I Should Be An Arbiter of Nobility

And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good -- Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? ~ Robert Pirsig's epigraph to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

 

Years later [Robert Oppenheimer] would remember thinking to himself as he saw the towering cloud of the blast, "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"—a quotation from his beloved Bhagavad Gita, in which the god Vishnu exhorts Prince Arjuna to do his duty and pursue martial greatness. From "The Agony of Atomic Genius" by Algis Valiunas

I have a cousin who works for Monsanto, a massive agricultural technology company that, among many other things, genetically bio-engineers living plants. As stated, I think that's a fairly objective description. It's also objectively certain that the name "Monsanto" generally calls to mind much more than just the image of a large international employer or a titanic biological R&D think-tank; depending on which side of a certain ideological spectrum from which one happens to view the company, it's likely regarded as the harbinger of either mankind's salvation or its downfall.

 

Quite unexpectedly, I began thinking about Monsanto today -- how some of the work being done by the scientists there has commonalities, at least in principle, to the research done by Manhattan Project scientists 60 years ago -- as I was reading a fascinating article on atomic physicist Robert Oppenheimer, from which I quoted above. Here's another quote from the same source relevant to this topic:

They shouldn't have done it, the sentiment runs; they were scientists, after all, and they should have known better than to lend their intelligence to so terrible an undertaking. But can scientists really be expected to know better—indeed, to know best? Does their understanding of the workings of nature endow them with a sounder moral understanding than the common run of humanity?

Now, my cousin is quite proud of his genetic experimentation at Monsanto. Sadly, I've fallen somewhat out of touch with much of my extended family. When I remember this particular cousin, the loosely strung-together videos that flash across my mind's eye are consistently absolutely innocent, politically-unaware, warm and fuzzy things like horsing around in our Italian grandmother's home, riding dirtbikes around his childhood stomping grounds, swimming in their pool, cracking lewd jokes, etc. Since childhood, I suppose I've visited with him less than a dozen times, which would include my attending his wedding in St. Louis back (hmm...) in the late 80s or thereabouts, and his attending mine in 1994 (at which, quite memorably, he pulled me aside and privately offered some sincere words).

 

Anyway, he's a good guy and, from what I surmise, an accomplished scientist. And yet here I am 20-odd years down the line and I find myself on the opposite side of the aforementioned ideology. For example, let me share a few hair-raising snippets from a recent, admittedly critical, biotech book:

In traditional breeding the integrity of the organisms themselves places limits upon what can be done -- limits you could reasonably call "natural." For example, you could not cross a strawberry with a cold-water fish in order to obtain strawberries with "anti-freeze" genes. The problem now is that we can break through these limits, but we have not replaced the safeguard they represented. From Beyond Biotechnology: The Barren Promise of Genetic Engineering (2008) by Craig Holdredge and Steve Talbott

 

About 1 percent of genetic transfers yeild the looked-for result; the other 99 percent are all over the map. ... If there can be immediately obvious changes [in the "new" plant] ... there can be many more unobvious ones. It's hard to test for changes when anything can happen and you don't know what you're looking for. In actual practice, almost no such testing is done. (ibid).

To me, the science of GMO is a system by which a few mega-corporations profit enormously (ostensibly / ironically via a mission of altruistic concern for humanity) by releasing horrifically unnatural, incompletely understood, inadequately tested, and potentially harmful and invasive creations into the natural world.

For most of its history Monsanto was a chemical giant, producing some of the most toxic substances ever created, residues from which have left us with some of the most polluted sites on earth. Yet in a little more than a decade, the company has sought to shed its polluted past and morph into something much different and more far-reaching—an "agricultural company" dedicated to making the world "a better place for future generations." -- Monsanto's Harvest of Fear, by Donald Bartlett and James Steele, writing for Vanity Fair, May 2008.

I don't fault the scientists, for a natural curiosity surely drives them. Were Monsanto a privately funded research lab, of worlwide proportions yet also hermetically isolated from mother nature, I'd be fine with the pursuit and cataloguing of knowledge that takes place there daily. However, monetized (and governmentally subsidized) in the ways that it currently is, GMO exposes the dark underside of a capitalism (1) unfettered by any perceptible moral code, at worst, or (2) influenced by a moral code that has itself been modified (read "perverted"), at best.

 

If you browse through my public writing, you'll no doubt find past, sometimes fanatical support for free-market capitalism. But I always maintained, I think (I hope), a moral code that, beneath my signature smart-ass nature, respected humanity in my own particular way. My book Tales of the Midwest, for example, documents a wildly mischievous, borderline destructive adolescence, yet never within the pages would I have dared harm a person (other than, admittedly, myself). But, indeed, after considerable refltection toward the end of 2008, I rescinded some earlier views on certain free-market capitalist luminaries, owing largely to the adoption of a more holistic, more compassionate attitude toward not only my fellow man and fellow living things, but also increased sensitivity to the living entity that is this Earth, and likewise to larger cosmic systems, both visible and extra-sensory.

 

That today's bio-marketers and genetic scientists proudly identify with and suckle the altruistic mega-corporate PR message is crystal clear. One need not merely sense or infer the satisfaction they surely feel regarding their contribution to world hunger; members of these groups will gladly boast about it if prompted. Yet, that intuitive sense positively screaming the antithesis ("And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good -- Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?") is the proverbial elephant in the lab.

 

 

Imagine the deeply buried doubt some of these Ph.D.s (especially, one hopes, the younger generation) must certainly feel over the implications of patenting plants and animals, the unrelenting RIAA-like "seed police" enforcement arm, the undeniable toxicity and unsustainability of crops that spring forth specifically awaiting their patented, Monsanto-manufactured pesticide counterparts, and all of the future nightmares to come. True altruism does not manifest as such abominations against mother nature -- just as so many prior "accomplishments" from Monsanto have proven to be (e.g., Agent Orange, DDT, Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, Roundup and -- oh, they must be so proud of this new one -- the so-called "Terminator" technology that prevents plants from producing their own seeds).

 

That GMO is now entirely market-driven, comsumer safety be damned, is ultra-clear. A while back, I was doing some research for our Pure Jeevan blog, looking into whether or not most of the papayas imported from Hawaii are GMO. I came across a document online (possibly this one, or something very similar from another government domain based in Hawaii) that essentially outlined a government-sponsored marketing plan aimed at reviving the Hawaiian papaya market, as well as specifically fostering a "a more general understanding and acceptance of GMO technology in agricultural applications." That governmental post states:

In the case of papaya, completing the deregulation process for Rainbow and SunUp in Japan is critical to assuring Hawaii's most important market niche in Japan. In addition, given the heightened level of activism opposing GM technology, using the success of transgenic papaya as a spring board for discussions with targeted clients should be very useful in assisting with acceptance of GM. (ibid).

"Success" is of course equated solely with "assuring Hawaii's most important market niche." So, let's see... The scientists are in it for the knowledge. They're paid (very well, btw) by corporate leaders who are motivated by earnings per share and other such key SEC ratios. The corporate leaders then lobby and court politicians by demonstrating that, if their GMO technology is applied, more money returns to the politicians' districts. And, hey, all anyone has to do is eat papayas, which are universally regarded as healthy! 

 

One of the obvious bastardizations, of course, is that a GMO papaya looks pretty much exactly like an organic one. And, if it's grown without further pesticide sprays, it may also taste nearly identical. Hell, it may even taste sweeter if the scientific team responsible for its creation has artificially amped up the genes related to sweetness. The problem, of course (as stated in the quote above from "Beyond Biotechnology"), is that, while the papaya may be sweeter and resistant to whatever scourge afflicts Hawaii, those genetic changes each represent only 1% of the overall genetic expression brought about by the genetic tampering.

 

As there is no way to test for the safety of something when you don't even know what to test for, the consumers are rendered guinea pigs, effectively presented with a wager (not that many of them even care) each time they purchase those artificially /temptingly cheap fruits: Do you believe that the other 99% of each of the genetic changes forced upon this item of produce might possibly affect you in some negative way?

 

Soon, I've read, we'll be growing pharmaceuticals. One of the pieces I cited above foresaw a flue vaccine delivered via a GMO banana. Apparently, that sort of thing isn't too far off on the bio-tech horizon. Soon, we'll all be able to O.D. on polio vaccine when Grandma uses the wrong bunch of bananas in her famous sweetbread.

 

But, the scientists and politicians have these risks 100% covered, I'm sure. Just Google "Agent Orange" and see if any health problems arose from what was deemed a harmless defoliant by all parties involved in its production in the 1960s. "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."

Okay, so I launched a Vlog yesterday...

 

Just FYI- I launched a daily video blog yesterday. It's called Get Down And Do It (www.GetDownAndDoIt.com). The concept is this: I'm going to do 100 push-ups/day, 5 days/week, and "vlog" about it.  Day 1 was yesterday. It took me forever to do 100 pushups, and I'm sore as hell today.  But, I'm sticking with it. Feel free to try your hand (or, uh, arms) at the challenge, too.

 

-Jim

Crunchy

Did you know that alternative types are deemed "crunchy"?  Funny, I never heard that before. Relates to the "granola eater" stereotype.  But, what are you called if even granola is too mainstream for you?

Sitting. Thinking. Emotional Desensitization.

Sitting is what I'm doing right now. It's just the worst Friday night ever, really. I don't mind it so much when a night is shot to hell now and again, but tonight is just ridiculous. And it's still kind of early, too. You know what I mean about shooting a night to hell, right? --like when you just waste the whole mother-scratching night for no apparent reason and suddenly you realize you've done nothing with a span of time that could have otherwise been productive. Or at least enjoyable. Or at least "not unpleasant," I suppose.

Of course, I realize that most Americans live out their whole lives in this way -- absolutely *wasting* precious moments of our lives watching television shows designed to hold our attention long enough so that we purchase goods and services advertised during the shows. I suppose it's good for the economy that so many of us are no more awake to life than those farms of Duracell-people in The Matrix, because someone has to buy all of the useless crap. (Not YOU, of course... LOL. You have a brain. If you didn't, you probably wouldn't like it here at the ol' Wheat Grass bar. But your NEIGHBORS... all Duracell, I'd bet.)

So judgmental, aren't I? Sorry for that. I should tone it down some, show some respect. It's not their fault, really, anyway. I guess I've just never really been swept into that. Oh, I did enjoy television shows now and again over the years. When we were young, some shows were practically social events. Back in the '90s, I remember everyone coming over for Beverly Hills 90210, followed by Melrose Place. It was, after all, what we were "supposed" to be doing as 20-somethings. We were just out of college, still well-immersed in the whole "get an entry-level job utilizing your college major / chip away at those student loans / live in a garden apartment complex" thing.

We were absolutely "in the box" back then. And I only took it further. I did have a "television is useless" realization early on, but that realization was not the same as the "television is useless" realization I have today. Back then, watching television meant not doing other, more "important" things -- like making money. I was constantly freelancing in those days. Even after 20 years of professional and creative work, I still cannot easily condense my resume into any kind of believable format for prospective employers. (Not that I'm trying.) But because of all of this sideline work, it's fair to say that, starting surprisingly early in my career, I was almost always more experienced and/or more capable than most of my bosses. This isn't bragging; I'd simply done more than they had and, as a result, understood whatever needed to be done instantaneously. Most business situations, after all, are painfully mindless.

I should have had the guts to realize back then that the corporate world was the wrong atmosphere for me. But, I believed in it still. I thought someone would recognize the phenomenal resume I'd amassed and ... oh, I don't know ... offer me some absurd amount of cash to fill a corner office somewhere. Never happened. Although, I did land a veritable sinecure at the age of 32 that paid the handsome sum of $70,000 per annum. But in exchange for what? (I'll answer that one in a video I'm planning to shoot just after my home sells.)

But I digress... Television IS useless, but not because not watching it affords one time to amass cash. It's useless (quite obviously) because life is precious, and the idiot box sucks life away surely as lightbulbs (referencing an old joke) "suck darkness." Oh sure, there's always going to be that "yeah, but I really like the Discovery Channel" justification. However, I've yet to meet anyone who so retorted who also seemed like a productive human being to me.

Not that everyone has to be productive, I guess. I suppose I just value that in people and can sometimes be a little judgmental about it. It's a personal preference; I like artists, musicians, writers, teachers, visionaries. I'm drawn to people who are out there doing things, to those who are really alive -- or, awake. But the activities (which can be quite limitless) also have to be, for me, things that somehow celebrate life, in the grand scheme.

Oddly, sometimes a generalization like that leads to screwy circumstances. For example, I might be able to appreciate that a professional basketball player is "awake" to life -- that he or she is a one-in-a million talent doing truly what he or she was put on this Earth to do. Yet, I still view professional sports fans as, well, sheep. Don't feel particularly insulted if you're a sports fan. I believe we're ALL sheep in our own way, myself included. Trust me, though, it's a weird perspective for a Pittsburgh resident to have -- as my home town currently prides itself as home of the Superbowl champions and, quite possibly, the Stanley Cup champs.

I think television is, like many foods, an emotional numbing agent. It's no different than that Philly cheesesteak you crave a little too often; both provide you with what you perceive as enjoyable sensory stimulation, yet neither is actually good for you. Both offer an escape -- but from what? My answer: From the deepest inner knowledge, the just-out-of-our-reach awareness, that we all have of our Duracell natures. "I'm doing," your truest conscience is attempting to tell you, "nothing of consequence with my life. I have no purpose."

This hurts. It hurts desperately. And thus we respond with self-administered anesthesia: We eat crap, we watch crap, we espouse acidic political philosophies, we go to war. I understand this clearly now, though I didn't before.

The way out -- well, part of it -- is to eliminate those things that would block access to our natural human emotions. This is where television is tricky because it replaces your genuine emotions with its own corporate-designed simulations. It offers what deceptively feels genuine, but what is actually a cheap cubic zirconia stand-in for the Hope diamond blazing beneath your breastbone. (Hey, I kind of like that -- another pull quote for the print version.)

* * *

Opinions Sought on Emotional Chart

 

So, I threw this chart together over the past 5 minutes, and just wanted to talk a little bit about it. A lot of people talk about the "now" or the "moment" -- specifically, about the benefits of living within it as much as possible. This is something that people have been thinking quite seriously about for ... well, forever. I know that many people, most notably Eckhart Tolle, have popularized the idea in recent years (although I've never read his book).

 

Prior to my own awakening vis-a-vis some of these areas of enquiry, I never gave the matter much thought at all. In a way, I look back and feel as though I were almost purer in a way for it. Ignorance, as they say, is bliss, right? I'm not sure how it is that I got to be nearly 40 years old, always highly philosophical in nature, and never explored this particular avenue of human existence. Most likely, I was just hung up on other philosophical issues like free will versus determinism and whether we're responsible for our actions (a related notion).

 

Anyway, that chart captures some of my current thinking on the topic (having decided to just think on it all myself rather than reading the work of others -- mostly because I just don't have time to read books these days and, if I did, I have too many others on deck, both fiction and nonfiction). While the chart is pretty much self-explanatory, and likely conveys rather obvious/rudimentary/possibly erroneous concepts to anyone schooled on the topic, I still am currently interested in thinking about it out loud here, for a moment.

 

So, the "now" is this moment in time. It's when I'm typing this. When I'm thinking about writing this sentence, the story goes, I'm arguably incapable of experiencing any of the problematic domains shown above. I began thinking of the now as the intersection between two axes: (1) the axis of time, and (2) the axis of emotion.

 

This scenario offers four distinct non-now domains:

 

(1) When you're in a "positive" emotional state and thinking on the past, I call that "nostalgia." I toyed with a few of words -- not for long enough, probably -- but nostalgia seemed apropos. Nostalgia, after all, implies a certain bitter-sweetness, and maybe that's the best we can do when it comes to our past because, by definition, it's gone. When you remember your child as a toddler, your wedding day, your interactions with past loved ones who've moved on... Those are all sweet memories, for sure. But, there's always the undeniable truth that these things are past moments. So, again, bitter-sweet nostalgia. And maybe that's not so bad. I have wonderful, wonderful memories within me that, although they're tempered by my current reality, I still am able to cherish in, I believe, a positive way.

 

(2) Goal setting. Let's stay positive, first, shall we? I could have gone down to "depression" next, but I think goal setting is more exciting. This domain also provides perhaps the easiest-seen red flag that the chart needs some work still because, certainly, dwelling on the future, even for goals, can probably be viewed as damaging to one's psyche. For example, there is "good" ambition and there is "bad" ambition, right? So, perhaps a third axis should be added in the future... perhaps a "quality" axis or something. But, for now, keeping to two dimensions, let's just assume that when I say "goal setting," I'm speaking of "good" ambitions -- things like setting out to find your passion or mission in life. That's good, right? Envisioning your future, doing vision boards, working toward those noble goals that you have. Those are all good uses of visiting that domain.

 

... okay, let's enter the lower domains ...

 

(3) Fear. To me, this is when you're existing in your imaginary future, only in a negative way. It's all confusing because your future fears are based on your past reality, right? (Or, at least your past perception of reality.) For example, few people fear dogs who have not previously encountered dogs in some negative way (and that could be an actual, physical encounter, a story you heard or read, a dream, a movie, or whatever.) While much of this topic is actually spiritual in nature, fear seems to stem from our rational minds -- and there's nothing wrong with that, as fear likely keeps us alive in many practical situations. You probably wouldn't approach a lion (especially a hungry-looking one) in the wild out of good old fear that it might eat you. Rationally, you know that lions are carnivores and, historically, you've heard of other human-lunch incidents. So, leaving the fear domain open for business can't be all bad. It can just be unhealthy, as all of these domains can, when you linger there too long.

 

Last night, I re-watched "What Dreams May Come." (Great flick.) There's a scene (in the afterlife part) in which Robin Williams' mentor tells him not to visit his wife's spirit for too long. She'd committed suicide and, in this movie, suicides become hopeless cases of self-absorption, from which there is no return. If Robin Williams' character would have stayed too long, he's warned, then his wife's reality may become his own and he, too, would be doomed to stay there forever. 

 

(4) Depression. To me, this is when you're existing in your past, or your perceived past, in an unhealthy way.  And when I say "you," of course, I probably really mean "me," but just want to sound more universal in nature here. And, when I say "in an unhealthy way," I think, for now, that I mean "for too long." Whether it's healthy at all to visit these domains is perhaps a topic of another post. I could be beneficial for us (certainly it's perfectly human behavior) to experience some mild to moderate longing from time to time. I'm sure great art is borne from that, among other things. But, somewhere, there's a line, and true clinical depression is clearly past that line.

 

Wow, it's time for me to leave, so maybe I'll just post this little thought experiement as it is, for now, and return to it later for refinement. Feel free to share some thoughts on this, as I'm still interested in discussing it further. What do you think of my model, though? I'd planned, given more time, on getting more personal with this, perhaps self-analyzing where some of my problems are within these four modes.

 

For a brief example, you have only to look at the image atop this blog -- to some text there that, I believe, states something about my attempting to feed to good wolf in my life. I don't always do that, sometimes knowingly so. There was a span today when I did not, when I fed the bad wolf within, knowingly so. And, as awful as it was, I had an interesting insight from the experience. I said to myself, "You know what you're thinking will only hurt you. So, why are you doing it?"  You probably think I'm really stupid for having such obvious thoughts, but to me it really was a profound moment. Why would I want to hurt myself? I need to think more about that because, frankly, I do not know the answer to that question. Any suggestions?

 

 

 

Flossing @ Work

 

Flossing @ Work. Somehow, it never occurred to me to bring a roll of dental floss into my office. I'm not sure why... I mean, I eat all sorts of stuff here. And, when people eat, they get stuff caught in their teeth. And that's uncomfortable. Probably leads to gingivitis or something, right? (Hey, I'm no dentist.) So, what's a guy to do? 

 

Well, let me tell you: I've tried using scotch tape.  It just doesn't work. You'd think it would, though, right? I mean, it's got that sticky side and all. Maybe you thought what I did:  Just get a piece in between your teeth somehow, and the sticky side might even help catch onto whatever's in there, right?  Wrong.  Tape breaks. I've even had a few really unpleasant times (yes, I've tried it more than once -- using different brand tapes) when a piece gets caught in between two teeth in a rather painful manner. When this happens, you NEED to find a way out if it, fast! 

 

Enter the plastic bag.  (You know, like a plastic grocery bag... or even a piece ripped from a waste basket bag.)  Bags seem flimsy compared with tape, right?  I know... But somehow, they're SO damned thin that they actually work pretty well. And there's nothing more satisfying than using a trash bag to remove a piece of lodged scotch tape from between your teeth. 

 

Hey, that was pretty deep. I bet no one's ever written that before. Hang on, I better bold that sentence. You think anyone will quote me on that? Feel free. Perhaps in a future post, I can review additional at-the-desk personal care tips. Some are quite advanced, though (e.g., the old swab your ears with a paper clip trick), and might require a medical disclaimer.

I Pulled a Will Hunting Last Week and Didnt' Even Know It!

 

Last week, I had a rare melt-down at work. It just sort of came at me with no warning when one of the owners blew up at me for no logical reason. Basically, the dude went apoplectic at me for something that was his own fault. When I did not accept responsibility for his error (and why should I?), he escalated his rage. Still not backing down, I became angry and escalated things in return.

 

It nearly got irreparably ugly until I finally decided to back off, if only to salvage my job for the moment. I'd definitely entered dangerous waters, though (standing up to an owner being unheard of in this industry). I figured the chances were reasonable that, upon arriving at work the next day, I'd be fired. (I wasn't. Turns out most of the other management sided with me.)

 

Although it's kind of an interesting story, what's more interesting to me is what *almost* happened. Prior to my firing off my "backing off" email, I'd nearly sent out a further escalation in which I attempted to "read" the guy beyond the argument we were having at the moment.

 

Ever see "Good Will Hunting"?  Remember that scene where Matt Damon deconstructs Robin William's life based solely on that painting hanging in his office?  I totally did that to this guy. I looked into his anger and saw so many things wrong with his life that I'm so glad now I did not throw out there -- because everything I "saw" was spot-on. Turns out his wife *just* left him.  I mean... I was *this* fucking close to typing that very thing into an email. 

 

Thank god I kept a level head about this. Can you imagine the level of rage that might have sent the poor guy into? And what good could possibly have come out of my letting him have it, anyway? This is all yet another reason for me to leave the toxic corporate world once and for all. I don't want to put myself in situations in which my newfound mental clarity is used for negative purposes.

 

But, what interests me is:  Is *this* going to be my superpower? I'm not usually like this. Normally, this kind of intuition is unavailable to me. But, as I've been saying for the past several months (on those rare occasions when I actually post something), I feel more in tune with this than ever. This was just the latest affirmation of it, even though it was an uncomfortable experience.

 

Intuition.  Damn, I was hoping for levitation or invisibility. Oh well... maybe we get more than one superpower. We'll see, in time.