Monogamy is a sub-set of polyamory

There are certainly many people out there who are not practicing polyamory, right? I mean, many people are not in relationships with more than one person. People may date a few people while they look for “the one,” but ultimately, most people choose one person to be exclusive with. Monogamy, is, therefore the norm. Only aberrant people are polyamorous, right?

Well, not really.

First of all, allow me to clarify a few things.

Relationsips are not all about sex.

Yes, some relationships are all about sex, like the relationship one might have with a prostitute for an hour or so. But outside of that and the occasional sexual tryst at the office or whatever, relationships have more dimensions than that. Relationships are about common interests, goals, possibly emotional attachment, etc. And yes, sex too. But not always.

When we talk about ‘relationships,’ we tend to mean interactions with people we have romantic and/or sexual feelings for. And unless the people involved are saving themselves sexually (and I don’t know why anyone chooses to do so, but I digress), sex is usually involved in such relationships. But these types of relationships are one specific kind, and certainly not the rule. Statistically speaking, in fact, they are the exception. Most of our relationships are non-sexual, whether they are professional, educational, friendships, or based upon mutual animosity (everyone needs an arch-enemy, right?).

So, when we talk about relationships in general, we are simply meaning the set of interactions between people, some of which are based upon things like mutual sexual, emotional, and interest commonalities. Or, again, they might be based on mutual animosity.

Polyamory is not all about sex (but I repeat myself…)

I know people who are in deeply meaningful, intimate, and long-standing relationships who have never had sex. You probably do as well. But more specifically, I know people who are in polyamorous situations where one of their partners is not a sex partner. That simply is not what those people need or want from each other, and they get that elsewhere. But when I talk about polyamory with people, what seems to be discussed more often than not is how I can let my girlfriend (As if it’s up to me to allow her to do anything…) have other sex partners. Further, how can my girlfriend allow me (as if she has to allow me to do anything) allow me to have other sexual partners. In short, how can we be so slutty?

But this misses the point. Polyamory is not just about sexual non-exclusivity. It is about recognizing that we, as human beings with complicated and disparate needs, cannot have all of our needs met via one person. I may like to play Starcraft (I do) and perhaps my girlfriend does not want to play (in this case she does, but that’s not the point). She may like to be tied down and beaten a little, and I might not want to do that (whether or not either of these things is the case I’ll leave to your curiosity, because I’m that kind of sadist…and then of course I hint at the answer…maybe). The point is that perhaps we have some needs that our partner cannot fulfill. It seems perfectly natural that we would find another person to fulfill such needs. People have relationships with many people that fill different roles in our lives, and we care about many of these people.

And we all do this (at least I hope that we do!). But in the normal world out there we, for some reason that is not entirely clear to me, make a distinction between our ‘relationship’ and our friends/acquaintances/family. Now, to some point this is because of the cultural language game that we play, and the term ‘relationship’ has this specific meaning and most people use it that way. But I think that this language game begins to lose coherence as we start to analyze actual structure of people’s lives and what we do with our relationships of all kinds. The more that ideas like swinging, polyamory, and other challenges to the assumed sexual exclusive (“monogamous”) relationship become part of the cultural conversation, the more this dichotomy between our “relationships” and our friends dissolves. It certainly has dissolved for me.

So, polyamory is about developing intimate relationships with people whom we care about, and this recognition that we have complex and disparate needs often leads to sexual non-exclusivity. And some people will find that they are able to be fulfilled sexually with one person (at least at a time), while maintaining other non-sexual relationships with other people. And since polyamory is not just about sex, this arrangement can be called polyamory just as well as a triad, a quad, or some other sexual relationship configuration. But this specific polyamorous arrangement of people is precisely the same, in arrangement, as what we call ‘monogamy.’ Therefore, monogamy is a sub-set of polyamory.

Polyamory as the standard?

Now, I am being a little cheeky here, but I think a serious observation exists inside this cheek. I think that if we were to look at our lives more closely, we will find that what is called polyamory (its lessons about communication, honesty, and whatever else it has to teach us) should be the basis about how we think about relationships. Yes, some of use will end up in complicated multiple-person arrangements of sexual activity while others will have many acquaintances, a few friends, and one lover, but if that is where your needs and desires lead you then no polyamorous evangelical (if such a person exists, I might be considered to be such a person) would ever be at issue with you. That is, the goal should be to be happy with what it is you really want in a healthy, open, and honest way, not to be a slut (necessarily).

Polyamory, as it is used in most conversations, is about sexual non-exclusivity, but it is not so necessarily and therefore not in all cases. In the end, what I have learned about relationships, people, and myself while being polyamorous all people should learn. It would help make relationships of all kinds healthier, and if those lessons strengthen your relationship, then it does not matter if you have 1 sex partner or 100, because in some sense we are all polyamorous; we all love more than one person, and sex is not the same as love.

Perhaps at some time in the future, the term “polyamorous” will be as useless as the term “atheist” will be. Perhaps in the future people will simply follow there needs and desires towards whatever relationships work for them in the same way that people in the future will not believe in gods because there is simply not sufficient reason to do so and because they have taken the time to think through the reasons to attain these perspectives.

I know…pie-in-the-sky…

Accommodationism: the facts don’t matter

I have been thinking a little the last couple of days how frustrating the whole gnu atheist/accommodationist conversation has been on the blogosphere in recent months. As I have argued previously, I don’t have a lot of tolerance for the tolerance-monkeys we call ‘accommodationists.’ I think they are more concerned with tone and appearance in a way that makes them dishonest and ironically disrespectful. But why do they annoy me so?

Today I was thinking about it and it became crystal clear that it is the exact annoyance I experience while talking with a creationist. I begin to see, as I argue with them, that the facts simply do not matter. In each discussion, facts are ignored and sophomoric philosophical dribble are uttered in place of an actual conversation about what is true. Content is almost completely ignored while tone, respect, and other misused terms are bandied about with like antidotes, but which end up being more homeopathic than anything.

Ha! Accommodationist arguments are homeopathic! They are nothing but water, but the vanishingly small amount of actual argument is presented as a strength. I like that. Feel free to borrow it at your leisure.

And what’s worse, is that not only do they not respond to the actual content, they fancy their own arguments as powerful. Just like a creationist; an argument that displays more ignorance and made-up silliness while they often throw the same accusation towards their targets (that would be gnus like me).

Why don’t they address the content; facts? Because they can’t.

Respect? The defence to an atheist’s offence is defensiveness and offense

In talking with religious people, one thing I hear from many of them (conservative or liberal, devout or not) is that their beliefs are personal. These are things they believe truly, inside, and I have to respect that (that last bit is usually implied, rather than stated directly).

Well, OK. So are my beliefs. They are personal and I really believe them. What does that have to do with respect?

Well, says the defender of such a person, it means that these beliefs are important to them and so we need to treat those people with respect. And then we get into the whole argument about respect, distinguishing between having respect for the person and their beliefs, etc. It is, says such a defender, not our place to tell them that their beliefs are wrong.

In such conversations there is a fair amount of talking past one-another, as well as a pinch of differing values and goals. There is also a fair amount of those defenders missing the detrimental affects of such beliefs on people and society subsequently. (BTW, I love this post about epistemological and moral values of new atheists)

I don’t want to discuss that issue specifically, but I want to raise another question instead. When a Christian (or Moslem, Pagan, etc) receives questions or challenges about their beliefs, they often become defensive, offended, and become appalled at our lack of respect. So, why don’t atheists react that way to their views being challenged? Why do we, for the most part, welcome the discussion? And, perhaps most interestingly, why are we gnu atheists (in my experience) rarely challenged in a way that we have not heard before? And why, further, do believers react as if they have never heard something like that before?

Could it be that the believers really have not thought those things atheists challenge them with before that moment? Could it also be that atheists, specifically the gnu variety, have heard all (or at least most) of the challenges that a believer might bring up? What does this say about the relative awareness and education about the philosophy of religion between atheists and believers? Well, at least one study has given a partial answer to this.

But more importantly, is it the case that the gnu atheists simply care more about challenging their own worldview? (perhaps not exclusively; I am sure there are quite a few non-gnus who share this quality as well).

All these questions paint the issue with a broad brush, certainly. But I think a few observations are fair to point out:

Gnu atheists are more prone to critical examination of religious belief. This is because they often started as religious and through education and thought found a way out eventually, a process which provides perspective, depth and breadth of thought on the topic, and a higher level of justified certainty than most believers have. Others, like myself, never believed but grew up in a such a way as to be sensitive to the emotional, psychological, and intellectual affects of such beliefs. We see how people are stunted by such a worldview and know humanity is capable of more (although perhaps only some). Yes, there are some believers who have studied their beliefs, but it is much more rare that they have honestly studied the arguments of atheists or skeptics. They have not taken the outsider test for faith, looking at their beliefs from the outside. And even when they do try and see their beliefs from the outside point of view, it is often clear that they are missing the essential point of the criticism. On the other hand, when you hear theists declare victory over atheists, more often than not they are pulling out the same old canards again and again. This frustrates us quite often and possibly offends us (but only our hope for human rationality, not our sense of having been respected).

How often do we hear that we can’t disprove god? How often do we hear about Pol Pol, Hitler, and Stalin? How often do we hear about TAG or Kalam? (let alone the Ontological argument, argument from design, etc?). And if I hear Pascal’s wager again, I swear I’ll scream! (“look at the trees!” *headdesk*)

Similarly, how often to believers hear the various replies to these arguments? And if they do hear them, how often are they really interested in hearing? How many times have I seen eyes glazed over by anything I say in response to some lame attempt at apologetics? Too many!

I have said a number of times that if there is a god I want to know. I think the question is important, and I want to know the truth about such things. Despite this desire, I have found no reason to believe in such a proposed being, so I must conclude that one does not exist. What other intellectually respectable choice do I have? I cannot prove that there is no god (except for very specific and well-defined gods which are logically impossible), but I see no reason to believe in one and so I do not. This provisional conclusion is open for criticism and challenge, and I am baffled why most believers do not have this attitude towards their beliefs. This personal thing that I conclude, these potential gods that I lack belief in, is as personal a thing as it gets. So why am I not offended at being challenged? And if I were offended, would the accommodationist assist me in defending my rights to believe what I want with the same vigor that they defend the believer now? Would they demand respect of my beliefs with the same moral outrage? The irony, as I hope they might see, is that I would hope that they would not try to defend my respectability in this sense. I don’t want the ‘respect’ they are offering. Because acting as a shield to criticism is not respectful of people, it is only respectful of an opinion that may or may not be worthy of respect; we’ll only know upon analysis.

Analysis that the accommodationist tries to prevent in the name of respect.

The accommodationist’s flavor of respect is not actually respect, nor is it respectable. From my point of view, it is ultimate disrespect for any pursuit of truth, human progress, or growth.

Gnuism: Is it tru? You’re a gnu!

(Not to be confused with this GNUism, which is also interesting and new. As a writer, I may decide to find a way to combine the powers of these two concepts and take over the world….)

In recent months, there has been a lot of talk about ‘gnu atheism’ on much of the atheist blog-o-sphere, particularly by Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, and (of course) Ophelia Benson (among others). Despite what some recent articles have ridiculously claimed, the title ‘gnu’ is a take on ‘new’ (as in new atheists), and is supposed to show how seriously we take this title (hint: not very). As has been said by many people, including myself, there is little that is “new” about our atheism, it’s just that now we are getting more attention (and therefore actually being heard, which many people object to). We have always had this “strident and shrill” (as it is seen by some) tone, but in reality we are just after the truth, with kid-gloves off.

I suppose the new/gnu qualifier, while not being ‘new’ per se, allows us to distinguish us from other atheists in one regard. PZ Myers seems to have encapsulated the distinction best when he said the following:

Gnu atheism is not simply about what isn’t. Our views do find expression in specific criticisms of specific faiths, but those are just the epiphenomena of a deeper set of positive values that [Stephen] Asma completely misses. Certainly I will make moral arguments against religious pathologies — Catholic priests raping children is bad — and I will judge beliefs by the foolishness of their explanations — creationist dogma is utterly absurd. But to say that is the guiding philosophy of atheism is to mistake the actions for the cause. I have one simple question you can ask of any religion, whether it’s animism or Catholicism, that will allow you to determine the Gnu Atheist position on it.

Is it true?

This is the bottom line. Whether it makes you feel better, makes life feel worth living, or if it has pretty art, music, or rituals we want to know if it is true. This has been a motivating question throughout my life, one that has alienated me at times. In fact, this desire for truth is what led me to discover first that I was an atheist (had been all along) and later that I was what was being called a “new/gnu atheist”. That is, there was no conversion or decision to join the ranks, this term just describe how I thought about the issues at hand.

But this question of “is it true” is relevant for more than religion, but also for many other things (astrology, homeopathy, etc). And I am finding, as I navigate the world and think about various issues, that this is a strong motivator for me for many things (if not all things). I find myself asking not so much whether this issue is helpful, pleasant, or even pragmatic, but whether it is true. And this often causes me to rub against people in the wrong ways, as I’m sure is true for others with similar personalities.

I am hesitant (for once) to site a recent example that acts as the cause for these thoughts, because of the arguments that this example brings up are controversial and I have not clarified my position quite yet. To reference the issue vaguely and analogously, I will say that my uncertainty of the truth of this question makes my questions appear as if I am trying to take a conservative stance on someone’s rights, when in fact I am asking if the action (and not their right to do that action) is one that even makes sense. I’ll say that an analogy would be the scene from Life of Brian where Stan declares that he wants to have a baby. The dialogue continues thus:

Judith: [on Stan’s desire to be a mother] Here! I’ve got an idea: Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb – which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’ – but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother… sister, sorry.
Reg: What’s the *point*?
Francis: What?
Reg: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can’t have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Now, I love this scene (and this movie), but the comedy here is sort of what I’m getting at at my vaguely referred-to issue. What does one do when faced with a question of rights when the right might not make sense in the first place? A question for another time, I think, but I’m going somewhere with that at some point in the future.

For now, what does this have to do with the term ‘gnu’? Glad you asked, because I was getting off-track there. I wonder to what extent the distinction between the gnu atheists and other non-gnus might be this preoccupation with the truth. The desire to find whether something is true or not is certainly not universally shared (perhaps it is not even very common), and it creates a distinction between people who will apply their skepticism to most aspects of their life (perhaps applying universally is an impossible feat) and people who will forgo such skepticism from many aspects of their lives for various reasons, but including the desire to keep it away from things which may not be true but make them comfortable.

Perhaps, as a kind of coining of a term, one can detach the ‘gnu’ from the atheism and view this qualifier as an independent term which would imply a priority of truth. As Matt Dillahunty has said on the Atheist Experience (and elsewhere), he wants to believe as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. I agree with him, and this is a personality trait that Matt and I share, which is why I life listening to him so much…because he reminds me of myself, or something (not that I am totally self-absorbed). And I think that those people who identify as Gnu atheists share this quality; it may be what distinguishes the gnus from the non-gnus. And since this attribute is applied to more than their views on gods or religions, they are ‘gnu’ in more than a religious sense. They are gnus generally. They are, perhaps, Gnuists.

Now, one might say that this coinage is stretching a little, and I can see that. Others might point out that this term is superfluous because the proper application of skepticism (which does indeed lead to atheism) is equivalent to this term in many ways. I agree, but I sort of like the term used in this way for the single purpose that it acts to pull out this very issue of applying skepticism properly to all things (or at least trying to), rather than leaving it aside for some things (such as religion) as many in the skeptical community do.

A gnu is a person who wants to ask “is it true” about all things. They are not accommodating any issue simply because it might avoid controversy or offend someone. It will imply that they are an atheist (unless, of course, it can somehow be demonstrated that a god actually exists), but it also implies that they are asking “is it true?” to more than just gods.

Here’s a handy mnemonic device: “Is it true?”, you’re a gnu!

Perhaps I should start a church of Gnuism. It would be similar to my old idea to start a temple of Gnosis Dionysus, but with less Dionysian hedonism and more questions. OK, you are right, let’s keep the hedonism.

Of anniversary and double entrendre

It may be arbitrary to some degree, but a year is a year (is a year? How much repetition distinguishes an idiom from redundancy?), and it has been a year.

And digressing thoughts aside (as well as regressive digressions about digressions), perhaps this post could use some context. After all, I do not think it that it is common for people to celebrate arbitrary dates and celebrate (or mourn) random days. Not that I have never been known to do uncommon things, mind you, but not even I am that abnormal…I think.

So, back on October of 2009, I moved to Atlanta with a girl names Seana. We met in Philadelphia, began dating, and when she was offered a job in Atlanta she took it and asked me to join her. I, not having a job at the time and wanting to experience life in another part of the country (and eventually the world), decided to take the risk and go. Risk being the word which has emotional import to this blogger.

So, a few months later things were not going so well, we had a minor argument, and she left. She did not give me an explanation, she refused to speak to me again, and was just gone from my life. That was January 16th 2010, one year ago today. Happy anniversary to me! But one does not usually commemorate dates of break-ups, at least if one is to be considered emotionally healthy, and likewise that is not the intention here.

While the circumstances of this painful break-up were non-typical in themselves, what happened next was what more appropriately makes this an anniversary…perhaps…that’s an issue for debate.

That very same day, being emotionally distraught and in need of distraction, I called two friends I had made while in Atlanta. I met them at The Brick Store (if you ever visit Atlanta and you love beer, you must visit this place!) and had a few drinks, distracted myself, and had a few laughs. One of those friends was a girl I had met a week before, Ginny, and in my anguish and confusion I found myself attracted to her, and things went their natural way as they do with people in such circumstances. Thus, another kind of anniversary, on the same day.

But that is not quite right. Despite this start, it took time to heal, and in that time Ginny was the best of friends, most trusted confidant, and eventually we began to see ourselves as partners (polyamorous partners, of course), and I fell in love with her. But the ability to trust, to love, and to move on after such a wound takes time. She was patient, and in time I, even with the scars that still exist, have found that I have been able to trust, to love, and to look forward to a better future.

But the question still remains as to when, precisely, our relationship started. The question Ginny and I have asked ourselves is ‘so, when is our anniversary?’ It’s a legitimate question, one which we do not have a definitive answer to. Ultimately, it is of little practical difference, as it does not change how we feel about each other, but it becomes a matter of deciding how long we have been together as partners.

In any case, we are, and I hope will continue to be, partners. She is a wonderful person, ideal in my opinion, and I am glad beyond my ability to articulate to know her. In fact, I think I have found myself in a better place now than I was before. I mean no disrespect to any particular exes, but I think I have upgraded in every way, and there is a lesson in this. I think the lesson is that sometimes when we are in pain, we don’t see that things can indeed get better. I urge anyone in pain, suffering a loss of any kind, to keep this in mind. You may find that you will learn things about yourself in times of loss that while unfortunate, may give you perspective. I can almost thank Seana for giving me that perspective…but she’d never hear it nor would she likely understand.

And while I would like to have some explanation, some understanding, and possibly some closure (that will not happen, almost certainly), I am almost….glad (that seems odd to say, but it feels true) that previous relationship did not work. I realize, only in retrospect, that while I did love her, she was not the right fit for me because the truth that is necessary in any relationship was not present in treating a loved one in such a way. It was not warranted, and if it had not happened then, and in that way, it would have happened some other way, at some later time, most-likely

That’s the thing about trust. I thought I could trust Seana, but it turned out I should not have. But I won’t stop trusting. it took me some time, but I came to trust Ginny. And there is no guarantee that this trust will maintained in the end, but I will not resign to the cynicism of keeping people at a distance out of fear that they may break any trust I give them. I will not allow the actions of a fearful and ultimately selfish person to ruin my future with other people I care about. I hope, for the sake of her current and/or future partners, that she will grow beyond who she was to me.

But, I take one thing back; it is not a double entendre at all. No double anniversary here. I do not need to remember such a day, such an act, or such a person as Seana with any further thought (which is not to say the scars will disappear, of course) or comment (that I can control). I therefore, commit such things to the past, where they belong.

But, more importantly, I hope that the people in my life will end up being more like Ginnys than Seanas. I thank Ginny for being the amazing person she is, and I wish her a happy anniversary (of sorts).

And, as we plan on moving to Philadelphia, I hope that those I know there will grow to love her as I do.

The Moral Landscape (some early thoughts)

I’m currently (finally) reading Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape (which I am enjoying so far). I am finding that I agree with Sam Harris much more often than not, and will recommend the book.

Right now, I want to post a few short quotes concern an issue I have been thinking about, as well as arguing about on an email list for atheists.

What are our priorities? How can we make ourselves better people? What is a good person?

Here is a quote from the book which is tangentially related to some recent conversations I have been having via email with some atheists with varying priorities.

I am arguing that everyone also has an intuitive “morality,” but much of our intuititive morality is clearly wrong (with respect to the goal of maximizing personal and collective well-being). And only genuine moral experts would have a deep understanding of the causes and conditions of human and animal well-being.
(page 36)

Inserted at the end of that sentence there is an end note, from which I quote the following:

Many people’s reflexive response to the notion of moral expertise is to say, “I don’t want anyone telling me how to live my life.” To which I can only respond, “If there were a way for you and those you care about to be much happier than you are now, would you want to know about it?”
(page 202)

This is a question that is relevant to religion and faith. I ask, sometimes, a similar question to believers. If there were a worldview out there which could allow you to feel happier, more fulfilled, and could also survive skeptical analysis, would you want to know it? If it were true that religion is indeed a scam, that belief in god(s) is not warranted, and that science truly is the best method we have for attaining knowledge, would you want to know that?

I can only say that I truly would want to know if there were a god. Whether or not I would want a relationship with said being would depend upon the nature of that god. Would theists really want to know if they were wrong? Some would, but perhaps not most.

Harris continues on the next page (in the main text):

Whatever [the Taliban] think they want out of life–like keeping all women and girls subjugated and illiterate–they simply do not understand how much better life would be for them if they had different priorities.
(page 37)

I’m finding that I agree with Harris’ main premise of the book so far. His main idea is that because our behavior, feelings, etc are a result of a physical brain, science is, in principle as well as (possibly) practice, capable of discovering the states of being that would maximize “well-being.” Knowing what ways we might be well is a good start on how we should behave. I will keep reading.

Leaps of Faith

It is not often that I will, within this blog, gives book recommendations. I will even more rarely do so for people you likely have heard of. But I will make an exception right now, because I have just finished a fantastic book by a wonderful writer and thinker named Nicholas Humphrey.

The name of the book is Leaps of Faith: Science, Miracles, and the Search for Supernatural Consolation. (Apparently, the British version is entitled Soul Searching: Human Nature and Supernatural Belief). (Amazon link)

I will not try to summarize or extensively review this wonderful book, for I would not do any justice to Humphrey’s style, intellect, nor his seemingly limitless knowledge of literature, science, and the intersections of both. He talks about religion and faith, but most of the book is dedicated to the question of parapsychology in general, asking questions of soul, Psychokinesis, and ESP. His writing is erudite and his use of language is both playful and profound. His insight into the questions of the soul and its believed (by most people) powers are brilliant, coming at you from an angle I had not seen before reading this book.

The edition I have has a puff on the back by Daniel Dennett, but apparently the newer editions (I found mine at a used book store in East Atlanta–a great little store called Bound to Read Books) has a new forward by Dennett (which I, perhaps obviously, have not read). The fact that Richard Dawkins has done an interview with Nicholas Humphrey does not, in retrospect, surprise me.

In fact, in many ways this book, which was written in the mid 1990’s, is the cultural predecessor to many of the so-called new atheist books that began to be published 10 years later. It is dealing with many of the same issues (the supernatural, the soul, arguments for why belief in such things is not justified) as many more recent books (and some older ones, of course), and it is clear that Humphry has had some influence on at least Dennett and Dawkins, if not other comparable social commentators.

I highly recommend this wonderful book to anyone and everyone, especially if you believe, or think it is good or respectable to believe, in the paranormal. I also look forward to reading more of his work in the future, as he has books on consciousness as well, which is a topic which interests me as well.

I will leave you with this:

wright_airpump — "An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump," by Joseph Wright of Derby

The painting is generally regarded as having been intended as a commentary on the scientific Enlightenment. But I suggest we might more pointedly take it to be a picture of the vanity of the paradise promised by religion and the paranormal. For it is they, not science, which if they had their way would pump from the world the elements on which life has taken wing. They, not science, which by blurring the distinction between life and death, destroying the grounding of one mind in one body, confusing issues of personal responsibility, and undermining privacy, would rob the world of the oxygen of individuality on which all things bright and beautiful–natural and cultural–have relied for their creative energy

(From page 224)

For full context of this quote, you will have to read this book.

The approaching storm

Today, in a correspondence with some people on an email list about atheist issues, there was some discussion about how, in the past, I had helped with some efforts in Harrisburg, the state capital of Pennsylvania, while living in Philadelphia. I replied thus, also making reference to prior discussions with people on the list about the lively issue, within the atheist and skeptic community, about being offensive or dickish to believers. I thought I would share my response, since I am that kind of guy.

—

Well, me trying to be logical and all, I figured what happened at my state capital might effect me at some point.

I know, silly….

I mean, sometimes I was too busy having interesting conversations with my professors and such, but sometimes one has to actually step up and do something. Beliefs have consequences. And what people in the world believe, as well as the perspective they have on what others believe, effects their decisions and actions. I remember talking with those girls at the Capital building that time we had set up shop. I remember how they, especially the one vocal and pious one, looked at us with “pity” and gave us literature. Yet they refused ours. These girls may not be in control of much directly (they were not representatives), but because they act as intermediaries between those with power and authority, they play a role in the halls of power. Now, maybe our conversation, in which I was polite and respectful to them personally (although I was honest about what I thought about their beliefs) did not have an impact, and maybe over time it did. I just don’t know. But such interactions with people near the levers of power (as well as the more direct approach to the lieutenants and holders of such power) is important in the long struggle we have as citizens and our constitutional rights.

Those who insinuate that any such attempts make other nonbelievers look bad are buying the game they are selling. They are, in fact, ironically being the very dick they tell us not to be.

You here a rumbling in the distance, and from the south approaches a storm. His name is Shaun, and with him rides the gates of Hell for any person who tries to limit freedoms of speech and expression by threats from people too afraid or disinterested (and not in the Platonic sense!) to be themselves to the world, rationalizing it as an attempt to not be a dick. I ride along with people such as Dave Silverman on a wave of honesty, one which hurts the eyes of those who have been stuck the the cave of theistic shadows for too long. “Too bright!” they proclaim, and pretend their injured optical receptors excuse their hurt feelings which are only secondarily related and really are a defense mechanism of fear and insecurity exposed by such light. And besides them, who are curled in a fetal position and lashing out at anything in their temporary overwhelmed state, is your philosophical brethren who (unknown to those blinded and hurt) carries the same light hidden under their heavy coat. Hiding such light, they hold them close, patting their back and whispering to them that they are sorry, that those people don’t represent all of us.

“It’s OK,” they say, “you can believe what you like, I don’t care. Let me be your friend and never be like them.”

While I sit back, amused and frustrated because I am aware that such a person could never really be their friend, because real friendship involves naked and bold honesty. Real intimacy involves the ability to say what one thinks, although perhaps not at the moment of greatest pain, but afterwords when the shock has worn off. I understand what my brethren means when they implore us to not be a dick, but what they don’t realize is that it is not our behavior that seems dickish; it is our perspective that offends, not our presentation of it. And I will not withhold my perspective in fear of it offending, because if the truth offends then should we never speak the truth? To live that way is to acquiesce to the fear and ignorance in which the theistic world lives. It is also to not be honest, which says little for the light they carry, hidden and shameful.

There is room for polite conversations with professors, neighbors, and friends. But there is a time when you realize that in order to talk with some people AT ALL, one must risk offense in order to maintain any level of relationship. With some, you will seem a dick even if you say nothing more than “I don’t believe there is a god.” In such cases, put away the silly desire not to offend, because such people offend themselves without your help. The offense you fear is not from you, but from the world itself that you act as a conduit for. Protect not those that fear the world, because you only protect cowardliness and thus take on its mantle yourselves.

—

What this email also refers to is the fact that I’m moving back to Philadelphia. Exactly when…I’m not sure. Latest April 2011. But soon, nonetheless.

Good days and pleasant nights….

Club Heaven

I just realized it’s been a month since I posted anything. Man, life just gets in the way sometimes. In any case, it’s a new year and blogging must go on!

Today, I want to tell you a story. It’s not a true story, but it might be a good story.

It’s about a man who, upon being pestered by his own curiosity, wanted to see what the fuss was all about. He got dressed up, went into town, and arrived outside a place that may or may not have looked anything like this:

He waits in a longish line for a little while as the door is guarded by a youngish man who is smiling and friendly. People are going in, he can hear music playing, and as the door opens every few seconds or so he can hear the party commencing inside.

Finally, it’s just about his turn to go in. So, as two people enter up the stairway and into a obviously hopping party inside, our protagonist “John” steps up to the bouncer named “Pete”.

Pete: Good evening sir. Name, please?

John: John B. Godless

Pete: Godless, eh? OK, let me check the list.

Pete scans his list, shakes his head and half-smiles to John in a way that displays both disappointment and perhaps some veiled enjoyment.

Pete: Sorry John, you are not on the list.

John: So, that means what? I can’t get into Heaven? I mean, this is the only club in town, right?

Pete: No, there is the downstairs club, Hellfire. Although its sort of a kinky club; lots of being tied up, beaten, and so forth. Not really my sort of thing.

John: Yeah, doesn’t sound like my sort of thing, either. Are you sure there isn’t anything I can do to get into Heaven?

Pete: Look, there are a lot of people trying to get in behind you, and you don’t even know the owner anyway. How do you expect to get in without being his friend.

John: Wait, the owner? Who is the owner, and why does that matter?

Pete: See? You don’t even know Hank. He is the man! I mean, he knows everyone, everything, and runs this town. He is pretty much all-powerful, is what I mean. He’s the nicest guy I have ever known of. He’s pretty much perfect, at least from what I hear….

John: Wait, have you even met him?

Pete: Listen, I just work the door, ok?

John: But you have never met him?

Pete: No. I don’t need to. I have read his book, and it has inspired me to be the person I am today. I could not be here without Hank’s help.

John: OK, whatever. But, didn’t you just say that this guy knows everyone?

Pete: Yes.

John: Great, then he knows me, as well as everyone else in this line, so how about you just prop the door open and come in with me and all these people can just come in. Is the room big enough for everyone?

Pete: Well, yes, it can fit everyone, but that’s not the point. There are rules.

John: Rules, what rules?

Pete: You know, this.

Pete hands John a book entitled “How to be Hank’s Friend.” John looks at it, and recognition dawns on his face.

John: Oh, that! Yes, I have read some of that that. It was not really a very good book, I thought. Archaic, derivative, and sort of cruel, actually. I am really not sure I want to be Hank’s friend, if that is the kind of book he writes.

Pete: Well, why do you want to go to his club then?

John: Well, I’m sort of here already aren’t I? And I have to either go here, to the downstairs club, or just go away right? Given those choices I would prefer this place, I guess. Listen, how about I just head on in, ok?

Pete: sir, that’s not going to happen. You are going to have to go downstairs, sir.

John: Wait, what? Why do I have to go downstairs? I don’t want to go to that club.

Pete: Sorry, those are the rules. Either you get in here or you go downstairs.

John: Nevermind, I’m just going home then.

Two large men step out from behind Pete and surround John

John: Um, what is going on here?

Pete: Don’t resist. You can’t anyway. You are going to the downstairs club.

The two men grab hold of his arms and begin to drag him to a stairway leading downstairs while John struggles to get loose.

John: What the hell is this?

Pete: Sorry, it’s either Heaven or Hellfire. You chose Hellfire

John: What are you talking about? I never chose to go to that club.

Pete signals to the two men to stop for a moment, and they turn John, who has temporarily stopped struggling, back towards Pete.

Pete: It’s in the book written by Hank. His rules, in his town—and it’s all his town, buddy–say that if you don’t become his friend you can’t get into his club and therefore must go to the other, downstairs, club.

John: But it’s just a book! It’s not the rules for the universe or anything, is it? I mean, I read a lot of it, at least what I could get through anyway. I mean, I thought it was a metaphor about how not being his friend was like not being able to go to the cool places in town or something. I didn’t think it was literal, and that people actually believed that silliness. You, or Hank for that matter, can’t do this!

Pete: He can, and he will.

John: But that’s ridiculous, absurd, unjust!!

Pete: It’s in the book.

John: Yeah, but I don’t believe the book. I’ve never even seen this Hank, which is weird considering how powerful, knowledgeable, and nice he is. How can I be his friend if I never even get a chance to meet him.

Pete: You don’t need to meet him. Most of us just send him text messages, emails, or maybe just go to your local Hank center and learn about his great career and accomplishments once a week or so. Just follow his great teachings and you would be successful and you could hang out in the cool club. But now, you will have to go to the downstairs club, that’s just how it is.

John manages to get free from one of the two men’s grasp and tries to step towards Pete, now visibly infuriated.

John: Wait just one damned minute! If This guy is so Powerful, he could at least have sent me a damned text message, email, or even come over for dinner once in my life!

Pete: He’s a busy man. He does not have time to come to your house. and besides why would he have your contact info or have to contact you?

John: Oh that’s bullshit and you know it! You just told me he knows everyone, everything, and can do anything he wants, right?

Pete: Well, maybe he just didn’t want to be friends with you. Maybe he just doesn’t want you in his club.

John: Oh, well then he’s not a very nice guy. I mean, who runs the whole town, only allows two clubs, and then when this elusive and invisible all-powerful jerk sees you coming doesn’t let you into the party? Sounds like an ass-hat to me!

Pete: Or maybe you are just ignoring him?

John: No, never heard from him. Just lots of people talking about him, and I don’t understand why they like this asshole anyway.

Pete: Don’t talk that way about Hank. He does not like it, and then he will be angry with you.

John: So? What’s the difference? I still can’t get into club Heaven, can I?

Pete: Sir….

John: No! You know what? I don’t like this guy, Hank, if he even exists. I’ll bet he’s a made-up character, sort of like the Marlboro Man, designed to market an idea—a product. I’ll bet this is just a big marketing scheme to get people to buy Hank’s books, go to his weekly motivational lectures—run by his so-called protegees because he never shows up to any of them, from what I have seen—and then to make all you so-called ‘Friends of Hank’ feel superior to those of us who won’t get into his club!

Pete: Sir, keep it down, you are upsetting the people in line waiting to get in….

John: I don’t care! They are all sheep anyway, trying to go to this idiotic club. I was only trying to get in because the girl I have been dating said she has been looking forward to going here, and I wanted to see what the big deal was. But I would rather go to the downstairs club with all those people than be this asshole’s friend, damn it!

Pete: Well, you will get your wish, loser! It’s hot down there, and you will be tied down, beaten, and surrounded by all of Hank’s enemies.

John Smiles, straightens himself up, and then laughs a little to himself

John: Well, Pete, I’ll tell you what. A hot, S&M club with free-thinking people who don’t fall for Hank’s self-help manipulation scheme sounds infinitely better than being in that club upstairs with what sounds like really bad music, boring people, and the possibility of being around that megalomaniac Hank. I bid you a good night, and I hope you one day see how absurd your little club is.

Pete looks at him for a moment, then turns away shaking his head. As he does so, a woman brushes past him towards John and reaches out to him, softly touching his shoulder. he turns, sees her, and smiles brightly.

John: Jane? there you are!

Jane: yes, I heard what you said, John. I was behind you in line, and didn’t see you until they started dragging you away. What you said makes so much sense. I think, John, I want to be with you. I want to be Mrs. Godless someday, maybe, as well. Let’s go to that other club, because anything is better than Club Heaven, I think.

She kisses him briefly and takes his hand as they walk together, unaided by the two men, down the stairs to the Hellfire club.

Pete (to the next people in line): Well, some people are just lost. Hank-bless them! They’ll need it, I’m sure. Next! Name please….

Person in line: Borin S. Christian, sir

Pete: now, that’s a better name. In you go!

—

Like I said, not a true story, but perhaps an interesting story.

Comfort with insecurity

I’m going to step out from writing about polyamory or religion for a moment. I want to talk about insecurity.

sex_honesty_insecurity_and_three_outcomes — The world needs more sex-positivism

Yes, I am well aware that this personal issue which many people struggle with is applicable to both religion, relationships, and sexuality. And I am further aware that atheists and polyamorous people both can point to how insecurity and its various cohorts are relevant to their points of view, and I occasionally do make that point myself. But today I am not as interested in those issues as I am interested in a thought which occurred to me yesterday in a new way, and that is this;

It is important to be comfortable with your insecurity.

Anyone who knows me well knows that I struggle with insecurity. I have struggled with feelings of fear, inadequacy, and pessimism all of my life, although not consistently. For many years I was unable to recognize this for what it actually is, and then to subsequently look back on my life and recognize at what points these feelings were responsible for acting in ways which damaged friendships, romantic relationships, etc was valuable in shifting how to live my life. It has been a new struggle with mixed success, but one perseveres in failure and partial success towards a goal that may be ill-defined.

(And, of course, eventually it lead me to recognize when the fault was not mine, where at previous times in my life I may have blamed myself for the mistakes of another. Anyone who knows my story about moving to Atlanta with my ex and being abandoned and screwed over by her will know precisely what I’m talking about.)

My personal story aside for the moment, I was thinking yesterday about how there is a significant difference between people who are insecure, afraid, etc and who are aware of it, and (on the other hand) those for whom such a fact would be rejected or suppressed. It is my contention that the level of willingness to accept such an emotional foundation to how one interacts with and views the world is the beginning of transcending such insecurities. It is, in fact, the beginning of emotional security. Because while the fundamental hormonal and chemical realities open which the edifice of behavior is mounted are more difficult to change*, a willingness to be aware, observant, and proactive in planning our actions based upon this knowledge may be essential in behaving in less insecure ways.

Knowing you are insecure, you can be aware of how you will tend to act in situations of anxiety, fear, and discomfort and plan a set of actions that will counter-act such proclivities.

But this requires a willingness to introspect. You must be willing to see what lies inside the caverns of your (for a lack of a better word) soul in order to be aware of your personal psychological landscape. As was written upon the Oracle at Delphi in ancient Greece, yνῶθι σεαυτόν (‘know thyself’). This remains part of the core of my personal philosophy (along side carpe diem et noctis; ‘seize the day and the night’.) Without the willingness and ability to bare your whole self to, at least, your conscious self to the extent that such a feat is possible, there will be behaviors that will not really be wholly yours.

As Stuart Hampshire has said:

A man becomes more and more a free and responsible agent the more he at all times knows what he is doing.

And the more we know about the psychological mechanisms behind our thoughts and actions, the more we can be aware of what we are doing, and possibly why. And when we are willing to be honest with ourselves, possibly sharing those realities with those close to us, the more we can find ways to grow, mature, and generally better ourselves.

For good measure, I’ll add this quote of Hampshire:

As self-consciousness is a necessary prelude to greater freedom of will, so it is also a necessary prelude to a greater freedom of thought.

—

Because in the end, all life is but a footnote to George Lucas….

In Star Wars, Episode I, Yoda is faced with the young Anakin Skywalker in the Jedi Council. I don’t remember the exact words, but Yoda asked him something like “Afraid, are you? Miss your mother, do you?” The young man seems to be confused what that has to do with anything. Yoda’s response is memorable and prophetic, as he says that it has “everything” to do with it, then continues:

“Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.”

And, of course, we all know what happens to Anakin’s fear on his path to becoming (spoiler alert) Darth Vader. We track his story of once where his fear of losing his mother become the key factor in his anger and hate for the village he slaughters, and the suffering he portrays in telling Padmé about his actions. And while most of us don’t slaughter villages of sand people, we do have moments like these from time to time.

We know that bullies act the way they do for a number of reasons, much of which is being abused themselves along with the subsequent feelings of insecurity, fear, etc. But there is also jealousy, which I think is related to this same insecurity and fear. In fact, I think much of human behavior which is damaging has an element of personal fear and insecurity to it. We will not all “turn to the dark side,” and become our own Darth Vaders, but many of us will act in less than admirable ways, clam up and retreat into ourselves, fail to tackle challenges, or pass up experiences because we are not feeling secure about ourselves, are afraid, etc.

This is my experience, and I have talked with others who share this experience. And I am sensitive to this part of human nature in a way that others may not be, and often see it in others. This should be part of growing up and maturing, but the simple fact is that many older people suffer form the effects of insecurity when I would expect to see them have left such things behind. It also effects young, beautiful, and intelligent people just as easily (that reference is for Ginny’s sake, who knows exactly who I’m talking about. I blogged about her about 6 months ago, if you are curious enough to put the puzzle together.)

I picture a world where people are willing to challenge themselves both intellectually and emotionally. I think it can lead to a world where people are less susceptible to the trappings of faith and of interpersonal jealousy. It will not solve the world’s problems, but it will help.

But, honestly, I’m not really hopeful that this will happen on a large scale. I can only work to make sure it happens for myself, and to assist others for whom I care. Know yourself; examine your behavior, your reactions to criticism and different opinion, and push yourself beyond your comfort zone sometimes. And yes, internet trolls, this applies to myself as well. I have not claimed to have mastered said request, only to be aware, and comfortable, with my own insecurity.

And, finally, do seize this life, for it is the only one we have. Life is too short to be paralyzed by our fears.

—

*–I am aware that medication is useful and effective for many people, even if I leave it aside in this analysis.