(I wrote this on April 1, 2002)

I'm not always happy. I don't know anybody who is always happy. If I did know somebody who was always happy I'd assume he was lying. So, I don't expect myself (or anybody else) to always be happy.

-----

Depression is not the opposite of being happy. Depression is a mental resistance to happiness. Depression often results from a set of cognitive traps people set for themselves. Depression often results from learned behaviors, family dynamics, or traumatic stress. Depressed people focus on bad news, and ignore good news, and then tell themselves that the world is a horrible place. Depressed people focus on their faults, and ignore their successes, and then tell themselves that they are worthless.

-----

I want the opposite of depression. I want a mental resistance to sadness. I want to build a set of cognitive keys for myself. I want to learn to be happy in situations that other people would find upsetting.

Is there ever a reason for being unhappy? I suppose there are billions of reasons for being unhappy. There is always something sad somewhere in the world. People dying, people suffering, people hurting others ... injustice, unemployment, poverty, illness ...

If you want to be unhappy, there are always reasons.

But isn't the opposite also true? That if you want to be happy there are always reasons? People living, people joyful, people loving others ... justice, employment, riches, and health?

The world is always full of both. I can choose to focus on good news, I can choose to treat people with lovingkindness, I can choose to associate with people who are loving and kind ... I can shrug off bad news, I can forgive people who treat others with hatred ...

-----

More and more I realize that most of our suffering, sadness, and depression comes from wanting the universe to be something more than it is ...

"Every teacher of Buddhism is a debunker, not to be a smart aleck and show how clever he is, but out of compassion. Just as when a surgeon chops off a bad growth or a dentist pulls out a rotten tooth, so the Buddhist teacher is getting rid of your crazy ideas for you, which you use to cling to life and make it dead."

— Alan Watts

-----

(I wrote this on April 16, 2003)

Others have presented these ideas before. They sound cool, and they make up great stories ... they make up all stories ...

They make up everything.

The tension between knowledge and reality has a feedback loop — that can be either positive or negative. The negative feedback loop is where each project contains the seeds of its own destruction. The positive feedback loop is where each project leads to a more powerful rebirth. Both of these feedback loops operate simultaneously, all the time.

Every conscious choice is a fork in the road, and we do not know where it will lead. We can do everything to make sure we lead a safe and secure life, and we still do not know where it will lead. We can construct a coherent belief system, and that belief system is still subject to change as new information is gathered. The visions we have of our selves change. The visions we have of reality change. These visions are part of the endless and comprehensive matrix of reality, and themselves create and are destroyed.

You can sit still, and then everything will work out for the best. Or maybe not. You can frantically rush about, trying to fix everything, and maybe that will work. Or maybe not. Ambiguity is always present. Most people do a mixture of both sitting around and working. Sleep and activity. Because people require a sense of equilibrium even inside the chaos. We hold on to familiar patterns so we don't feel so alone and afraid all the time. And we aren't alone. It feels like it sometimes, but we are not isolated, we are a part of the matrix, we are in fact related to everything.

-----

In science, Einstein encountered this wild matrix when his work led to the creation of the atomic bomb, and possible world-ending scenarios. He probably spent a good deal of effort and worry afterward, trying to repair the "damage" he'd done ... mostly by spreading humanitarian memes.

The possession of the atomic bomb by only one country led to its use. This spooked other countries into developing the same technology. The advantage did not last for long, just a couple years, and during that time some people pressed for its use against Stalin's Russia, or Mao's China. That never happened. Why not? Possibly because the result was too terrible to contemplate. If people kept using these weapons against each other, then we'd all be losers. Some weapons should only be used when it appears the positive outcomes outweigh the negative outcomes. Nukes create their own destructive feedback loop if they are used. Every moment during which they are not used, the world is safe. At any moment they could be used, and the typical person has no decision about that ... but the typical person is part of the feedback loop. The typical person can imagine how awful it would be, and can communicate a message to others — do not use these weapons. A cultural taboo is formed, to save the culture from its own destruction.

You try your best with the information you have to do the right thing, according to your values, even though you aren't sure exactly where your values come from. You have to trust reality, that this is all part of a larger system, that everything happens for a reason, that your own imagination won't actually make good things happen or bad things happen ... but that your own imagination has its causes and its effects, somehow, and you won't know what those effects are until later, if ever.

Whatever happens, your choice is to welcome it, or fear it. Accept it, or fight it.

-----

You can't track down all the effects. You'll probably never know if a particular action was the "right" action for you to take.

Should you have broken up with your husband? Well, staying with him was painful. Well, breaking up with him is painful. Both holding on and letting go are painful.

Should you have asked for that abortion procedure? Having a baby brings new life into the world. But circumstances aren't good for that right now. A baby requires a lot of work, and you might not be ready for that! It isn't as simple as — oops, pregnant, must have baby ... now that the technology is available to make a decision.

The "be fruitful and multiply" meme worked well for a long time, but now the population is hitting a level where it might have overshot the ability of the environment to support it. So, feminism, abortion, and homosexuality are more acceptable now, to slow the rate of world population growth.

And, to be extravagant about it ... your baby could grow up to be the next Hitler ... or your baby could grow up to be the next Einstein ... or your baby could grow up to be the next world-famous author ... or your baby could ... do anything. You don't know what your baby will do. You don't know the effects it might have, the stories it will tell, the knowledge it will create, or whether your child will have grandchildren — or perhaps be gay.

-----

But the world is resilient. It fights back against total destruction. Only the necessary amount of destruction occurs, as one frame of the total universe replaces another. There has to be some change, or everything would be frozen and static. We'd be mummified and paralyzed and perhaps even totally unconscious. If everything is frozen and static, everything is dead.

(I wrote this on April 14, 2003)

First, see that meme warfare exists.

Second, watch them fight.

Third, tell them what they are doing.

Fourth, watch them fight you.

Fifth, tell them what they are doing.

(I wrote this on April 12, 2003)

I can not fully understand the world! Everything I think is conjecture. Everything I perceive is filtered and biased by my personal human nature. Everything I experience is an accident of time and place. Everything changes, nothing is permanent, and I can not predict the future.

I realize that totalitarian projects are foolhardy and counterproductive, always containing the seeds of their own destruction. However, it seems that many people believe that the products of their rationalizations are THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS, and that everybody who disagrees is either stupid or lying. Some of them are willing to imprison and kill uncountable others in order to remake the world according to their conclusory desires.

Oh, well. I don't suppose I can make other people stop being totalitarian. They create their own frustrations, and will not succeed, and will never be able to relax and enjoy the beauty of their own existence. Meanwhile, I'll do my best to dodge them.

-----

Voluntary actions are those that we make when we are mindfully addressing the present moment. We always face restrictions on our choices. You can arbitrarily divide these restrictions into "government", "mother nature", "corporations", "that asshole next door" ... whatever powers surround you at the present moment, these restrict your choices. Yet, you have the ability to undertake voluntary actions as long as you are conscious. Perhaps this is what consciousness is -- the ability to undertake voluntary actions -- but your consciousness can certainly be limited by the restrictions in your environment. In the worst case scenario you can be completely mummified and paralyzed, while still conscious. In this worst case your voluntary actions are limited to what you decide to think about during your captivity.

You make your voluntary choices based on the information inside your head. This information is always limited and imperfect, because your head is a tiny part of the universe and can't possibly monitor everything that is happening. Sometimes the world behaves in seemingly predictable ways -- so over time we accumulate a list of rules that we've learned from observing how the world behaves. These rules don't always work as we expect them to.

(I wrote this on April 7, 2003)

Somewhere along the path from Thoreau thru Ghandi thru MLK Jr to the present, the progressive movement decided that nonviolent civil disobedience was the premier way to bring positive change into the world.

Maybe it is, sometimes. But practicing nonviolent civil disobedience for the sake of practicing nonviolent civil disobedience is probably counterproductive, in the same way that using antibiotics for every ailment is counterproductive. Different problems require different solutions.

Nonviolence is a tactic, not a goal. It has the best chance of working when it is used intelligently in pursuit of a goal. It works best when practiced by disciplined individuals who are not afraid to stand their ground and die, if necessary, when assaulted by authority. It works best when these individuals conduct themselves in a way that highlights their basic human rights. It works best when these individuals break laws in ways that win sympathy from viewers around the world.

-----

There have been many protests about the US invasion of Iraq. More protests than I will ever know about. And more are coming!

Some of these protests are legal. Some of them are not. Some protesters are breaking various laws on purpose in order to get arrested, usually by blocking traffic or surrounding particular buildings, or even by removing their clothes in public ;-)

Aren't many of these illegal protests self-indulgent? Are they designed to build sympathy for a cause, or are they designed to vent personal anger? Are they targeted toward symbolic acts that will resonate in the minds of viewers, or are they intended as an expression of political sanctimony?

Protesting a bad government decision is a valid expression of human rights. But some forms of "protest" seem more like temper tantrums to me — a bunch of angry people who didn't get their way and who don't respect the democratic decision-making process.

For example — if a local government strangely decided to outlaw bicycling on all city streets, then it would make great political theater to get a group together to protest the law by notoriously bicycling on city streets. It would not make much sense to protest this law by removing clothes en masse in front of City Hall.

A protest makes more sense to the rest of the world, and brings sympathy from the rest of the world, when the protest has some sort of symbolic link to the problem it addresses. For example — a respectful and prayerful candlelight vigil to protest the death penalty makes a lot more sense than blocking rush hour traffic to protest the death penalty.

When we inconvenience others in ways that have no symbolic connection to our grievance, we can not expect to win their sympathies. And in a country that is ruled by public opinion polls, sympathy is the entire ball game.

-----

If you live in a democracy, and something your government does upsets you, you have the perfect right to contact your elected officials, to vote, to organize opposition, to boycott corporations or geographic locations, to publish your opinion, and to organize legal protests. If you have done all of these things, and the majority of your fellow citizens still disagree with you, then think carefully about how you might use the tactic of civil disobedience to sway opinions in your favor. But please, don't insist on using civil disobedience until you've thought things through. How will this action help you to achieve your goals? Are you doing this because you want to get arrested, or are you doing this because you believe it will generate sympathy for your cause?

(I wrote this on April 4, 2003)

In many countries, such as Australia, Belgium, Luxembourg, Peru, and Vietnam, citizens are required to vote in their national elections.

In the United States, citizens are not required to vote at all, ever. In addition, citizens who wish to vote must pre-register, usually several weeks in advance, to make sure their names are on the voting "rolls", which are maintained (with varying degrees of accuracy) separately by each local jurisdiction. Furthermore, US elections are usually held on a Tuesday in November, during working hours, making it difficult for employed citizens to exercise their franchise. Typically, voter turnout in the US ranges between 1/3 and 1/2 of the adult population. Most of the time, most people do not bother to vote. If apathy could rule a country ...

But apathy doesn't rule ;-) Instead the US is ruled by the minority of adults who are politically active -- the US is an activistocracy.

-----

Worse than that, nearly all elections in the US are financed solely by voluntary contributions. "Major" party Presidential candidates can receive public funding if they follow a complicated regulatory regime of state-by-state spending limits, but President Bush is likely to skip public funding in 2004 and his Democratic opponent will face pressure to do the same to remain "competitive".

Well-financed campaigns in the US take advantage of the citizenry's apathy by spending the vast majority of their funds on "negative" advertisements that typically make fraudulent or misleading statements about their opponents. These advertisements are intended to convince people who might support a particular candidate to stay home in disgust and forever tune out the political process.

Candidates who can't raise enough money to launch a competitive negative advertising campaign are not treated seriously by party activists or mainstream corporate media. Candidates who would seriously threaten the moneyed interests are thereby shut out of the political process, even if their stands on the issues would be popular to the majority of the citizens.

In the final days of a campaign, citizens who are known to be politically active receive a torrent of targeted direct mail and telephone messages designed to encourage them to vote. This is intended to counteract the months-long barrage of mass media negative advertising — in such a way that only the most committed activists are expected to show up on election day.

-----

What we see in the US as a result of these campaigns are two major parties who generally agree on a wide variety of issues, but who disagree on a small list of extremely emotional issues — abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action for racial minorities, and gun control. Most of these issues are actually decided in federal courts by unelected judges, rather than by legislators or Presidents ... which leads activists to focus particularly upon the judicial nominations made by the President, rather than legislation, budget issues, or foreign policy.

The vast majority of the work of the Congress and the Executive is of no interest to the public or the media. Paid lobbyists monitor legislation, budgets, and regulations for items of special interest to their clients. These lobbyists usually contribute the legal maximum to the campaign funds of legislators who specialize in their issues. Legislators know that they need these campaign funds to pay for negative campaign ads during election season, so they try their best not to offend the lobbyists. Lobbyists often draft key legislation for the benefit of their clients, and they often submit comprehensive comments to proposed regulations that would affect their clients. The result is an annual glut of legislation and regulations that are impossible for any one citizen to monitor, no matter how intelligent or motivated she might be.