretty much "common sense" behaviors that we've all heard before, from a million different "experts" in a million different ways. None of these recommended behaviors should come as a surprise.

But these "standard" recommendations are not why I love Dr. Weil. What I truly appreciate about Dr. Weil's approach is that he espouses two things that are not necessarily "common sense":

* include beauty as an integral part of your life
* go on a "news fast"

The first one, "include beauty...," I think is something that is just as critical as eating right and exercising (and all the other standards). Dr. Weil recommends that we should always consider our surroundings, and make efforts to "beautify" our world. How? In simply ways. For example:

* buy fresh flowers every week; better yet, plant your own
* take a walk in a local park, a Japanese garden, or visit the beach and/or the mountains as frequently as possible
* visit museums and art galleries often
* attend cultural events, such as the ballet or a concert
* decorate your home and office with beautiful things
* etc. Use your imagination!

In this "beauty" recommendation, Dr. Weil recognizes that our spirits are central to our well-being; beautiful things uplift our spirits, and can have a profound effect on our spiritual and emotional lives. It's cliched, but we can't live on bread alone. One of the things that differentiates us as "human" is our ability to create and appreciate beautiful things. We shouldn't underestimate how important beauty is to our health and overall sense of well-being.

The other aspect that Dr. Weil touts is something he calls "news fasting." What in the world is "news fasting"? "News fasting" is essentially just what you think it might be: go on a "fast" from consuming "the news." That is, stop watching the nightly news, CNN, Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC. Also, stop surfing the various and myriad sources of news on the Internet. Why? Because let's face it: the "news" can be overwhelmingly depressing. And whether we realize it or not, it can have a profound effect on our "state of mind" when we are constantly bombarded with tragedy. Now, Dr. Weil does not suggest that we bury our heads in the sand and live life as a Pollyana. He simply recommends that we consume "news" in smaller doses and avoid the indulgent "rubber necking" that is frequently associated with gratuitous consumption of the "news." Think about this: if you only read The New York Times every Sunday, from cover to cover, there's a good chance that you'd be "up-to-date" on current affairs. And you could instead spend the time that you'd normally spend "consuming news" on such activities as going for a walk, pursuing a hobby, or sitting in the stands of your local AAA baseball team.

Thank you, Dr. Weil, for providing such beneficial recommendations that truly will contribute to health.

Desire, Divinely Inspired

One of the common misunderstandings of Buddhism is the notion that "desire" is the root of all suffering. Actually, it's not exactly "desire" that causes suffering; it is our behavior in response to our desire. More precisely, great suffering is caused when we "cling" to the objects of our desire. And the "object" of our desire is not merely the "object" of our desire; we must come to grips with the fact that he or she is a whole human being. When we acknowledge and truly embrace the other person's whole humanity, our desire is mitigated in a healthy way.

Freud also dabbled in this notion of "desire" as a cause of suffering. But he also believed that we don't control who we desire, but that we do control how we respond to that desire. It's another way of saying that we can't control who we desire; but we don't have to feel guilt and shame about it.

Indeed, I would agree that we don't control who we desire. It's something that we just "feel." This can be somehow liberating if we understand that we are not "responsible" for our feelings of desire. Mark Epstein, author of "Open to Desire: The Truth about What the Buddha Taught," expounds on the idea that desire need not be a cause of suffering and can actually deepen our spiritual lives. He suggests that if we can free ourselves from the guilt and shame of our desire, and just "be" with our desire, we can potentially experience it in new ways that we may not have predicted. From the book:

"Seeing desire as having its own agenda frees us to look at it more evenly. As Sappho observed so many years ago, it comes from elsewhere, stirs us up, makes us question who exactly is in change, and carries the possibility of enrichment as well as the threat of obsession. From this perspective, the arising of desire becomes an opportunity to question, not what we desire, nor what we do with desire, nor even how we make sense out of desire, but what does desire want from us? What is its teaching? We have to be very quiet to listen to desire in this way."

And let's face it: throughout life, we will encounter many situations in which we cannot consummate our desire. Of course, there are many reasons why we don't pursue desire; some of these reasons are:

* one or both parties is in a monogamous relationship
* religious convictions (denying the "flesh," so-to-speak)
* there is simply too much at stake to risk it
* the timing is all wrong
* the desire is unrequited (perhaps the most painful reason)
* the pursuit of desire may put at risk an underlying friendship
* all or any of the above

The list of circumstances that prevents the consummation of desire is long and often complicated. So the key really is to just "be" with our desire, to listen to it, to experience it quietly and not cling to idealized manifestations of consummating the desire.

So are we bound to a life of longing and the ache of unconsummated desire? No, not necessarily. There are coping strategies that we can employ. So this idea of just "being" with our desire, to be open to it, to acknowledge it, to experience it "as is," is fascinating to me. So, what we "do" with our desire will determine how much we suffer. If we can feel our desire "as is," and not cling to it, and not reject it, we have a better chance of diminishing our suffering. Within this context, we have to realize that the satisfaction we think we can get through the consummation of desire is in and of itself ultimately elusive (this reminds me of the Stones' song, "Satisfaction," as in, "I can't get no..."). Deep personal contentment and satisfaction are internal to ourselves; it is a myth that another person can assuage our loneliness and satisfy all our desires.

Another coping strategy is to revere desire as beautiful and mysterious and even divinely inspired. Another passage from the book:

"The next principle of working with desire is to see it as divine. By this, I do not mean simply idealizing the beloved in the manner common in early stages of falling in love, although this is an eye-opening experience in itself. I mean the recognition of how incredible it is to be capable of desiring, or being desired, in the first place. Especially when stripped of all the addictive fixations that can accrue, the mere existence of desire as an energy that can enthuse us is awe inspiring. The recognition of the divine in desire is less about moving toward an ideal than it is about acknowledging its immanence."

I love this excerpt! So, our very emotions are divinely inspired. He continues:

"Everything we see and whatever we desire can be experienced as signs of God's presence. The blue threads, knotted to Moses's clothing, are visceral reminders of this truth, but our own desires can function in much the same way. They, too, are threads of blue, living representations of God's blessings. This is where the spiritual possibilities of desire begin to make sense. Just as the Indian cosmologies refuse to make a distinction between the microcosm and the macrocosm, between the erotic and the divine, so does the Sh'ma seem to indicate a similar linkage. By attending to desire with the same care that we might listen to our souls, we can move out of our usual way of thinking where there are always two: an observer and an observed. The Sh'ma points to non-clinging, toward the dakini, toward the shared subjective reality where there is no object of any kind."

So, in other words, it's all good. It's OK to feel how we feel. Just don't cling to idealized notions of how you "want" things to be. Experience desire "as is," respect the feelings you have, and feel the beauty and wonder and mystery and divinity of just having those feelings in the first place. One more excerpt from the book:

"By learning to see desire as more of an impersonal force, as happens under the spell of prayer, meditation or psychotherapy, the soul is invigorated. The links between desire and the divine are opened as the self's appropriation of desire is loosened. Like a knot around the finger, desire, ever present and often troublesome, can serve as a vivid reminder of our connection to something vaster than over everyday minds."

And finally, this thought: that love (Platonic, "pure" love, that is) is superior anyway to sexual desire. I would tend to agree with this idea overall, because it seems that sexual longing often wanes, while love is a continuing cycle of renewal and replenishment. And it is a reminder that our bodies are transient and temporary, while our spirits are forever. In a way, I can take solace from the idea of nourishing my spirit (especially if my body suffers from longing). Let us live and walk by the Spirit.

Walk by the Spirit, Galatians 5:1, 13-25

1It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.

3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

5For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.

6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

7You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

8This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.

9A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.

10I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you will bear his judgment, whoever he is.

11But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished.

12I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.

13For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

14For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

15But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.

16But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.

17For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.

18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

19Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,

20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,

21envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

24Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

25If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.