epiprologue

Years ago, the lenses through which i viewed the world were shattered. Only then did i realize that i had been seeing through any lenses at all. This blog is a bit of a glimpse behind those lenses, from when i arrived in chicago on a megabus in july 2011 until i left for new orleans in a tiny toyota in february of 2012. These hundred and a half or so posts run the gamut from a picture and a few words, to long missives about the state of society, and from global issues to personal.
I hope that my impractical project of changing the world for the better by opening up about what the world looks like through my eyes has at least some small impact, and that artificiality was as absent as i intended. Click around, let me know what you think, and pass along anything you find interesting!

I have added a categorized list of some of the posts I'm most eager to share, scroll down or click this link.

Also, check out my nascent projects:
ambitious ambiguous (creative writing?)
pandorasdijimewzikhopechest (some stuff that pandora radio has served up to me that hit me right in the heart and the mind and the soul - in a hopeful way...)
an acrobat mind (why not take this time to write a book?)

selected contents

mentalmatters
thinking vs. feeling
environment of evolutionary adaptation
role of psychology in the modern world

socialstudies
gop debate restatements and retorts
is it prostitution?
constitutional convention
liberal arts & freedom
all consuming patriotism & reading lolita in tehran
thoughts on television
climate change essay
capitalism and morality

kidstough
books on death for kids
the value of a dollar
love and logic
potty boot camp

quickies
a walk in the rain
planned happenstance 
zombies
genetically modified corn
iowa caucus santorum headlines

kwikpicquips
who is m?
napkin empowerment
please help 
first person shooters
buying beauty
popcorn chicken
hey dog, quit pooping!
economic efficiency
lord hackerbimbo

objectionobsession
breaking the shackles of time is great (carl sagan)
corporations are people (jay ambrose)
$300 billion is not real money (david brooks) 
occupy movement united by hatred (aaron overfors)
assumptions and inferences (john nalc doe)
taxing the rich can't possibly... (daniel mcgroarty)
capitalism is the only system (craig westover)

avclub
c-realm "damaged yet dominant"
daily show "class warfare"
colbert on the post office
seth godin at ted "tribes are what matters now"
melissa rakestraw vs. rep. joe walsh on usps
winona laduke on linear thinking, etc.
one people occupy flash mob
rsa animate "the divided brain"
tyler cowen at ted "suspicious of stories"
john o'donohue "the inner landscape of beauty"

reedalong
art of war / the world without us
the way of the peaceful warrior / relationship saboteurs
grieving mindfully
richard dawkins on gop anti-intellectual litmus test
e.j. dionne on class warfare narrative
naomi klein on occupy movement
naomi klein on climate change

prosetry
on a college degree
3b with omar
horoscopic synchronicity, periodical time travel
hunger bowl mmxii
my bitter replies
peaceout 

hooamaye
my learning style
environmental autobiography
my strengths
reflection on my transitional state
educational autobiography
personal mission statement, etc.
wheniwentcrazyagain

untitled. 2012-02-17 11:37 USA 55406

this is the end of the naive scheme
more likely just the first draft
i've got plenty more to say
but it feels like a time to listen more
end this book open a new door

no phone no trunk nola
electronicom sabbatical
every seven years i get seven days
so hard to go back

pockets empty belly full
wide open off the rails
happenstance now plans later

every story told changes the world
and every telling changes the story

peaceout luvyall seeyasoon

moral argument for capitalism counterpoint

I pointed my last post out to Craig Westover, and we've had a bit of a nice back and forth. At his suggestion, I just submitted the following to the Pioneer Press as a counterpoint to his column. I may try to pull out another 700 words or two before I set this "discussion" aside...

    In his recent column, Craig Westover implores Mitt Romney to make the moral argument for capitalism, then writes the script. Capitalism is an idea for an economic system, which proponents insist will solve our problems if ever properly implemented. Elements of it have certainly led to a tremendous growth of material wealth in recent centuries. Capitalism is the most universally accepted idea in modern world culture, perhaps in world history. It's the closest thing on our flat earth to a global religion, at least in middle class living rooms and the halls of power. Religions and philosophies divide us, we are told, the free-market binds us together. Capitalism's morality is the assumption behind every debate over which candidate will grow the economy faster, every fearful news story about a drop in the stock market, every G-20 summit and every WTO conference. Capitalism is presumed moral. Doubters are black-clad, foul-smelling miscreants antagonizing the police and disrupting the process while offering no realistic alternative.

    But what are the morals of capitalism? Capitalism values capital – wealth. Basically, if everyone is free to buy and sell anything they can get their hands on (including their time) at whatever price someone will pay, out of the chaos will come the optimum distribution of everything and the maximum growth in wealth. It's crazy but mostly true, I sit typing into a laptop as living proof. The problem comes in assigning a “morality” to that system, which rests on values like freedom, legal order, and property rights, but doesn't own their licensing rights and has never realized them with any consistency. Prioritizing the growth of capital is not inherently moral or immoral – it is a tool that can be applied wisely or stupidly, morally or immorally.

    We live in a world where capitalism has become our wire-frame surrogate morality, but also in a world where capitalism's growth focus is a hammer looking for nails where most problems need not even screws, but improved logistics and communication. Free-market fundamentalists list forever ways government spills sand in the gears of their perfectly designed perpetual-growth machine. They fail to admit how closely our world resembles their ideal, with governments doing the dirty work of pacifying the hungry masses at home and abroad until those industries are fully privatized. Capital flows around the world in magnitudes and at speeds Adam Smith never imagined. Entire industries change continents in hardly the time it took to draft and deliver the Declaration of Independence. The highest achievers in the capitalist hierarchy, those able to live on the growth of their capital rather than sell their time, suffer proportionately less from the forced altruism of the U.S. tax code than do the toiling masses. Immortal corporate persons are free to sell anything they manufacture until it's proven malignant, and to fill public airwaves with messages manipulating minds to irrationally demand more.

    Capitalism says it has the secret to improved “standard of living,” then defines the term to best fits its values: economic activity per person per year. Spending thousands of dollars on medical interventions is economic activity, staying healthy by working in the garden and eating the results is not. Extra cops (or better yet private security guards) add to the economy, while safe neighborhoods don't make the ledger book. Working overtime to fill your anti-anxiety prescription adds to your standard of living, while cutting hours to walk more with your partner subtracts. 110,000 widgets for one of a hundred people is far better than a thousand apiece for all hundred. These are the values and morality of capitalism.

   Westover articulates concisely our “culture's dominant philosophy,” and makes “the moral case for it,” to an extent. He fails to demonstrate that capitalism's tools are ideal for our situation, much less uniquely suited to human nature. If we are destined or determined to live in a globally connected world, we need a new organizing force to replace the hollow quasi-morality of capitalism. A rising tide may raise all boats, but it will drown us all if it never slows and recedes. And, the boats will sink long before that if we continue to load them down with more gold while failing to keep them seaworthy.

snarky saturday anti-capitalist soapbox

Craig Westover's column in Friday's Pioneer Press implored Mitt Romney to make the "moral argument" in favor of capitalism. I had a few issues with the piece...

By cross-dressing as progressives and attacking Mitt Romney as an "evil" capitalist, anti-Romney Republicans handed him a golden opportunity. Romney can be, if he is up to it, the much needed defender of capitalism. 
Deciding to place "progressive" and "cross-dresser" next to each other in the first sentence of a column about Mitt Romney and capitalism is a bold move. However, the piece is meaty enough that the association is likely to remain sub-conscious for anyone who doesn't trip over it immediately. I'm sure you knew that, though.
Thus far the former venture capitalist has offered only a pragmatic defense of his career in high finance.
Romney's pragmatic defense assumes the moral arguments laid out below. Explaining your assumptions doesn't always strengthen them.
What Americans want and need in a moral justification of capitalism.
That may be what some Americans want and need. I want (among other things) people to stop believing that capitalism is a moral system, and I need nothing that money can buy, at the moment.
More is at stake than just Romney's presidential aspirations..
Here Westover is correct. If people realize that capitalism is immoral, they will probably demand a whole new system. That may have been what was going on with the occupy movement??
Please, Mitt, don't be that guy who defends capitalism as if it is some progressive program for advancement of "the common good." It's not. 
Finally we agree wholeheartedly about something! Capitalism isn't about the common good, it's about capital, i.e. money. Flows of money are eased, accumulation of money is encouraged, everything else is valued in terms of the money it could make if it were used or sold. Enthusiasts of capitalism generally argue (as Westover does below) that capitalism is also the best/only way to provide for the greater good, but that's just a side effect in their eyes.
The moral justification of capitalism has nothing to do with either a utilitarian - greatest good for the greatest number - or an altruistic desire to serve the common good. True, the greatest good for the larger community is not an insignificant consequence of capitalism, but the moral justification of free enterprise is more fundamental: Capitalism is the only system consistent with rational human nature.
I am amazed that in a piece about morality, the concept of "the greatest good for the larger community" is considered only "not insignificant." Humans are not, by their nature, exclusively or even primarily rational beings. Doubters of this only need observe the masses at their nearest retail outlet, restaurant or house of worship. Or read a little bit about behavioral economics, psychology, or history. If capitalism is the only anything, it's the only system that assumes that people are rational little value-maximizing abstractions (then sets in on self-fulfilling its prophesy).
Capitalism is the only economic system that relies on voluntary cooperation in the exchange of value.
Competition is the organizing force of capitalism, cooperation is suggested if the cooperating parties would then gain an advantage over another. The idea that exchange is "voluntary" in capitalist systems is slippery. If a person has a hungry family and an ache her guts to feel useful, she'll probably take almost any job. Did she do so in a "voluntary" way? Preying on people's vulnerability and desperation then patting yourself on the back about how everyone's participation was "voluntary" does not a moral justification make, to me.
All other systems require force to distribute scarce resources. 
So does capitalism. Check the history books, check the newspaper, check the federal (or state or local) budget. Lots of line items for weapons and people to point them. Perhaps by quibbling this argument could be somewhat revitalized. Capitalism mainly only requires force to prevent the involuntary redistribution of scarce resources for the benefit of someone other than the current owner. The force expended is in service of maintaining the system, but not a part of the system itself, which is merely a system of voluntary exchange. Right?
As author/philosopher Ayn Rand notes, capitalism is the only system founded on the justice of to each his due.
I question the wisdom of quoting Ayn Rand as an authority on anything. What is due to each of us? Every bit of output we can claim we created? Enough to meet our needs? Enough to be comfortable, whatever that means? Are we due the right to keep accumulating crap indefinitely as long as we don't tabulate the myriad ways our consumption has negative effects on other living humans, future generations, and the entire web of life of which we are just a part?
Don't be that guy, Mitt, who defends capitalism by the numbers. Don't call yourself a "job creator." If the only justification of capitalism is that it creates jobs, capitalism is vulnerable

to the progressive claim that government intervention in the market economy just might create even more jobs - a he said/she said debate that gets us nowhere. 

Does the claim that government intervention might create even more jobs say anything about the "greatest good for the larger community"? I actually think that debate might get us somewhere...
While capitalism has provided Americans of all income levels with the highest standard of living in history, it is constantly under attack. 
Highest standard of living is defined by capitalism's own measuring stick: Gross Domestic Product, GDP, economic activity per economic unit (dollars in motion per year per human). By this ludicrous device, the explosion of cancer, with its expensive medical treatments, is a sign of our high standard of living. Tearing down a forest to build a new shopping mall represents a huge advance in our standard of living. Most alarmingly, the epidemic of depression, anxiety, ADD etc. that result from living in our society actually shows up in the index as more evidence of our high standard of living (as long as we can afford to buy the prescriptions "needed" to treat these ailments - and the doctor's visits, billing services, research, trials, advertising, special ed, etc. and thus add to the economy).
Again it is Rand who offers insight into why: The lifeline feeding any social system is a culture's dominant philosophy, and few among capitalism's defenders understand or can make the moral case for it. 
I'll come clean now. I'm pretty sure that the reason few among capitalism's defenders can make a moral case for it is because no such case exists. I am not aware of any moral authority which would endorse the kind of selfish indifference to those around you that Rand proposes. I would say "imagine" an entire society trying to organize itself around the brilliant but limited observations of Adam Smith, but we're living in it.
"No social system can survive without a moral base," writes Rand. "On the basis of the (prevailing) altruist morality, capitalism had to be - and was - damned from the start." 
Translated: "If we can't convince people to stop trying to care for the people around them, capitalism will never make it."
Mitt, America needs someone to build capitalism's moral base. 
I think that Mitt is a practical man, and will stick to the more modest and possibly achievable goal of merely being elected President of the United States of America.
Don't be that guy, Mitt, who apologizes for the "creative destruction" component of capitalism. Embrace it. Don't duck reality; deal with it. Competition and constant innovation, the essence of human progress, have consequences that cannot be compromised. 
Neither competition nor constant innovation are essential to being human. This mythical "progress" I'm always hearing about confuses me. When did we start progressing, and toward what are we headed? Is there any chance we've "overprogressed" in some ways?
Gingrich supporters have contrasted you, Mitt, with "good capitalist" Steve Jobs, who Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), reflecting the dominant altruistic culture, said was "probably responsible for eliminating thousands of American jobs" because he produced the iPad. 
Wait, who is speaking to whom in this run-on sentence? It almost seems like Gingrich supporters, including Jesse Jackson Jr. think Steve Jobs was a good capitalist because he eliminated thousands of American jobs by "producing" the iPad. Did both you and your editor think this was intelligible, or is the obfuscation purposeful?
"What becomes of publishing companies and publishing company jobs?" Jackson said. "What becomes of bookstores and librarians and all of the jobs associated with paper? Well, in the not-too-distant future, such jobs simply won't exist."
Is Jackson right? Ought we cast aside our iPad's for the common good? 

I thought "would we be better off" is not a relevant question. I'd say yes, but then I'd get way off on a tangent.
How is Apple's iPad different from Bain Capital's creation Staples? 
Mostly not, but also dramatically: iPad is (or more precisely tablet computers are) a new and different way to send and receive information (as compared to books and stationery). Staples is just squeezing every drop of (dollars out per dollar in) efficiency from the existing products. iPad is a tangible object, Staples is just a marketing plan draped over a logistics and human resources system. iPad can at least claim that laid off book binders will find work in the beautiful new world ushered in by its wonderful new technology of easy information flow. Staples may offer the former owner of a stationery store one of the two part-time jobs he'll need to make shorter ends meet with a little bit of a stretch. I doubt he'll have the time or energy to draft the handwritten letters he spent his idle entrepreneur time composing to friends and family on the samples stationery suppliers left him. Oh well, they only added 45 cents each to the economy anyway...
How many Main Street mom-and-pop stationery stores were put out of business by Staples?
My guess is thousands.
What multiple of people lost jobs for every single job created at Staples?
Shot in the dark, but I'd say 3:1, and the old jobs were objectively and subjectively "better" by and large.
Would we be better off if Staples or the iPad ceased to exist? 
Clearly, I'd say. Arguably, in any case. But aren't we being distracted by the greater good again?
"Not at all," writes Tom Keane in the Boston Globe. "Staples succeeded because it was able to deliver wanted products to consumers more cheaply and more effectively. At the macroeconomic level, it improved productivity, a very good thing which in the long run should create more wealth and more jobs. Still, try explaining that to the owners of shuttered stationery stores.
Try explaining it to anyone who doesn't already take for granted that "free-market capitalism" is the best and final economic model! "It's good that the little stationary store in your neighborhood closed. A half-dozen of them plus some copy stores and an art supply store all closed after Staples opened. That's good though, because now you can drive four miles over to Staples and get some perfectly acceptable stationery. If save up a few shopping trips, you'll come out dollars ahead even once you account for the wear and tear on your car. It probably takes longer and you'll miss out on the exercise, but there is a gym near Staples that you could join. Your friendship with the stationery store owner never showed up in the ledger book anyway. So, with all the little bits of money saved by everybody buying stationery at Staples, there should be money to invest in new ventures. Those new ventures should create jobs for the people who lost theirs when their business 'couldn't compete' against Staples. Everybody wins. Well, not everybody, but overall. Plus, it's the only possible way, given that man yearns to be free..." Read the original quote again, with the positive judgments highlighted in red:
Staples succeeded because it was able to deliver wanted products to consumers more cheaply and more effectively. At the macroeconomic level, it improved productivity, a very good thing which in the long run should create more wealth and more jobs.
That's a vaguely true story, moralistically told, but morally vacant. 

That's your challenge, Mitt - explaining capitalism to people who see themselves as victims of others' success - a vision reinforced by President Obama's State of the Union address. 
Your challenge, Mitt - explaining how people who see themselves as the victims of others' poverty, laziness and stupidity can claim to be the arbiters of morality. Explaining how self-interest is a worthy principle around which to organize a society, while altruism is a recipe for disaster.
Yours, Mitt, is not explaining your taxes or defending Bain Capital; yours is nothing less than defending capitalism itself, and the defense of capitalism is a first and foremost a moral argument. 
Or rather, "We better get people buying into our moral arguments more strongly or we're in trouble."
Unlike the reliance on force in the guise of mandates, regulations and arbitrary laws, capitalism is based on individual rights, the sanctity of private property and preservation of the rule of law.
Is there an easy way to distinguish between "arbitrary laws" which are just force in masquerade, and "the rule of law" upon which capitalism is nobly based? Are there any mandates or regulations that are justified to protect individual rights? Most of all, let's not slide past the phrase "sanctity of private property." Really? Is it the property itself that is a sacred thing, or does the holiness only describe the god-like ability to "own" "things"? Private property is a new and strange idea that only a small fraction of history's humans would even recognize as possible. I think that modern culture does deify the ability to own property and also the property itself. I fail to see how this observation strengthens the moral case for capitalism.

Capitalism relies not on the force of progressivism or big government conservatism, but on voluntary cooperation.
The force is there, certainly in any system as practiced, as noted above. In the most doctrinaire proposals for libertarian free-market capitalism I've heard, the primary domestic role of the state is as the enforcer of contracts between free individuals. I have inferred that in such scenarios the state would retain essentially exclusive right to use force? To restate the "voluntary" objection: I have been employed in several occupations in my life. In each and every case I sought the employment as the most reasonable way to get some money, the only thing of value to the merchants which serve as my nearly exclusive access point for needs and desires (from clean water and shelter to airline tickets and mp3 players) in my world. Never did I enter the employer-employee relationship without feeling a level of systematic coercion significant enough for me to at least place an asterisk next to the word "voluntary" in my description of the transaction. I do not feel I'm in the minority on this one.
Capitalism is the only system worthy of men and women endowed by their creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It's strange that you allude to the creator to lend gravity to your case, but the quote is from the Declaration of Independence. Maybe you meant creator to be Thomas Jefferson, and the Creator wasn't involved? If you were meaning to invoke the Creator, I would suggest you look into spinning lilies and camels squeezing through needles, then reconsider what it means to pursue happiness. (Maybe the Bible isn't your book, but I've never seen anything more spiritual than Atlas Shrugged propose that altruism is a vice). As many times as I've seen capitalism called "the only" something, I am beginning to wonder whether that -ism should sound more like "devotion to" rather than "practice of."
Communicating the morality of capitalism is a big and thankless job, Mitt. Just ask Ron Paul. 
Finding a way to communicate the fundamental immorality of capitalism is a tough and thankless job, Craig
just ask 

mundane monday 'n' funday fund day fun daze?

i hope there are ice cream sundaes!

mostly, tho, a vaguely poetic quasi-response to several recent personal communications:

a deafening silence mostly screams
amazing tears don't flow in streams
but set some goals stay positive
i know what's up let's chat really? dang!

peaceout hang longer tomorrow
love you chin up feel your sorrow
things get busy hard to holler
sorry dawg that's tough to swallow

an a for effort good luck with coffee
pyramid schemes i couldn't find sleep
i even hesitate to peddle petals sweet
striking me beautifully powerful & deep

sorry for the horrors and shame you endured
sorry you actually thought it wise to unload
then dared weave a tale of twist and stretch
to justify keeping grandmother's lode...

sincerely i'm sorry to all of y'all
just uncomfortable talking at all
i need it right now, a bit more than none
what's that they say 'bout disinfectant sun?

i'm battered and bruised heart wallet and head
down not out no count miles from dead
looking for gold the god of the land
somewhere to lend a heart head or hand

not pity or sorrow or demands for plans
advice making clear you don't dare understand
i'm planning to limit my plans and demands
to keep my heart open eyes narrow on hands

we'll catch up whenever and where
don't worry just know you're welcome there
maybe no internet ice ac or tv
plenty of stories fresh air beer whiskey


ps, just finished part one of jitterbug perfume. oh, wow!!!

 

super bowl ramblings

when you're watching the super bowl advertising blitz later (or thinking back on it, or next year*), please remember that as godsofadvertising says, "We make you want what you don't need." And, you usually pay for what you don't need with what you actually want...


hunger bowl mmxii

the hungry ghosts hunger for hot wings

and youth and puppies and intimacy

what do them find a dollar and a dime

too much stress not enough time

hunger for gold afraid of the cold

another april day in february

freedom and simplicity

real gifts don't make it on tv

the inner landscape of beauty

Here's a terrific interview with the late poet and philosopher John O'Donohue,



Another hour I really would beg everyone to listen carefully to. I may actually sit still long enough to read his book Anam Cara: A Book of Celtic Wisdom soon.

Happy Groundhogs Day!

Well, I guess old Punxy Phil said we're in for six more weeks of winter. That's about twice as much as we've had so far, isn't it?

At any rate, I was very happy to learn the true origin and history of groundhogs day, shown in the video below.





I don't remember anything about groundhogs and/or easter bunnies in Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed: Revised Edition, but perhaps that is part of what has been revised for the new edition?

The most urgent groundhogs day related event that should be incorporated into our celebrations, however, is the Fersommling (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fersommling):


A Fersommling (plural, Fersommlinge) (also spelled Versammling or Fersammling) is a Pennsylvania Dutch social event in which food is served, speeches are made, and one or more g'spiel (plays or skits) are performed for entertainment. Another tradition is the singing of "My Country, 'Tis of Thee", in Pennsylvania German, as translated by John Birmelin.

It turns out groundhogs day is one of the best holidays ever! Maybe what we've been calling "global warming" or "climate change" is really a returning of the groundhogs' magic so that they can give us an early spring more often than once every nine years? Just another theory, I guess...

numerological sleight of hand

Daniel McGroarty's column in today's Star Tribune is obfuscation of the most cynically manipulative kind. In terms of federal budget and Fortune 400 net worth numbers, functional innumeracy in the U.S. must be close to 100%. (I'm a political junkie, and spreadsheet nerd, and a former engineering student, and I still don't feel like I have a firm grasp on how many millionaires would have to forgo their favorite two vacations each year for the next ten years in order to guarantee that everyone in the country would have three meals a day by 2017.)
McGroarty strings together, in a vaguely connected way, a mesmerizing and confounding litany of (presumably true) facts and figures long and winding enough to leave Rain Man scratching his head, then ties them together with the non-sequitur thesis and conclusion, "Taxing the rich can't possibly be the answer to 'how to tackle taxes and federal spending'" and presumably hopes that whichever fact people carry away, they will bring his conclusion along for the ride. I suppose that's a skill that's highly valued in the "issues management consulting" industry, but it's a low-rate magic trick that doesn't do our political discourse any good, in my opinion.

suspicious story

Again, what more can I possibly say?

ASSumption JUNKtion #001

If this article is the coverage at NPR, where can we find real journalism that asks things like:

• Are we still 100% sure that brain chemicals/systems cause depression? (Just like how red bumps and a fever causes chicken pox, right?)
• Doesn't MSG contain the word "glutamate?" That couldn't possibly mean anything, right?
• Seriously, we're going to rattle of that list of pharmaceuticals thrown at people to treat depression and not even mention Cannabis? Depressing, indeed!
• Is it worth mentioning the unspoken assumption that drug companies can, should, and will isolate the properties of one chemical, then use that to make a whole new class of drugs that they will then sell us as the only/best way to make people feel OK in what is clearly a really messed up world? I for one am not really in to that scenario...

On a semi-related note, I saw this headline but never read the article. Sounds like a mess!

Hmmmmmm...

Also, HCMC called and said they found my boots, belt, and gloves. No word on my knife.

Gingrich name-dropping Alinsky

According to this NPR story, Newt Gingrich is bringing Saul Alinsky into today's political conversation. Great! Hopefully a lot of people will be inspired to check out Rules for Radicals and apply Alinsky's lessons to today's problems. I have a copy I could lend out if I don't get around to starting it again first...

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for the delightful (!!!) Email. You wouldn't believe some of the things people have responded with - the worst always following the, "I didn't take the time to ... let's get together to chat! Love, xx" format...
You, on the other hand, invite me to bring my lady-friend, Leah, out to meet y'all and talk over all the stuff we have to talk about over something you love to cook! :)
Talk soon,
Gautschi

nuthouse in a nutshell

I haven't really spelled out what has been going on in my life lately (two stints at the HCMC psych ward, in its shortest form), just given glimpses and innuendo. Unfortunately, glimpses are basically the only way I can sensibly shed light on the experience, and this will probably be, at least for quite some time, the most light I try to aim in its direction through writing.

First of all, this post is a pretty good summary of my thoughts on the role of psychology/mental health in our world (if you don't know my answer to the rhetorical question at the end of the post, you might be well-served to just stop reading now and use your time some other way.) Those attached to categorizing the recent events in my life as a problem to be solved will usually conclude that it represents a manic episode related to bipolar disorder. I certainly understand that under the currently prevalent medical model, this is a good guess.

However, the mainstream model doesn't fit with my experience. Instead, I feel that the interpretation I referred to in a previous post (make sure you watch both of the videos I linked to) fits better with my recent experience, as well as when I "went crazy" shortly after I got back from Ecuador. Finally, if you wish to obtain any insight into how I understand almost anything about the human mind, and my mind in particular, you will need to be familiar with the ideas in the video I linked to in this post.

Now, I like to consider myself a realist. Very few of you just took almost an hour to watch all those videos, much less time to poke around beyond that. Regardless, please enjoy these three songs which have meant a lot to me as I've been on this journey. (The partial lyrics are those that were particularly relevant to my experience)



Fall Awake by Stuart Davis

I was a curious boy with a wandering mind
on a hungry search undefined
in a rigid school full of concrete thought,
a structured day and all that brought
Logic ground in repeatable facts
my big energy faded back
They gave me far less than they stole
they packed my head and they drained my soul

It was an instant lift, my mind grew light
a lucid dream of a graceful flight
I'm a timeless entity cloaked in skin,
the eye of the universe turning in

It's a world too dense with material toys
and signals laced with a lot of white noise
But there's a place in me that scientists
can't explain so they just get pissed (dismiss)



Unfortunately, I can't embed Gnarls Barkley's Crazy, the best of the three videos in my opinion...

I remember when, I remember, I remember when I lost my mind
There was something so pleasant about that place.
Even your emotions had an echo
In so much space

And when you're out there
Without care,
Yeah, I was out of touch
But it wasn't because I didn't know enough
I just knew too much

And I hope that you are having the time of your life
But think twice, that's my only advice

You really think you're in control
Well, I think you're crazy
Just like me

My heroes had the heart to lose their lives out on a limb
And all I remember is thinking, I want to be like them
Ever since I was little, ever since I was little it looked like fun
And it's no coincidence I've come
And I can die when I'm done

Maybe I'm crazy
Maybe you're crazy
Maybe we're crazy
Probably




Ready to Start by Arcade Fire

If the businessmen drink my blood
Like the kids in art school said they would
Then I guess I'll just begin again
You say, "can we still be friends?"

If I was scared... I would
And if I was bored... you know I would
And if I was yours... but I'm not

All the kids have always known
That the emperor wears no clothes
But they bow to down to him anyway
It's better than being alone

Now I'm ready to start
I would rather be wrong
Than live in the shadows of your song
My mind is open wide
And now I'm ready to start

free at last

I'm a free man again. For now with no phone and not a lot of interest in checking email frequently. If that sounds like it will be impossible to find me, I guess it may be time to think outside the box...
PeaceOut,
Gautschi

My 72 Hour Hold

From: Ryan Gautschi [additional flare & typos by LRBS]
To: HCMC Psych Medical Staff

      Tonight I was placed on a 72-hour hold on the basis of misunderstanding, mistrust, and misapplication of sensible rules.  Overall, I think it was dramatic mistake, and that my accusation that this act violated the Hippocratic Oath-is true in both a mental health and a material sense.  I hope that this letter will belp clarify the situation, and lead to my speedy release from your supervison.
     I have studied psychology for nearly half of my life, an interested sparked by my high school psych teacher's passion and devotion to both his students and his counseling practice.  I understand now given the limited evidence, medical staff could draw any one of several false conclusions about my condition and prognosis I will not lend credence to any of them by listing them here.
     Despite my interest in psychology, I have long held the mental health system at arms length, choosing to deal with my emotional stresses through self-exploration and conversation with my broad network of friends and family.  My cynicism about professionalizing the solution of out mental health program was honed to a razor of resentment by the manner in which I entered the system.  I have always resisted coersion of any sort, and have never placed in handcuffs against my will.  To be dragged by bruised wrists into a system whose merits I doubt was an extremely jarring experience which I may never understand beyond learning how to avoid it, which I have.  But, of before I acted repeatedly on the strong mistrust I was feeling my biggest regret is setting the stage with this opening scene.
     Once I calmed down and accepted my place in the system, I began to experience the sharp and stinging frustration sensible rules being applied to an exceptional experience.  No single doctor or staff member was able to tell me the reason for my continued incareration, get a parade of doctors came by to ask me a couple questions, suggest I take some drugs and move on.  Mean while I tried to adapt from a hectic but generally healthy lifestyle on the outside, to a 11-ring circus of paranoia, anxiety, and depression that is HCMC Psych.  Instead of hummus and pita I got meat loaf and gravy.  Instead of long walks with the dog, I got endless pacing in a fishbowl.  Instead of screen time limited to emails and TED talks, I got the endless drone of commercial television.  It was not hard to imagine that the hospital is actually trying to drive me crazy.  Again, I understand why the rules are as such, but do not appreciate the inflexibility with which they are interpreted, nor the condensation that meets nearly any questioning of them.
    My thoughts have never been well-organized, but to those willing to listen they have always made sense.  I realize lately that I have pushed that distinction past the point where my loved ones feel comfortable, and for that I am sorry.  However, every hour I spend in this place only adds to their hurt and my sorrow.  More concretely, every hour I spend here makes it hared to believe that I will be able to attend classes this semester.  If I am unable to go to class, I will lose several key supports in my life, dramactially adding to my current stress load.  If I  cancel my classes this spring, I don't know how I will find health insurance, help for my pending divorce, career counseling, or even the money for my next trip to the grocery store.  As experienced professionals, you have to realize that this is hardly a recipe for successful recovery of an acute mental health episode cause by a building of everyday stresses.  Staff and services have helped me on my journey of self discovery but they are no longer needed.  I know whom, how, and why to ask for help when I need it.  In the name of the father of modern medicin and his oath, please stop harming me with medical intervention into my personal life.  Please read me.
Thanks,
Ryan Gautschi

Mental health update

I put in my request to be released from HCMC (a strange requirement considering I came in as a voluntary patient, I'd say) within twelve hours at 330 p.m., so unless someone comes up with a rational basis to keep me here past then, I will be out in the real world some time this evening...

Where, you ask?

HCMC again, B4 this time as a matter of fact. Still waaaaay tooooooo crazy to manage my own affairs in the real world, apparently.

Anyone who thinks this is essentially a problem with my past actions and my inability to explain them, please come visit me to help me pass the time until I'm free.

If you think this is something fundamental about me, and that I should fall back into line like I usually have when my heart conflicts with the expectations of society, please stay away until you're ready to trust that I'm OK.

See you in the real world, but not before you're ready...

All my love,

Ryan

Mo drama

I'd like to wish ALL of my Leadership Academy Class 11 friends a very HAPPY NEW YEAR and a joyous HOLIDAY SEASON...best of luck in 2012...looking forward to seeing you all in Mpls in July!!

---

Joe, if you want to say it to ALL of the group, facebook isn't the way! :p
Happy New Year, to all of y'all! :)
PS - as far as I know there are only four people getting this email (mostly big angry-bird players if my memory serves) who aren't welcome to join the facebook group, but I completely understand why some of you choose not to...

---

Happy New Year Ryan and Joe!

---

What's with your e-mail to LA11? What was that all about?

---

I just noticed that you and Joe are Facebook friends. Why would you send that e-mail to everyone? Some people are not in the LA11 group because they wish to avoid the same type of controversy and petty crap that you seem to be trying to stir up with your e-mail. Those same things were happening with the google e-mail too. That's why many people do not respond to those e-mails either. These issues occurred many moths ago when a lot of things were heated within our group. Things are not that way now, but you chose to re-open this. Why? It's not necessary and it is most un-welcomed.

---

You never answered my e-mail. What was up with that google group e-mail that you sent?

---

So, I've asked you a couple different times about that e-mail and you haven't responded to any of them. I guess I have my answer that you were just trying to start shit. Hell, even if you were just drunk-e-mailing, it would be somewhat of an excuse. You won't even own up to that, so I guess I have to just go on the assumption that you were trying to start shit. It's too bad that you can't get beyond that trivial bullshit from 8 months ago. Move on, Ryan. The rest of us have. I wish you the best with the things going on your life. Be strong and take care.

---

Actually, you've done what the old saying says happens when you make an assumption, ****...
The reason you haven't heard back from me is because I've been trying to follow Jimmy W's 48 hour rule. I'll go back one by one and answer your emails now

---

Joe, if you want to say it to ALL of the group, facebook isn't the way! Because not everyone is on facebook, not everyone will get a message sent to the facebook group. However, I felt confident, based on the the text of Joe's message [I'd like to wish ALL of my Leadership Academy Class 11 friends a very HAPPY NEW YEAR and a joyous HOLIDAY SEASON...best of luck in 2012...looking forward to seeing you all in Mpls in July!!] (CAPS emphasis in original, bold emphasis added), that he actually intended to send it to ALL 28 of his classmates. I have since confirmed my understanding with Joe. :p This is an emoticon meant to represent someone sticking their tongue out. Because subtlety, context, and emotion are harder to convey through text than more intimate forms of communication, such symbols have come into use to help make sure that things are read in the proper tone. In this case, I felt it was appropriate to convey to Joe that I was teasing him in a friendly way about not being super clear about how technology works and trying to help him be more effective in his communications in the future (by using the proper medium). I didn't want him to think I was forwarding it to make him feel dumb, nor did I want anyone to misinterpret his sending a message to facebook as his deliberate omission of some of the class.
Happy New Year, to all of y'all! This was my attempt to add my own New Year's well-wishes to Joe's. I don't know how I could have been more clear. :) An emoticon indicating happiness. Now that I'm breaking this 30-second email down after thinking about it off and on for 4 days straight, I must admit: this emoticon is redundant, weakens other emoticons in the work, and should have been omitted.
PS - as far as I know there are only four people getting this email (at this point I am getting a little ambiguous, but I figured most people would tend to jump right to one answer when asked, "Who are the four people on the LA11 google list are somehow different than the rest?") (mostly big angry-bird players if my memory serves) this parenthetical was meant to clarify the previously mentioned ambiguity. I definitely remember many people teasing the instructors about playing angry birds when not teaching, right? who aren't welcome to join the facebook group, but I completely understand why some of you choose not to... I myself have been off of facebook completely at various points, and was very late among my peers to get on in the first place. Privacy concerns and time-sucking concerns are just two that resonate with me the most. I was just trying to make clear that I don't hold it against anyone (or even question the motivations of anyone) who isn't on facebook. 

---

OK, I just sent two emails. If we could condense this conversation down to one medium (probably email is best?) I think that would be great...

---

Go ahead and try to back peddle. I'm not the only one who thought your e-mail was out of line. As far as the "48 hour" rule is concerned; that's BS. All I asked in my original e-mail was "What's up with the google group e-mail?". There was nothing accusatory in that statement and therefore no need to take time to collect your thoughts or feelings. I find the explanation of your e-mail to be lame and condescending.

I don't want to discuss this anymore with you. I want to look back at the LA experience and think good things, not the petty things. Take care of yourself. I wish you the best.

---

Go ahead and try to back peddle.

U seem inclined to disbelieve everything I say. So it seems useless to try to tell you I'm not backpeddling, even though it's true.

I'm not the only one who thought your e-mail was out of line.

I'm sorry to hear that.

As far as the "48 hour" rule is concerned; that's BS.

No, it's not - you've Assumed again (see below).

All I asked in my original e-mail was "What's up with the google group e-mail?". There was nothing accusatory in that statement and therefore no need to take time to collect your thoughts or feelings.

All of this is true, but only 41 minutes passed between that email and your next. In that time I was loading my vehicle with luggage and my children so that I could take them back to north dakota. Your first email only confused me, and I didn't have a chance to ask for clarification before I received your 2nd email, which I felt I should take some time to respond to.

I find the explanation of your e-mail to be lame and condescending.

I'm sorry you thought it was lame I thought it was rather clever. It was certainly condescending but only in a sarcastic way.
I don't want to discuss this anymore with you.

I've never understood anyone who thought they had the right to unilaterally declare a discussion over, and also claimed the last word. Especially a last word in such an inflammatory tone. Whether or not you want me to say something will hardly ever influence whether or not I say it.

I want to look back at the LA experience and think good things, not the petty things.

Yet look at all you infer from my simple sincere email...

Take care of yourself. I wish you the best.

Samesies...

---

Ryan, my statement about not wanting to continue this was not meant as a brush off. I merely meant that both of us have better and more meaningful things to be doing than going back and forth over something this trivial. I have always enjoyed our conversations and I honestly do wish you the best.

Horoscope

I long and loudly voiced my skepticism of horoscopes and other means of foretelling the future.

Saturday, I read my horoscope like I usually do when I work at Al's. The stressors in your life will come to bear on your ability to resist temptation. The best way to stick to your plans for yourself is to reduce your stress through exercise and/or meditation.

That night, I went to Liquor Lyle's, the Red Dragon, and Mortimer's with Dana's co-workers at Wells Fargo and various other associates. On the way there, I had the bad manners to get into first a tense discussion, then something even less appropriate, Tonia. The turning point was when, after 20 minutes of around and around about how she needed me to help her meet her 4 p.m. deadline to turn in a letter to Ward County Social Services, she answered my request for clarification of a previous statement with, You're basically, no offense, a deadbeat dad.

I have bitten my tongue until it bleeds about this issue, but I couldn't resist temptation this time. Maybe it was having pawned some audio equipment early that day so I could make it until student aid came through. Maybe it was the email I just got saying that my degree proposal was not accepted. Maybe it was the thought of my first meeting of new people at a bar since i resolved to drink only water this year.

I don't know which stressor of straw broke the camel's back but it snapped, and so did I.

If I could take back or remember every word, of course.

I think I took the middle road, there were plenty of paths that that I passed that led deeper, straight to the thick of the dark and forbidden forest of her heart...

Dana, having put up with way too much of her least favorite thing, called for meditation. Shut UP! A dumb consumption of Doomtree's Veteran is in order! We mostly respected our unspoken vow of silence and added Slow Burn to our passed-out-in-a-parked-car impression session.

The walk between bars was longer than I thought, and after six hours of darkness there was finally a chill in the January air. I shouldn't have left my jacket in the car. At least I got to do some fitness...

Sunday morning, I went to re-read the previous horoscope from one of the unsold copies waiting to be returned. Accepting reality is the first step to co-creating it... What? That's not it! Oh, that's Friday's, oops. There's Saturday's. Wow, that really does seem to fit! Onto business - get in omelette mode!

Although I slept until eight, that only added up to eight in two nights, fewer than the "eight" I worked between. Short an employee and starting behind the eight-ball from a mess of a Saturday, I had the most difficult day of work at Al's in memory.

The thought of spending the last week of winter vacation digging out from under a paper blizzard and working two half-shifts at a job I'm a bit sick of was enough to put me on the first train I could conjure into my mind. DC? LA? NYC? WTFC, get me out of here.

If I would have been able to pack to my satisfaction, I would have been on the train to Chicago, carrying mostly crazy ideas and more books than sense would allow. I maintained my resolve to make sleep a priority, and deferred my dream for another day. By morning I could abandon that plan for a staycation in the only city I'll probably really love in this lifetime.

At lunch with Mickey, I grabbed a seat and he drinks. I noticed a stray section of newspaper, clearly the star tribune's comics. So, I snatched it to check the horoscope. Accepting reality is the first step... Friday's newspaper is really still laying on the counter on Monday, and I accept that my next step is to finally read what I almost read on Saturday.

Accepting reality is the first step to co-creating it. Your will is strong, but the universal will is stronger. You'll defer to it as you realize that any other move would be pointless.

Curious, I checked Sunday's. You will feel absolutely driven to start and finish a certain project all in one day. It's as though you are overtaken by the desire to do so. Ask yourself what deeper motive you might be trying to accomplish.

Age of extremes

I had a long discussion on the bus today with a person called Omar, sparked by his holding a copy of The Age of Capital: 1848-1875, by Eric Hobsbawm. Capital is the second in a series of four books by Hobsbawm, spanning from 1789 to 1991 (see below).

Looking at Omar's book, I wondered: if the age of capital ended in 1875, what came next?

So I asked.

Omar explained the series of books and the approximate dates associated with each. The title made sense in this context, so I asked another question.

What ended the age of extremes, and what age are we in now?

Omar said he believed that Extremes ended around 1975 (presumably this was an older edition, or Omar mis-remembered), but that his understanding was that Eric would say we are still in the age of extremes. Omar and I agreed quickly, quietly, and with a knowing chuckle that Eric was right, and then both added that we thought a change of age was in store before long.

Omar said he thought we were about to have world war three.

Really?

Yes, there is just too much tension, too much hatred, too much energy. It has to be dissipated somehow.

A diversion. Do you know the basic laws of thermodynamics? I ask.

Ummm.

The idea that, in a physical sense, no energy can be created or destroyed - only moved around.

Omar understood this, having earned a degree in civil engineering. Does this other kind of energy follow the same rules?

Omar believes it does, and that this energy is so great because of the great number of people, and the many conflicts between groups of people.

I piped in one of my current favorite ideas: that the underlying cause of much mental/psychological illness is the complete disconnect between modern societies and the societies we are evolutionarily adapted to live in.

We drifted back to the immense social energy built up in the world, and hoped it will somehow be redirected, rather than blown off the old-fashioned way...

Omar asked if I was a student at the U. He is too. A junior now, in economics. His degree from his home nation is not recognized here, so he had to start over as a freshman with zero credits. Omar shared my enthusiasm for engineering. He seemed content with the change, but frustrated that job prospects would force him to earn an advanced degree. No jobs in social science.

I explained my situation, and how I ended up back in school. I mentioned planned happenstance.

He offered his condolences, which I accepted, noting the sincerity in this stranger's voice.

I've moved on, I said. It was difficult, but I am starting to make sense of it, and look forward to the new paths that are open to me.

Omar was ready to move on, too. I pointed him toward the student union, and went back to playing on my cell phone.

Butterfly effect

Metaphorically speaking...

Missing person?

I'm looking for the human who made and/or posted this, have you seen it?

Santorum finally in the headlines

The word "Santorum" seems to be on everyone's tongues this morning. I've been a long-time reader and listener of Dan Savage, so I've been familiar with the man, the mess and the legend for a long time. Now that he's really spilled onto the national scene, I'm just taking a moment to enjoy headlines like:

Out of Santorum’s Lean Operation, a Muscular Result (with the page title "Iowa Caucus Tests Santorum Surge"!!!)
Romney, Santorum in Dead Heat
Santorum declares 'Game on'
Santorum Neck-and-Neck with Romney
I hope you enjoy them, too! :)