Get over the past, accept the moment, and don’t needlessly worry about the future.

Try to just be in the moment, to allow yourself to enjoy this moment. Allow yourself to get over and accept the past, and not let the future worry you so that you act in a way to sabotage this great time in your life. A very easy way to destroy a great moment is to try to force or wield your vision of the future on another in a selfish attempt to make this moment last longer. Another easy way to destroy this great moment is to act in a self-destructive manner fulfilling a deep-seeded belief that you don’t really deserve to have a nice life. Accept your past and this great moment, live in it, enjoy it, acting in a way that maintains your good standing, but also allowing others to have free will to be with you in their great moment. In short, get over the past, accept the moment, and don’t needlessly worry about the future.

Truthfulness Language

In non-violent language a person works to say things that do not cause internal conflict. Marshall Rosenberg has set forth many strategies to going about doing this in his works, but I would like to in addition talk about the possibility of adding a truthfulness component to non-violent language. The practicality of such a way of speaking would mean serious changes to the grammar of the English language and therefore would make it not only awkward, but also alienating to some. This would be counterproductive towards the original intent of creating peace. Still though while the concept is not fit for this time, it needs to be explored and considered so that a complete system of peaceful language could one day be attained.

As human beings communicate the listener is constantly hearing each new word, fitting it into context and constantly predicting what the next word or even sentence might be. But in doing this, different possibilities arise, some of which are violent. One among many goals of a truthful language is to help curb this; that essentially by speaking in a truthful manner, a person might be qualifying sentences in a manner as to limit possible meanings, and therefore limit possible violent meanings.

The way this is done is by organizing the words in a sentence so that more important words come first, thereby restricting the meaning of the words that come after them. In doing this, the language also is more truthful. Let’s look at the following common expression.

Example 1:

A. Did you talk to your friend?

B. I didn’t talk to my friend.

In Example 1, the language is not truthful in many respects although this might be a very common thing to be heard and said. Here are some problems with the sentence. First of all considering the question, for a person to be a friend it is assumed that the two people must have communicated. So, immediately we know the question must not be taken literally and must be meant in context, but to understand a bit of language in context probably creates many different possibilities of meaning, some of which as I mentioned are violent. While one clear context might usually stand out as the clear meaning most of the time, it does not all of the time. Therefore, the question in this example would be much better qualified and could be taken much more literally by saying, “Today, did you talk to your friend?” Now a literal yes or no answer may be given. So by using the qualifying term of “today” the question now becomes more truthful and easier to answer.

The answer also needs to be qualified, although to a much greater extent. The problems with the answer are many fold. For instance, the sentence starts off with “I did……” But in the listeners mind at the point of hearing “I did” it would seem that the answer is going to be positive, only to quickly find out that it isn’t when the “n’t” is added negating the previous verb.

Furthermore, what if a third party enters the room after the question is ended but at the start of the answer and a person hears, “I didn’t talk”. Now the third party is hearing a person say they didn’t talk when they clearly are talking. This again causes some confusion because the literal truthfulness of this statement is in question and it must now be taken in context. To alleviate this, it would be better to qualify whom wasn’t talking before saying “not talking”, and before that to qualify the actors in the sentence to a certain time. This could be done in two ways by saying, “Today, my friend and I” or “My friend and I today.” But again for the sentence to be taken literally, then the negater should come before the verb and not after. Therefore an acceptable truthful way to answer would be, “Today, my friend and I not talked.”

As one can see, this is seriously rearranging the grammar of the English language and would meet resistance if practiced on unknowing participants. Still by setting a scene of actors, place, and time, and then going into actions that have taken place, a more truthful language that can be taken quite literally instead of contextually can be created and practiced ultimately causing less internal conflict and violence when trying to communicate.

thoughts on Africa

It is the dirty windy season. The rainy season will come soon, and for a short while the land will be lush and green as the land comes to life once more. But right now it is dry and the wind pushes the grit into every little nook and cranny. Every time I got out of my house I need a shower when I come back. On the worst days, the sun is browned out by the dust.

Today I walk outside of my house. I see little Thabo playing. He is maybe seven but looks five. His nose is running as usual and nobody is there to wipe it. Nobody is there to give him food. Nobody is there to take care of him or tell him what to do. He is playing with his favorite toy, an old can dug out of the garbage pile. He rolls it along with an unstretched hanger. It reminds me of a person walking a dog. I think, “There is dirty little Thabo again walking his can.” It is a seen I have seen a dozen times and will see a dozen more. It is his favorite, one, and only toy. Later, I would buy him more, not much, but something more than a can.

That was almost eight years ago, and I wonder if he is alive today. Little Thabo would be a big Thabo now. I’m pretty sure he had HIV. He was always sick, as was his mother, and his father while being healthy, openly admitted his positive status. I wonder what happened to them. Did they make it?

When will Africa be free of this terrible disease? When will the rich and plentiful of the world give a helping hand of kindness to the poor. No doubt America spends more on pet food than most poor countries spend on regular food and medicine and school combined. I want to help, I really do, but I do little. I gather most people think it would “be nice” to do something someday, and go about eating nice meals out and buying new clothes, while doing nothing for Africa. I say give to Africa, give generously and without want for a return. Let Africa grow in her own way, with her own culture, taking what she wants, and leaving the rest behind. It is too late for Asia. Asia who has lost her Eastern charm, gone to only be replaced by materialism, bustling cities, fast food, and boy bands. I say let unconquered Africa not be beaten into conforming to Western culture, but don’t let it wither either. Give medicine, technology, and other aid when needed and wanted, but let the rest of the great continent, the motherland of humanity, grow and awaken to a new course and path. And then maybe the motherland of humanity will help us all to be human someday!

I prefer simple religion

What is religion? People are making religions now as I write this. Religions have been around for thousands of years. And overtime they have changed, sometimes a little, but often dramatically. I gather that religions in the near future for some time will continue to evolve or be invented.

I think religion can be as simple as trying to dissolve ego, not exert one’s will on others or oneself in areas they are hesitant, and showing compassion for others. Within a certain perspective what I am saying here is not too much different than what it says in the KJV Bible when it says, “You shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart, strength, soul, and mind. And love your neighbor as yourself.” I say this because if a person is loving God, then they are trying to live within God’s will and do God’s bidding. In doing so, one’s own will is dissolved, one’s own ego is not intrusive or destructive. To me, a sign of loving God is that one’s ego may be sturdy but not impeding, nor destructive towards themselves or others.

And a sign of loving your neighbor is demonstrating compassion. The formula seems to be pretty simple. If a person is doing more for others than oneself, then they are compassionate. If on the other hand they are doing more for themselves than others, well then they are being selfish. Few people that I have ever met seem to demonstrate these signs and actions outside of their families. And while such religion might be practiced between, say for instance a mother and a son, isn’t the favor rarely returned?

In the Christian quote above, it is followed by this, “Upon this all the law and the prophets are written.” The message as I understand it means that loving God and loving your neighbor is the foundation of all religion, all the true laws of religion, and all the givers and explainers of such laws. I have also heard it said that real Christianity hasn’t ever been practiced. If my assertion is right, and that loving God means dissolving ego and living in the will of God, and showing more compassion for others instead of selfishness, then really I wonder how many times in my life I have I actually seen real Christianity, especially beyond close members of a family? And unfortunately, I can’t even say that I have ever even come close myself.

So what is real religion? I gather the explanation above is simple and good enough, and even fits on one paper. Even the quote from the Bible is small enough to be written on jewelry and carried with oneself at all times. Yet religions continue to grow, and change, in attempt to explain this message written above, or in many and maybe most cases to try to achieve some other goal. Religions often get multitudes of laws and customs, and modern day prophets have a multitude of teachings. Some of these get quite complex, and many of them for all their complexity might still be true and fair to the values of loving God and others. On the other hand, many might often drift or even purposely veer in their form into something that no longer practices a real and good religion.

Ride of Life

I was thinking about how I got to Korea. Sometimes I guess we all need the willingness to point ourselves in the direction of the unfamiliar, unknown, and possibly even unsafe. But still to look in that direction and take those first small steps that will inevitably lead us to hopping onto the "ride of life" that will lead us down a mysterious path, sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad, but always with wonder. For me, it starts with something small like a "hello" to a stranger, a quick read of job advertisements on the net, or a "why not" to a friend proposing an idea off the top of his or her head, but soon I find myself across the city, state, or even world totally inundated with an unusual variety of sensations and experiences. It has not all been for the good and I have missed out on many things. Not watching my niece and nephew grow are at the top of my list, but Africa and Asia and all the other adventures in between have also made me richer in ways I did not know, or couldn't have known before. And for me, it all started with a willingness to look into a path of life that I either thought was ridiculous or strange, but to take a few steps anyway just to see where it led me.

Purpose of life through values. A secret of satisfaction.

The question a person needs to ask himself or herself in an endeavor is, “Is this pursuit true to myself?” I am not the first to say this, but I would like to explain it in a bit of a different way than others have. Why is being true to oneself important? What even is oneself? I ask these questions because it makes things clearer. “Oneself,” for the purpose of this essay, is one’s values. First, a person through experience and reflection needs to figure out their values. Such values can be things like fame, riches, power, or other things like peace, adventure, and understanding. These values are not goals. Fame does not equal winning an Oscar. Riches do not equal a million dollars. Power does not equal being a Governor. Peace does not equal not having a fight with your spouse over dinner. Adventure does not equal going on a vacation to an exotic place. And lastly, understanding does not equal getting a Ph.D. All these things I have mentioned are goals. People often choose a path in life because it is inline with their values, but then set goals and loose track of their values and thus their purpose in the first place. To live with one’s values in mind is to have purpose in life. This brings satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment and even sometimes joy. To live for goals brings disappointment when they are not met and oddly even sometimes disappointment when they are met. Often a person gets into a trap of goals. Make one goal, feel good, so then make a bigger one. It is almost as if happiness will always be right around the corner, but never is.

To be self-actualized is to know oneself. Part of this is to understand one’s values and to live by them instead of living by goals. If a person values joy, they can make someone else laugh by telling jokes. If a person values peace, they can learn how to negotiate between others. If a person values love, they can spread the gift of compassion to the world. What a person who values joy learns is that there are lots of ways to make people happy. A person can learn to tell jokes. If that doesn’t work, a person can take others to funny movies. If that doesn’t work, a person can try a new way, a new friend, a new place, until they have found a way live out and express their value. That is a beautiful thing about values. There are an infinite amount of possibilities. Where as with a goal, the possibilities get more narrow with more specific the goal. It is the opposite with values. The more values a person has, the more options a person has to fulfill some of the values and thus live with purpose.

For example, a long time ago, I wanted to be a Psychologist. I thought it would be a great job because I could heal people. More specifically at the time it was to help people. Later on, when I learnt that one of my core values was to help people. I learnt there were now hundreds of jobs that before had turned me off, but now I realized would be great for me. I could be a doctor, nurse, teacher, aid worker, counselor, social worker or other such job. There were just so many ways I could do a job one on one with a person helping them. Now they all made sense.

Yes, No, and Off? (The Opposite of War is not Peace)

Some people say that the world is “black or white” or that an answer is either “yes or no” but I disagree. Some say that the opposite of war is peace. But I say there is another opposite, which is cold war, which is actually opposed to both war and peace. Let me explain more.

Here is an example. Look at a light bulb. It is either off or on, right? Well, for the most part, yes. But there is another option other than off (off=no) and on (on=yes). This option is, there is not light bulb in the socket to be engaged in the first place.

The same goes for war, peace, and cold war. In war, people are openly engaged and fighting. In peace, people are openly engaged and being peaceful. In cold war, there just isn’t an open engagement, just like a light bulb that isn’t in a socket in the first place. A person might say this is a bad example and give all kinds of points of how in a cold war countries are subvertly engaged and really hurting each other, but that is besides the point, I am just trying to make a general point about life and not the fine subtleties of cold war.

To me, what I am trying to say is that with any issue, with any question, the answer is not ever as simple as just yes or no. Sometimes the answer is one of absence of yes or no. For instance, a person might ask, “Are you a Republican or Democrat?” and then a person can say “Yes or No.” But a third option exists and that is one of non-engagement, or the answer of, “I am not registered to vote,” or maybe “I am Independent.”

Really, when I was younger I use to think that many situations in life were either “yes or no” type of situations. Now I realize that everything is “yes, no, or not engaged.” And if I have not made things confusing already, there is one more thing that needs to be considered, which is “How much?” So for instance with a light bulb that is on, how much or how often is it on? Is it a 45 watt or 90 watt? Is it on everyday all the time, or only an hour a day? These are questions of intensity. If two countries are in peace, how peaceful are they? Do they trade a lot or a little? How long have they been trading? These are important “intensity” questions because they describe just how real and stable the peace really is. The likewise for war, “Are they killing a lot of men?” and/or “Have they been killing for a long time?” The same goes for the Republican or Democrat issue. Maybe a person is a Democrat and always votes. Maybe they vote Republican sometimes. Maybe they don’t ever vote. These are intensity issues and are also very important to consider above and beyond a simple yes or no perspective.