This is turning into one of those blogs...

As much as I try not to, I keep getting drawn into deeply philosophical topics on this blog. I recently met someone who differs from me on almost every important aspect in life. So, naturally, I am drawn to him and intrigued by his presence in my life. I routinely wonder what this experience might teach me.

He recently recommended a catholic book to me. I was open to the idea of reading what it said. Mostly, I just wanted to read it so I’d be able to better understand him. I’ve never turned down an opportunity to learn more about something that I was previously ignorant about…so that’s where my journey began.

This is going to be a blog about religion, in the way that makes sense to me. This is not meant to offend or degrade anyone or anything, and I hope I’ve captured that essence for the most part.

The book, “Men, Women and the Mystery of Love” was full of theories that made me truly ponder the basis for religion in modern life. It was another lesson for me in terms of how people’s unique biases, backgrounds, and preferences can color the lenses through which they interpret the world around them. I came away with a familiar echo in my mind: all people generally want the same things, but they go about achieving these things in vastly different ways and for hugely different reasons.

The Good
I thought I would have to search desperately for the good in this book. However, I rather easily found many things in this book that made me appreciate how I was raised (because of the open-mindedness it allowed me to have), and that made me step back and intelligently analyze the reasons why things appear to us the way they are.

More specifically, I tended to agree with the reasons for implementing social order prescribed by the book (and this actually shocked me), but I could not immediately identify with some of the underlying logic. Through the whole book, the only statement I totally identified with with was: “A great marriage is not one that simply stays together, but one in which spouses experience a deep personal communion with each other.”

In a broad sense, I can definitely appreciate and see the benefit in certain aspects of the book such as: seeing beyond someone’s physical presence and into their being, practicing some version of modesty as it makes sense to do so, refraining from immediate gratification when to do otherwise would negate a solid relationship, and wanting to believe there is something called altruism which allows us to act in a totally selfless manner. Interestingly, much of the book discussed the merits of waiting until marriage to have sex. Without doubt, I can see the value in allowing a love relationship to form before engaging in sex.

The thing I cannot firmly grasp is something deeper than the espoused ideals though; it is the way in which they are rigidly set forth in order to meet the standards of living a “correct” lifestyle. In other words, not having sex before falling in love would be fine for me, but defining true love only under the guise of the cultural mores of “marriage” is a bit disconcerting. See, unfortunately, marriages can be loveless in the same way dating partnerships can be rich with love; so to say sex within marriage is the only valid instance is overly simplistic.

The Bad
I found that a good deal of the book contradicted itself, and provided (what I consider) weak arguments to some very multifaceted and dynamic human choices. I fundamentally disagreed with at least some element of almost every point made in the book. How’s that for ‘not the target audience’?

My first gripe is with the lack of any evidence to the contrary of what was being presented in this analysis. For example, the chapter on chastity was especially interesting. To summarize it, people who do not live a chaste life are full of resentment toward those who do. Really? I mean, what might be some other explanations for the wildly different perspectives of people who are sexually promiscuous compared to those who are sexually abstinent (or “pure”)? This author implied that the person who engages in sex before marriage is somehow unhappy with that choice and that unhappiness spawns an automatic devaluation of others who do not engage in sex before marriage.

This is an easy argument to make and to proliferate, but is it really ever that black and white? What makes us think there’s some great disparity between virgins and non-virgins? Perhaps there is no resentment. Perhaps we all need to take a closer look at why we decided to pursue our individual paths.…as opposed to finding ways to turn (what may be) benign lifestyles into more sinister ones. Plus, where’s the case showing that some people who are unmarried are also completely happy – and better off – living together for decades as domestic partners? I also disagreed with the characterization that sex before marriage occurs primarily when one partner fears punishment or loss of attention from the other.

Similarly, the correlation this author makes between people engaging in sex before marriage and prostitution was clearly alarming. I see that as a stretch. I mean, again, I see the value and merit in marriage and how important it is in both a sacrificial and enduring way, BUT are we really selling out our bodies if we engage in an act that physically imitates a “holy realm” before the marriage license is signed at the courthouse? All I can say is wow.

My last HUGE point is regarding the opposition to using contraception in marriage. I believe that the use of contraception in a marriage does NOT in any way devoid the union of love. The author’s perspective here was vexing to say the least. I’m all about kids and even I wonder about people who are childless to some extent, but c’mon let’s get real here. Is this practical to expect couples to only have sex when a woman isn’t ovulating? How many people have “accidents” while practicing this method?

The noblest thing to do in the modern age is to practice 20th century family planning. If you don’t want kids, then you have an obligation to ensure you don’t have them. Thanks to science, we have that choice.

And that thing about marriages requiring offspring? Yikes, sounds like a recipe for disaster. I wholeheartedly disagree with that opinion and think that people should have kids only if both partners really want them! If someone can intelligently argue how controlling when pregnancy can occur is an impediment to love, I’m all ears. But in this day and age, that’s the single dumbest and most careless thing I’ve read in a while. I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful here, but I'd like to say in the most direct terms possible that I entirely disagree.

To put it another way, natural family planning might work for some people but I lean toward believing that unplanned pregnancies are NOT cool. I fully realize that I have an idealistic vision about what pregnancy, childrearing, and parenthood is supposed to be about, so pardon this unusually tyrannical and somewhat biased response. My personal conviction: the undeniably most important thing you’ll ever do in your life is have a baby, so why not allow a little more caution and control over such a choice?

The Ugly
The perspective offered by this book was oftentimes shallow and one-sided. That being said, I see the virtue in writing a piece like this, and the virtue in reading it. Clearly, I won’t be rushing to convert to catholicism any time soon, because there are just too many ‘what ifs’ that religions necessarily leave out in order to bolster their appeal. With rule sets as crude and binding as these, there’s really no way to truly accept people into your life who stray from these so-called ideals. That leaves a lot of people and perspectives automatically discounted in life. And how do you operationally define “selfless acts of love” or “pursuit of a common good” and how do you explain “sensuality is more powerful in a man than it is in a woman” to your daughter? The word-plays used in this book to distort the topics were laughable at best. This author doesn't distinguish between a plausible story and a scientifically testable hypothesis. And some of his arguments seem covertly circular, or self-serving.

The Funny
I actually read this book while flying out of state for work and I didn’t have any paper to write my notes on – so I ended up using the complimentary barf bag to jot down my notes. Hahaha. Kinda puts everything in a new light.

My Conclusion
The main issue I take with this book is that even with the best laid plans and the purest of intentions, shitty things still happen to good people. I realize my view of organized religion is unpopular and I sound (even to myself, at times) like a heathen. But that’s not to say I am not spiritual. I hope that everyone continues to do whatever it is they feel passionately about. I still keep an open mind and try to live the notion that everyone should practice whatever religion works for them, in any form it works. As other great philosophers have put it, you should be at peace with god, whatever you conceive god to be.

Strategic swearing

A recent article in the Harvard Business Review discussed the topic of swearing as a strategic leadership technique to get one's point across. I've always been a fan of using strong language in situations where it is tactically advantageous (i.e. working with military guys to name one example)....but I further realize there are some inherent pros and cons with using profanity, especially at work! I felt a little mixed on the topic. I see how expletives can be offensive if used incorrectly, excessively, or amongst the "wrong crowd" but at the same time, I vehemently disagree with censoring or sugar coating emotions, reactions, and thoughts. While doing some more research on the topic, I found one view point that explained the idea of swearing at work this way:

I disagree strongly. Any manager who cannot show passion without profanity is sadly lacking in ideas, vocabulary and purpose, and is unable to convey a clear message. Take the profanity out of any typical rant, and there is not real message left. Profanity is an expression of emotion, but never of ideas. Profanity is never uplifting or empowering, but rather the opposite. The next time you hear someone swearing, ask yourself if they are showing that they are positive, in control and happy, or rather angry, frustrated and stuck in a situation. Profanity is for complaints, rants and losers.

The so-called “strategic use of profanity” is wrong as well. A person who doesn’t use profanity normally and suddenly uses it causes the listeners to focus on the profanity rather than the message. The so-called “shock value” is just shock – the speaker is angry or emotional, and therefore not rational; the person has no ideas or actions to convey, only emotion; and the leader is not in control, so the followers should fear both the situation and the speaker. Profanity is threatening, not engaging.

It is always easier to “step down” to a lower level than to “pull up” another to a higher level of interaction and communication. Managers should focus on clear communications, honest assessment and positive action rather than emotional dumping. Leave profanity to the ignorant, the fearful and the indecisive.

Frankly, this perspective sounds elitist and too moralistic. I have to wonder if this writer is someone who doesn't have a very diverse background or circle of friends. Why does using colorful language have to be considered a "step down"? That's a very "holier than thou" response to this topic. I can respect the argument itself but I disagree with much of this writer's opinion. As well, there is merit in using language that doesn't offend people or make them tune you out.

All I want to say is, don't forget what swear words can accomplish that other words cannot. Some of the most effective people I've ever met have used swearing selectively in professional situations. The truth is, it is impossible to speak in such a way that you will always be well-understood, so with any word or gesture there's the possibility of it being taken the wrong way, blown out of proportion, or used against you. I think cussing in professional situations can be mighty effective, especially when there is some rationale behind it. In other words, there's a time and a place for profanity, vulgarity, and obscenity.... and that place is right next to me. LOL. :)

My bank-owned beauty

I guess the price of homeownership is a costly one. Sometimes I really wonder if I am biting off more than I can chew. I know more about this process than I ever wanted to know in my life. I swear, if I had to list all the things that I've had to work-around, figure out, pay for, and give up since this started, I might be sick. Seriously, I had NO idea that the hardest parts came AFTER the offer was accepted. Tough wake up call for me. Guess that's the joy - and the misery - of going solo on a mission like this. Here are a few pictures:

Everything works out given time.

Training is a four-letter word

In an effort to temporarily refrain from blogging about existential theories and political musings, I have decided to make this blog about my job. Not very many people truly understand or even care what I do for a living, so this may be a somewhat boring blog; consider yourself forewarned.

I am sitting here amidst piles of articles, newsletters, and electronic reports wondering why I got myself into this mess. All is not lost. My initial thought is that I will map training methodologies to particular mission operations as a start. That doesn't sound so bad. Or maybe I can develop a tool for evaluating training methods currently offered - Retest - Retain. And based on those results I can make recommendations for a cultural taxonomy of translating intercultural competencies into learning objectives...yeah yeah that's what I'll do.... Relate - Communicate - Negotiate. Or perhaps I should focus on training transfer and the effect of social media on training effectiveness....

Oh dear.

Maybe I will start looking into Organizational Change. I remember that was somewhat easier to digest.

I'm gonna need more aspirin.

All We Are

My last post was a revelation in forgiveness. Today is a revelation in love. Perhaps you can't have one without the other?

People say I am boy crazy and it's at least a little bit true. I am very "relationshipy" and I've had many boyfriends. But as many times as I've said those three words, I have only truly been in love twice in my twenty-seven years. To me, and maybe this is where I am a realist, love is not a quixotic, unexplainable, mystical phenomenon that creeps up on you. Love is simple. I define it as the "pull" toward someone or something. It isn't the feeling you get when you are with that person but rather, the feeling you get when you are not. It is the ever-present desire to surround yourself with your object of affection, which ranges from mundane to complex manifestations of that desire. That might sound neurotic or obsessive, but it seems to have happened to everyone who has ever been in love.

When was the last time you went to the grocery store and realized that you never buy plain cheerios anymore because he doesn't really like them as much as the honey cheerios....and only mid-way through that fleeting thought it dawns on you that he has been gone six years? It doesn't go away. It never will. This is not a trivial matter, the cheerios. Think about it, something in you changed because you loved that person. Your freedom to act on every whim was forever altered. No longer will you ever look at the cereal aisle the same, even when you think you do. And whether you've realized it yet or not, your mind is not as powerful in these matters as your heart.

Obviously, sometimes the signals are not as dramatic or telling... maybe there are things that have changed you on a deeper level. Maybe he or she changed your whole philosophy....and continues to do so. But the crux of love is this: it changes you. My favorite way to describe being in love is that all your craziness suddenly has a purpose.

Love is only the third highest need in Maslow's hierarchy... But don't dare try to convince someone who has lost a love that there is anything of greater importance in the world. A lost love is probably the one thing that sticks with you as long as, say, having a child or stepping foot on the moon. It's that monumental. If you don't think so, I would argue that you didn't truly love the thing that was lost. And sometimes, sadly, you can know that only once it's gone for good.

But all love is not lost. In the occasion that your love continues, grows, and evolves, then you are one of the lucky few. See, people do not stay the same for long, they change. Adapting to that change is without a doubt one of the 7 Wonders of the (Emotional) World. Love cannot thrive without renewal and that comes through change. I am by no means an expert, but I believe that the key to weathering the lowest lows and embracing the highest highs starts from a seed called Trust. Some people are really good at this. Others, like myself, tend to shy away from situations where I have to put my faith in someone or something. I always figured that the only person I could rely on was myself. This has been a virtue in school and work, but a severe detriment in love. I wasn't always this way either.

My first true love I was able to trust with all my being. And it was pure, unadulterated trust! I did not trust him because that I thought he walked on water, or that he would do everything right and make sure life was just the way I wanted (not too hot-not too cold, like Goldilocks) - rather, and more importantly, I trusted that he would do everything in his power NOT to hurt me. He was just that kinda guy. It was me and him against the world. That's what our trust was built on. I believed that when I was hurt, he was also feeling just as much pain. We were in it together. He hated seeing me cry. It would make him cry! He wasn't a wimp, but he had very very deep feelings for me and for the world. He was a dreamer like me, a true visionary. He saw the horrors in life and wanted to shield me from them...now, he was usually unsuccessful in protecting me, but that's not the point. He cared about me SO much that I honestly couldn't see how we would ever separate. Until one day we did.

My world was rocked so unbelievably hard. I awoke to see that everything was still intact - except my trust. Somehow I had gone from thinking that love could be a many splendored thing to thinking that fairy tales only exist in books. I learned from that and grew immeasurably. But I was still hurt, and any snippet of hurt that I experience nowadays is felt tenfold. But I keep trying. And I think being willing is more important than being right.

Willingness cannot be underestimated. When your little seed becomes a sappling, you've reached level two in the laws of love. The second lesson in weathering the ups and downs of love is to GIVE. If you don't have the capacity to sacrifice some of your needs and desires for another person, you should not pursue a love relationship. It's been said, one who dares not touch the thorn should never crave the rose. That's what this is all about. Being giving means not asking what that person can do for you in return. This kind of giving should come relatively easily ... and regularly. It need not be monetary or tangible. It could be a massage, time alone, or a shoulder to cry on. Lovers intuitively sense this about one another. I think. Call me idealistic, but how hard is it to see that someone needs something? I am pretty sure humans have been programmed to "see" when someone needs something. The only caveat here is that it is NOT always clear WHAT a person may need. Those who tend to like shoulder massages usually give pretty good shoulder massages. But those who tend to like shoulder massages are absolutely awful at giving a person time to be alone. What I have come to realize over the past year is that our needs surface in a relationship all the time. The thing that distinguishes a good relationship from a bad one is how those needs are met, ignored, or answered the "wrong" way. Granted, this takes time to learn a person's unique needs...but it should never be something you don't want to do for the person you love, mostly because you TRUST that this will be good for you both in the long run....and you see the light peeking through every dim day when you look forward to holding that person again. That's something you won't foresake for your own temporary gratification.

Your tree of love is fully realized when it holds up to the third law of love:TIME. This is the one I have a good bit of trouble with because it is closely correlated with patience. Love takes time, precious time. Love takes time apart, to realize how much you really want to be with that person. Time together, to ensure your time apart is justifiably unpleasant. Time to see, since certain things can only be revealed after you've grown to a certain level of ONENESS. Time to spare, because you always end up doing what seems like nothing for entire stretches of hours or days (but that's ok with you). And if you don't have the stomach to wait it out, then maybe it's not worth it to you. That's ok too. Sometimes things aren't worth it. The good part is when you realize that. Time is not something that can be rushed or taken back. Love will stand the test of time whether you want it to or not.

Those are my thoughts on LOVE.

Forgive and Forget

The old saying "forgive and forget" never quite resonated with me. What is forgiveness, exactly? Literature is rife with quotes and all-too-familiar definitions. Religion has a very specific way of describing it. But forgiveness for sins never made much sense to me. You have to believe someone has wronged you, or believe that you've wronged someone, in order to engage in the act of "forgiveness" and possibly even forgetting. The laws of the church don't apply this concept well. The self-condemnation that comes from following a socially-sanctioned moralistic conscience is a vicious circle and inhibits being whole.

The secular view of forgive and forget doesn't make sense to me either. Sure, we can go ahead and forgive, but what part of that transgression - the thing we are forgiving - must be relinquished before we have successfully and truly forgiven someone? Is it possible to forgive someone fully if you still hold on to little pieces of the hurt, the mistrust, or the fear? Or, by the very definition of forgiveness, must we forgive the act in every sense, all memories included?

To put it another way, why would humans have memories if the goal in life was to forget certain things? Granted, the human mind is a deep chasm of subjectivity when it comes to recalling supposed "memories" in the first place. But, the way we encode a memory and retrieve it does matter in terms of learning from our experiences. This could be a good thing then... this thing called remembering. We need those memories to remind us not to do certain things that caused pain, and to engage with more conviction the things that brought us joy. Learning from experience is only possible when we access, rely on, and apply our memories to future decisions.

Therefore, I decided a long time ago to "forgive but never forget" because I believe that you have to trust your own recollection of your experiences and use that to propel you forward and help you decide which turns to take on the road called life. The act of remembering your past is a powerful catalyst to making more informed decisions as life progresses. Who controls the past, controls the future.

But for the longest time I was still stuck trying to figure out what forgiveness is really all about. I figured it's dependent on the act that caused the rift, what made one feel the need to forgive, and assumptions about whether the forgiveness will change anything. But let me expand your mind for a moment. Maybe what forgiveness is about is actually pretty simple: telling the truth. Maybe the word forgiveness is not really forgiveness at all; rather, it is the act of leveling with oneself about the event(s) that transpired. Forgiveness, in this sense, is not about hearing "I'm sorry" or telling the person that he or she has been forgiven. Forgiveness isn't about letting go of anything at all. It's about understanding your version of "the truth" and putting that tidbit in a safe place in the back of your mind, where it can't haunt you anymore.

Maybe telling the truth about your anger is a way to get back to your experience of "being," where you love yourself and therefore have something left over with which to love someone else. Forgiveness is about taking responsibility for your mind and the things it does to you. Responsibility means that whatever you are doing, you are willing to experience yourself as the cause. A commitment to forgive, and by extension to free yourself of mental torment, must be based on the awareness of what is, and on the willingness to be responsible for ourselves the way we are now. When you are lying, when you are keeping a secret, you are withholding information and feelings in order to protect something meaningless, usually to preserve a constant state of being or equilibrium.

Today, it is my belief that forgiveness is necessary, but not on a social level. Forgiveness is an internal decision to be honest with yourself about your pain. Forgiveness feels good in this way because your mind is not burdened with the stigma, drama, or trauma that once characterized your thoughts. The primary cause of stress, depression, and anger is living in a story and lying to maintain it. Forgiveness, freeing your mind by telling the truth, is the only way out.

When you correct your mind, everything else falls into place. ~Lao Tzu

*Parts of this blog were adapted from the book Radical Honesty: How to Transform Your Life By Telling the Truth by Brad Blanton

Psychological Warfare

Seriously....Is it true that women never say what they mean or how they feel? Both men and women are guilty of the same psychological warfare. But men have different motives - ego preservation.

Just take a look at some common boy-speak, and see if you can tell where he's protecting his ego.
1. He Says: "We should hang out sometime."
He Means: "I'm afraid you'll say 'no' if I ask you out."

2. He Says: "I'll call you later."
He Means: "I may or may not call you at some point between now and three months from now."

3. He Says: "My ex is crazy."
He Means: "I messed her up, and she got upset."

4. He Says: "That guy seems like a good friend of yours."
He Means: "Was there ever a thing between you?"

5. He Says: "It's a long story."
He Means: "It's a story that makes me look bad."

6. He Says: "That's a new look."
He Means: "You look weird."

7. He Says: "Why are you being so emotional?"
He Means: "Why are you acting like a psycho?"

8. He Says: "That's not what I meant."
He Means: "That's totally what I meant, but now that I see you're mad, I wish I hadn't said it out loud."

9. He Says: "It's fine."
He Means: "It's not actually fine, but I'm in no mood to discuss it."

10. He Says: "Can we talk about this later?"
He Means: "I never want to talk about this again."

*Men's language decoded is courtesy of Cosmopolitan.com