More than liberal and conservative.

Left versus Right; Liberal versus Conservative;  Republican versus Democrat, with a dash of Independent or Tea Party somewhere along this bipolar continuum? One day we won't be a bipolar nation. Both sides can be divisive, but most social conservatives require divisiveness for their identity.  They couldn't be themselves without it.  It belongs to their developmental makeup or meme that includes competition, individuality and individual achievement, internal causation/ locus of control, individual responsibility over consensus, and a tendency to see society as a composed of strictly divided groups (race, religion, culture, politics) rather than an even playing field where differences might make a group stronger and more integrated (what I like to call Integral Strength).  


Wake up, friends, this is more than a question liberal and conservative, and as long as we continue to think there are only two political variables we are doomed to be a bipolar nation.

In reality there are (at least) 4 independent variables Free (Libertarian) and Order (Authoritarian) AS WELL AS Socially Exclusive (Conservative) and Socially Inclusive  (Liberal).

Multidimensional. That's reality.  This explains my see-sawing between party affiliation and the/my typical Milliennial tendency to feel neither of the two major parties are particularly attractive.  Personally I hope the disillusionment of the Millennials will persist and create a richer variety in dialogue.  


I think that a rise of four parties might be potentially destabilizing, although it could work just as most parliamentarian coalition - building works.  But I believe it would be constructive to use better vocabulary to name the reality of these four variables, because it would make polarizing and demonizing language a degree more difficult, thus causing dialogue to stretch and grow beyond the traditional name calling.


To qualify that, I'd like to observe more debates in existing multi-party systems.


The Nolan Chart is an early fore-runner of the multidimensional, which arranges the quadrants according to level of freedom, thus putting libertarianism at "the top," which suits the libertarian author.  The idea of libertarianism is a sweet and utopian one, however.  Given that humans have strong vices (drives to better themselves at the detriment of others) such as greed, revenge, vigilantism, spite, lust, etc, I think it is useful that we come to terms with a limit to certain freedoms to commit those crimes.


Hobbes says in the second part of his Leviathan:  "The purpose of a commonwealth is given at the start of Part II: THE final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war which is necessarily consequent, as hath been shown, to the natural passions of men when there is no visible power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants….

The commonwealth is instituted when all agree in the following manner: I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner."

And thus we have a society and government.


What do you think?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

Recreate Us: An Open Letter to Mr. K B

One of the goals of this letter is to be a conversation starter and relationship transformer. I see many other great possibilities that may result from the writing of this personal manifesto. I hope it will inspire others to really go deep into who they are, air out the closets of the mind, and open up their important, even vulnerable spaces to others. Following that intention comes the opportunity for action - creativity and service to others, both of which give rise to a world that works.

I'll make a short version and also a long version which will be for future discussions.

I. Who I am as a creation, my Created Self:

Who I am is the World as Family. It took a lot of work and coaching, and deep insight to make this declaration. If it hadn't been for Heather Smith-McNiff's laser perception of the soul, I'm not sure I would have really known this bedrock of my soul.

The World as Family expresses my Self fully. It expresses my personal desire for affinity as well as my commitment that others experience affinity in abundance. I see my commitment as an access to create a world full of peace and joy while allowing for the rigorous and sometimes difficult conversation that is required to create real affinity. What do I mean by affinity? Affinity to me is a love that is not just expressed by agreement and sympahty or even empathy, but a commitment that others may live their best life.

I only wish I had enough energy and courage to continuously powerfully support all those I know and interact with in their pursuit for fulfillment, connection, love, and awareness. And I like most people experience break downs in my commitment to live a creative and created existence. One of my heroes- concentration camp survivor and psychologist, Viktor Frankl views creativity (as well as love) as a function of the higher self, one's enlightened conscience that is in tune with God and the universal conscience. By taking creative actions, especially amidst suffering and despair, is to spite survival and normalcy. A creative and thoughtful deed simultaneously brings your Self in line with a life goal, a reason for existence, and an excuse for using and wasting carbon.

II. My Ego, Act, It

A. Hidden /counterintentions

B. What triggers it

I am most angry, sad, and frustrated when I have failed at a commitment toward others. This is when I hide or freeze when the amygdala takes over. This is mostly inward anger, though it can be directed at others. Even when directed at others, I often try to avoid conflict at all costs. This leads me to being and being perceived as passive.  When you add to this my egoic/IT's tendency for self-criticism and perfectionism, this leads to a lot of lateness and things not getting done on time.  So I usually wait for my circumstances to provide me with a confidence boost address the larger tasks and challenges in life. 

The avoidance of conflict is an action-memory pattern that I have made up as a strategy to numb the emotions of anger and fear.

I vowed as a child not to get into arguments, in part, because I perceived them to be very traumatic and threatening. In my family I rarely saw them cause anything productive, or have a positive outcome. So I told myself that any time there was heightened anger or fear in a discussion, that I would never engage in that discussion, because it would never resolve anything. I get triggered (my IT springs into action) by people I perceive IT perceives as uncommunicative, dominant, and unpredictable or illogical.

III. My perception of you and me and the YOU I'd like to be enrolled in.

The most common point of contention between me and others and you, K-Bru, is a difference in communication and leadership styles. From my perception, I see you as mostly authoritarian and non-consultative, and minimally communicative. I acknowledge that you do communicate, and when you do, it is mostly straightforward, but it seems to come few and far between, and sometimes necessary information is communicated way too late for there to be any meaningful discussion. For example, it was probably over a month that you responded to my emails and verbal communication about the need to create a powerful community context for the house, (bills, chores, and fun things). And by the time we had this discussion, we had a fire in the fireplace, and it seemed the only thing you were interested in was getting the bills flat. Despite the fact that I had had enrollment conversations with everyone in the house about creating a context, it seemed you had little interest in creating enrollment or context and that your sole interest was finances. By the time we got the bills sorted out, people were tired and had to go to bed. This was on top of repeatedly changing things in the common spaces without enrolling everyone in the changes. Because you rarely took the time to enroll me (or others) in making changes in the house, it seemed hypocritical when you justified the reason for not informing me of the major things of mine you were moving by saying that the people in the house had different ideas than I did - that you were young and creative and had new ideas of how you wanted the house to look. It's unfair to put me in a category of not wanting change when you've never enrolled me in change.

And I see myself having a nearly opposite style of communication and leadership, as my default is to try to have as many people involved in important decision making as possible. To me, this makes the most sense in a group house as consensus, communication, and democracy honors other people. The downside is that sometimes things don't get done on time because I wait for all parties to weigh in, or I don't put enough effort into getting people to check in.

When someone night after night goes up to their room after work and spends little time in the common areas, except to eat, it sends a message, in that it sends no message, so it's easy to make up stories. Since I don't know who you are, what drives you, what your IT is like or how IT got to be that way I had very little chance of engaging with you effectively. Mark described it as having "no space in your listening" as the phenomenon where one feels free to have powerful discussions with people, but there are a few people in whose presence there is no power or freedom to be had. I don't know what you aspire to, what lights you up, either. I would like to know.

It would be easy to say that things weren't working between us because we both have strong opinions about how things should be managed or how the space should look. But this is not the case, as I have lived with MANY people in this house and others, many of whom had VERY strong opinions, and VERY DOMINANT PERSONALITIES about how things should look and what the context should be. And past residents and I have had disagreements about these things, even when I was not on the lease, and when most of the furnishings weren't mine. And we worked it out through enrolling communication, love and fun, sometimes paired with alcohol to soften the edges. Did I make it up that you weren't into enrollment and that you just did what you wanted or sometimes you just gave up when you encountered resistance from me?

Sometimes this is all just my racket, but when I'm empowered, open communication and consensus decision making is my stand and commitment. That's why I called you that night after the seminar over a month ago - to get to know who you are instead of making it up, and that's why I've written this. So if you really are communicative, I'd love for you to include me in that communication, if you are committed to a good future for human beings, I'm all ears, I'll even lend you a hand if I can. I am ready and waiting to be enrolled in who you are and what you're doing.

Just to recap - I think you're a fine human being, and I observed that you can be stubborn and you don't tend to go for enrollment conversations - at least in matters of community. But maybe that was just while I was living in the house, and there was something in the way I was being that triggered your IT. What could I have done to inspire you to have enrolling conversations about who we are as a part of a house-community?

This is what I would like to complete.

IV. And now what there is to do is to move my belongings out of the house. From what I've heard, one month is the preferred time. Under normal financial circumstances I would agree to that. In fact I would have moved my stuff out a long time ago if I had been gainfully employed. Frankly, I don't have any financial recourse currently. My job starts in June. In the following weeks I will be searching for temporary/part-time employment so I can put money toward a storage unit.

My biggest financial concern is my car, which will require several hundred dollars just to get inspected and retitled, not including any repairs that may need to be made. Packing and moving my furniture and other belongings won't require a huge financial investment, but moving the car will. So I would like to work something out in which I get my belongings moved out first, and the car later.

One big way that could make all this happen is to hammer out an agreement around my deposit. Even part of this back could really help me get the ball rolling. What do you think?

Lastly, I was wondering if anyone in the house has reached out to X, who has confided that he hasn't filed his tax returns for the last several years. If someone would take the time to sit down with him, create a free tax return at H&R block (that's how I did it this year) or through the IRS website: He would be in line to receive quite possibly several thousand dollars, at least one thousand for the past year, as that's a standard for singles who make under a 30K. He can also file for his Pennsylvania and other state returns online, gaining even more money. I think this would be a huge victory for him, even if someone sat down with him the entire time. I would even volunteer my time if I lived near.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

On the Evolution of Written Language and Legibility: A Debate

Response to Pain in the English post:

I have to disagree with the premise that capital letters are still in use as a apurely historical vestige and not for reasons of legibility. There is a growing body of research on legibility and psychology. The results of which tend to support exactly what Alan said! Psychologist, Sociologists, Linguists, Psycholinguists, and Typographers are involved in this fascinating game. Please read the full article with the link I posted below. Furthermore, it's a very simple logical step to say that if there are significant legibility differences between fonts (of one language/alphabet), that there are also varying degrees of legibility between alphabets or character systems. Just because there are more alphabets with no caps doesn't mean they are more legible than alphabets that have them. It might, but I'll wait for the research. There is not much research studying differences in legibility across and among different languages/alphabets, but there is some and it's increasing. See links below. Here is someone in the field on this subject, explaining this whole LEGIBILITY vs. CASE vs. HISTORY debate: "...[S]cript was optimized for writing at the expense of legibility. But it is not the only one that suffered from the hands of the writers. Nearly all modern writing systems are thought to have descended directly or indirectly from the single source – the Phoenician. This script is the ancestor of nearly every alphabet in use today, including Arabic, Greek, Latin and many others. The Hebrew alphabet remains closest to its predecessor, as only the form of the letters has been modified, while classical Mongolian script hardly bears any resemblance. The success of Poenician was due in part to its phonetic nature; Phoenician was the first widely used script in which one sound was represented by one symbol. This simple system contrasted the other scripts in use at the time, such as Cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs, which employed many complex characters and were difficult to learn. This one-to-one configuration also made it possible for Phoenician to be employed in multiple languages. Its evolution took different directions, and many different alphabets emerged, all influenced by the writers and optimized for writing." ~Please read the original article at http://bhienda.com/legibility-and-reader-friendly-font/ Info on Chinese legibility: http://www.biomedsearch.com/nih/Legibility-Chinese-characters-in-peripheral/18929592.html Have fun learning and reading, people!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

When I was a Boy

Friedrich Hölderlin (1784-1843)

~translated by the author of this Weblog When I was a Boy...

When I was a boy,

A god saved me oft

From the shouts and sticks of men,

As I played safe and well

With the flowers of the grove,

While the breezes of heaven

Played with me.

And how you delight

The hearts of flora

When they reach

Their tender arms out toward you. So have you delighted my heart,

Father Helios! and, how Endymion,

Was I your dear-heart,

Holy Luna!

Oh, all you true

And friendly gods!

That you only knew

How my soul loves you!

Yet erstwhile,

I did not call you

By your names, and you

Never named me, like men name themselves,

As if they knew themselves.

Yet I knew you better,

As I had ever known men,

I understood the stillness of ether;

The words of men I never understood.

The call of the whispering grove

Educated me

And I learned love

Among the flowers In the arms of gods

I grew up great.

Das Original:

Da ich ein Knabe war...

Da ich ein Knabe war,

Rettet' ein Gott mich oft

Vom Geschrei und der Rute der Menschen,

Da spielt ich sicher und gut

Mit den Blumen des Hains,

Und die Lüftchen des Himmels

Spielten mit mir.

Und wie du das Herz

Der Pflanzen erfreust,

Wenn sie entgegen dir

Die zarten Arme strecken,

So hast du mein Herz erfreut,

Vater Helios! und, wie Endymion,

War ich dein Liebling,

Heilige Luna!

O all ihr treuen

Freundlichen Götter!

Daß ihr wüßtet,

Wie euch meine Seele geliebt!

Zwar damals rief ich noch nicht

Euch mit Namen, auch ihr

Nanntet mich nie, wie die Menschen sich nennen,

Als kennten sie sich.

Doch kannt' ich euch besser,

Als ich je die Menschen gekannt,

Ich verstand die Stille des Aethers,

Der Menschen Worte verstand ich nie.

Mich erzog der Wohllaut

Des säuselnden Hains

Und lieben lernt' ich

Unter den Blumen.

Im Arme der Götter wuchs ich groß. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

Conversation on Creation and Suffering - Autobiographical

Me: You can't get away from suffering in life, but it's in suffering where we have the opportunity to choose

Friend: That sounds like a Catholic point of view.

Me: No, it's actually an Existentialist and Buddhist point of view: life is meaningless/suffering is unavoidable, so when we realize we take creation into our own hands, we find a source for true happiness and freedom. because the creativity, happiness, and freedom comes from within.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.