The Voice From The Back Row

Sunday, I was surfing the Internet (which I sometimes get to do when there is nothing in particular to do where I happen to be), when an article by  Ethan Wolff-Mann,  a senior writer at Yahoo Finance, appeared on the screen.  Sorry, I do not remember the URL, but the title of the article is Here’s What Happens When a Business Gets Rid of Cash, and it appeared on Yahoo on 3/11/18.  The focus of the article was not new – that eventually we will be living in a cashless society, using cards (credit, debit, or?) to make financial transactions.  However, he discussed why some current businesses in New York City have transitioned to card only.  It seems those businesses are quite happy with their decisions, in spite of some wrinkles (such as reactions from customers who use cash) that happen.

The promise (or threat) of a cashless society has been a potential financial structure ever since the use of credit cards (buy now, pay later) became common.  The supposed way this would come to be is by government fiat – at least a recalling of cash, or in some renderings, the issuance of cards that contained financial, identity, and medical information all in one, and possibly, according to some, of implanting chips containing such information in people.  However the prophesied means, the result would be that all financial transactions would be digital.  Now, I have a different angle on it; according to Mr. Wolff-Mann, the transition would most likely occur by businesses themselves going completely digital for their own convenience, thus requiring consumers to follow suit.  It would not be, then, by government fiat, but by the quiet, gradual, and mostly voluntary means of cash simply going valueless.

Humans generally love drama.  The thought of a government (or other force) confiscating our cash, our gold, our crops (e.g., to feed their armies) or anything else of ours automatically raises adrenaline and puts us in the mood to protest.  How much easier is a gradual happening, a change from physical to digital because of ease and convenience.  Surely, those of us who like cash will protest, but who will we protest to?  In the end, if we wish to buy and sell goods and services, we will need to acquiesce.

Let us assume for the sake of consideration that this issue may actually take place.  It is already partially taking place.  More and more consumers prefer to carry little cash and pay by card for the sake of convenience.  Utilities and other people to whom we owe money urge us to use the “more convenient” digital way of paying, in which we do not really have to think about it.  Direct deposit is already required by some employers who no longer wish to issue checks.  In other words, people get into and out of our accounts as convenient digital transaction is already taking place.  Perhaps all this is good.  Perhaps convenience is what counts.  Perhaps this is the way of the future, and resistance is futile.

 I am sure that most people are aware of the convenience of digital transactions.   I am not as sure that many people have stopped to think about either what we are losing or about what difficulties we are attracting by such a sweeping change.   First, it seems to me that the issue of security is not guaranteed, or even quite likely.  The ability of hackers to get into government departments, banks, and even Equifax, supposedly systems well protected by high security, does not bode well for the security of our digital identity, transactions, records and history.  Identity theft, if one listens to the media, is at an all time high.  I wonder if the convenience of frequent use of digital cards is worth the risk of credit or identity loss and the resulting major inconvenience.   Second, the increasing availability of anything that goes online to be stored and held in giant data banks, to be withdrawn at will by authorized (and maybe also interested) parties, combined with other information and manipulated at will, does not bode well for the freedom to which people are or think they are accustomed.  I, for one, do not like the idea of Big Brother watching me, or of living in a fishbowl.  Going digital would practically result in giving up what we call privacy.  It might also, under some circumstances which could occur, result in giving up individuality, as being watched can also lead to being expected to conform, to be the same.  No dissent, no differing opinions or expressions.  Perhaps no spending on things that are disapproved.  That is not necessarily here now, but it certainly could be, if the trends are followed far enough.  Or, what about those who simply like cash, who find it easier and comforting to have their resources physically available and in their control.  It can be difficult to budget with a card, when it is so simple and easy to simply swipe it.  Why budget when a machine/system can think for us, keep track of our accounts, allow us to overspend to the benefit of those down the line who profit from our impulse spending of the moment?

Going digital opens the door to losing, for the sake of convenience on our part, and control on the part of those who control the digital programs, the loss of our privacy, security, individuality, and thinking for ourselves.   It also does something else: it reduces the actual face-to-face contact between people.  The process of examining a seller’s merchandise, exchanging cash for it, taking the cash and counting it and giving change, and the interaction between cashiers (or buyer and seller) are lost in a digital transaction.  People are no longer necessary; all that is necessary is a swipe (or scan).  The self-check lines in the stores bear witness to this, especially in the stores that have six or seven self-check lanes open, but only two lanes with human cashiers.  The current level of digitization and devices has already eroded our unmediated contact with each other.  Computers at work help us work faster and longer and produce more, but they also diminish the time we have to spend with family and friends.  TV watching often becomes a kind of parallel play; we are in the physical presence of each other, but the interaction is with the digital TV.  We prefer texting on our devices or going to chat rooms to abandoning those devices and simply conversing with those around us.  Some people seem to be losing even the art of conversation.  In other words, our relationships and interactions are becoming – maybe have become – machine-mediated.  Is this a result that we want?  Do we want to be able to connect mostly by machine (which, besides reducing the personal interaction, can also be monitored by anyone with the skill to do it)?    I think we have not thought about those things.

We have the power to influence the future by the actions and thoughts we take now.  The future is not an inevitable condition being imposed upon helpless us; we are not powerless victims.   Let us think now, before we have drawn to ourselves a future which we might regret, about the consequences of what is portrayed to us as convenient and progressive.  Let us think so that we may actually choose that which would really benefit us.   Going along with the flow without thought is not choosing.  It is giving up our innate power.     I wish for all the power of following potential consequences or results of given trains of thought and directions of action, and the will to exercise a thoughtful power to choose.

Peace,  Diane

Once again, a horrific and pointless execution of young people has taken place in a school, and once again, the media (all forms of communication) are alive with demands for gun control or removal of guns from much of the population.   Once again, the political gurus are predicting that nothing will be done.   Maybe.  This time, the young are involved, speaking out and marching.    Change is often powered by the energy of youth, which, if it can be married to the wisdom of experience, can be formidable.   The problem is that one thing has not changed; the issue is one dimensional.  It calls only for more gun control or elimination.  The problem is more complex, and all facets of it need to be addressed simultaneously if a solution beneficial to people is to be reached.

I have said before that I do not like guns; I would be happy in a society where they did not exist.  Nobody needs a semi automatic weapon to go hunting, or even for personal defense.  At the same time, I rarely get on bandwagons.  On this issue as well, I am not on the bandwagon.  As tends to happen with bandwagons, those not on them are often demonized for perceiving the weakness of the bandwagon and the territory around it.

The voices of the young cry out for justice.  They deserve the protection they seek – as do we all.  The NRA is vilified – the ultimate evil for opposing the regulation of guns, so that Congress will not act.  Yet, there are many in the NRA who agree that military weapons should not be readily available for non-military uses, and that only those who can use them responsibly should have guns.  By vilifying the NRA, we obscure the truth that it is those whose income relies on gun sales that are the problem, not the whole NRA.  When we cast an issue in black and white, we make it nearly impossible to arrive at a true solution, which resides in the center, between the polarities.

It seems significant to me that these horrible shootings keep escalating, growing in both scope and frequency, while the cry for fixing the issue is limited to the reduction or elimination of firearm availability (I would like to say, firearms, but so far, a complete elimination has not been proposed.)   Who or what wants no guns so much that they keep on promoting the shooting of innocent people until that goal is achieved?   I have no good reason to say that there is such a causal connection, but it seems to be something of a harbinger.

The problem with simply reducing the availability of guns is that, by itself, it is simply a band aid on an even greater ulcer, and that once the band aid is applied, it is assumed that the whole issue is fixed.  We need also, and simultaneously, to recognize and attempt to remediate the issues of mental health, the erosion of trust that divides us one from the other, the gradual atrophy of neighborhood and community in favor of larger, more impersonal and therefore impersonally regulated social units, the unequal distribution of money and  resources, police violence, and all those broken ways of organizing ourselves.  As is, a tremendous anger is generated, permeating  individuals and society, resulting in the violence we see in schools and elsewhere.  Taking guns away will not fix that.  Criminals will manage to find them, and other ways of expressing the deepening anger will be found.

A friend recently forwarded to me a link to a blog by the mother of a disturbed child.  Here is the link, for those who wish to follow up.

https://www.dawndaviesbooks.com/single-post/2018/02/20/Parkland-Shooting-from-the-Viewpoint-of-a-Conduct-Disorder-Mother

In summary, what she says is that from the time her son was tiny, she exhausted every resource to find him help.  The final result of that search was that she was told that nothing could be done, and that she should wait until he offended (e.g., possibly shot people), and that then the law and courts would take care of him.   Is she a horrible person for raising a monster?  The FBI was alerted to the mental condition of the most recent shooter.  They were alerted that he was planning an attack.   The FBI did nothing; they waited until the disturbed shooter offended and was subsequently arrested.  The caretakers of the shooter were censured, as if they were part of the plan.  Why is there not help for those who are disturbed, especially when they are young and early intervention can remediate the disability?    Why do we have to wait until they harm the innocent?  These issues need to be addressed, not ignored because the problem is, supposedly, fixed by banning guns.

A part of this issue is related to money; no agency was willing to pay for help for the boy whose mother kept seeking it, and her family did not have resources.  Poverty, ignorance and inequality are generators of the deep angers that contribute to violence.  Yet, we pay no significant political attention to the growing economic inequality, and the diminishing access to services that the less affluent have.  Can this be fixed simply by banning guns?  However, the issue is related.

It can be illuminating to follow the money in this issue of guns.   Who profits by weapons proliferation?  President Eisenhower warned the nation about the growing military/industrial complex, but it seems that no one paid attention.  It is the manufacturers of guns (not necessarily the distributors, who, if there were no guns, could distribute something else) who profit immensely from the sale of ever increasingly powerful weapons of destruction.  This is true for the whole complex, nuclear weapons and all, but to focus on guns, it is the corporate manufacturers who enrich themselves by helping provide the conditions for massacres.   Yet, we are vilifying an organization, and refusing to look at who profits and who bankrolls opposition.  It would make a difference to specifically expose this connection, to make it visible to the populace, to be incorporated in the deliberations.  It would make the discussion less black and white.  This issue, too, is related to the whole.

History gives us examples of what happens when a disarmed population is juxtaposed with a highly armed police and military.  One of the most recent examples is what is happening to the Rohingya.   This unarmed population is in danger of being exterminated by the heavily armed forces of Myanmar.    Yet, the current demand to ban guns is not connected to an equal demand to take military weaponry away from the police, and to limit it for the National Guard and other paramilitary organizations within the USA.   Where are we allowing ourselves to head?  There is already evidence of police using unnecessary force, especially on minorities, who are somehow considered less human.  President Trump has publicly expressed approval and favor for giving the police even more access to excess military weaponry.   Is the government now at war with the people?   If so, will disarming ourselves solve the problem?  It would be absolutely reprehensible to have a shooting war between police/National Guard and people; it would be equally reprehensible to have repression of dissent and draconian regulation of the movements and actions of people by armed forces against those with unequal resources of defense.  (Is this not like what happened to the Native Americans?)  Yes, prevent semi automatic weapons from getting into the hands of potential shooters; at the same time, do not allow those weapons to the police, and keep them locked away from military except in case of actual war.   Is a one-sided “solution” going to serve us?

Let us stop to think before simply getting on the bandwagon.  The issue is complex, and attention to it is overdue.  It will not be solved by a single dimensional debate or solution.  Let those of us who see the many facets speak, make sure that while protecting the innocent who deserve all of our protection, the underlying issues do not go ignored and unaddressed.   These are also the voices that need to be raised, and to march beside our children.

Peace,  Diane

This year, the Lunar New Year falls on Friday, February 16.  Contrary to the conventional solar New Year’s Day, which falls yearly on January 1,  the Lunar New Year date will always be different from that of the year preceding it.  Traditional New Year has naught to do with the beginning of winter or the beginning of spring. It shadows the cycles of solstice and equinox, solstice specifically.  Lunar New Year, conversely, has everything to do with the seasons.  It is the herald of spring.   In a way, this makes more sense, as the cycles of human activity are also seasonal.

The seasons are cyclical; each is in balance with the other.  The seeds of the spring lie in winter, waiting their awakening.  The fullness of summer is contained within the promise of spring.  The activity, abundance and color of autumn are presaged in the nurturing growth of summer.  The stillness and rest of winter are begun in fall, when the harvest is gathered in and the energy of preparation is complete.  Winter and summer balance each other.   Spring and fall are complementary.  Everything is a whole.

The Asian symbol of the yin and yang give a visual picture of this unity and balance.  Curled around each other, the light and the dark embrace to form a circle; in the center of the light is a dot of dark; in the center of the dark is a dot of light. So is it with Creation.  Because we are happy, we can know sadness; because we are sad, we can experience joy.  We may not like the experience of sadness; it is uncomfortable.  It is a mistake to perceive sadness as wrong.  It is there to generate joy.  It is cyclical, like the seasons.  Problems arise when the cycle stops, when we get stuck in sadness or demand only joy.   The two are part and parcel of each other.

So is it with the shadow self, the parts of ourselves which we do not like, are ashamed of  and bury deep within.  Traits such as anger, envy, incompetence, helplessness, need for nurture, desire for attention, or the greed of always wanting “more”.    These each have their balancing positive trait, such as calm, appreciation, skill, productivity, nurturing and giving, generosity.   Like light and dark, these traits live linked to one another.  How can we give generously if we have not gathered in that which we can give?  Envy can tell us what it is we need to produce.   Anger can alert us to what we need to deal with to enter calm.   The shadow, too, must be given appropriate expression.  Submerged, it will eventually surface, but in an uncontrolled and often destructive manner.  Acknowledged, it can be channeled to an effective path.  It is all part of the whole.

There is an adage that history (especially unexamined history) repeats itself in an endless cycle of events.   Humans tend to look at time, hence historical events, as linear – past causes present which creates future, inevitably.  Another way to perceive time is as a circle – past, present, future exist simultaneously within it, each influencing the other.  Some people call this Eternity; quantum physics is discovering how malleable is the linear concept of time.  In a sense, everything is happening at once, our personal shadow and illuminated sides as well as those of humanity as a whole.

Things, then, are not hopeless, though they may certainly at times seem so.  We, like the seasons, are cycling; with us, each cycle lifts us a bit higher in understanding than we were before.   It is not necessary to embrace chaos, violence and inhumanity; it is necessary, though, to acknowledge and experience them so that they may be released, transmuted to their joyful sides, in order that we may grow thereby.

Now, as spring proceeds out of winter, from Lunar New Year to Spring Equinox, let us remember that winter does not last forever.  Let us acknowledge our personal shadows as well as the shadows through which the world is passing, with the intent that an even more beautiful world is waiting to emerge, and with confidence that the beauties of the past will not be forgotten in the emerging present.

Peace,  Diane

 

Imagine a scene in mid to late November:  the enhanced energy of fall is beginning to contract under the cooling temperatures and longer nights.  Most of the flaming color is gone, as the leaves have fallen from the trees to blanket the ground against the upcoming cold and transition into rich soil to nurture new plants in the spring.  Nature is slowing down.  Animals, having mostly completed their fat-building eating and frenzied food collection and storage of the fall, are now seeking dens in which to hibernate.  Those who slow down without hibernating are checking their stores of food for winter or burying the last of the food they will hide.  Those birds and larger herbivores who will seek warmer climates for the winter are departing; those who will stay are readying themselves for their hardest season.  Predators are stirring; hunting is easier in the winter, but they, too, are less active except for hunting.  The air is cool and crisp.  The first flakes of snow begin to fall, heralding a time of silence.

Imagine another scene in mid to late November: Halloween, the herald of the winter  holidays, is over.  Thanksgiving is rapidly approaching, and already Christmas decorations and holiday specials are visible in the malls.  As the daylight shortens, the lights in homes and offices, streets and shopping areas do double duty.  People spend longer hours at work, as end of season deadlines loom.  There is work now to do for the holidays as well.  Preparations for Thanksgiving do not eliminate preparations for Christmas; a quickening pace of time requires an earlier start to preparation activity.  The anticipation of parties is in the air.  The energy is humming.  People are rushing.  Traffic is increasing.  The imminent winter is something to be overcome.  Weather notwithstanding, there is work to be done and activity to accomplish.

The dichotomy between these scenes is obvious, but it is not a difference that is noticed in the world of humans, much less observed.  Yet, those who are most sensitive among us can strongly feel a misdirection to the path most followed by people, by our social structures.   It was not always this way.  Of course, our ancient ancestors followed the paths of the seasons.  Yet, even more recently, those engaged in agricultural occupations also honored the promptings of nature.  Spring was for planting, for nurturing the soil and new growth, for feeling the inspiration of awakening and renewal.  Summer with its longer daylight was for extended work, for caring for the growing plants and animals, celebrating life and anticipating the harvest.  Groups cooperated to finish the increased workload, and to celebrate together.  Fall was for the harvest, for gathering in, for finishing repairs to or building shelters, for storing and preserving and readying for the winter.  The increased energy of fall facilitated this preparation.  As the days shortened, the nights lengthened and the air grew colder, preparations were finalized and families gathered, celebrating the harvest and beginning the season of reduced activity.  Winter was for turning inwards.  Darker hours meant more time in front of a fire, time to repair or mend gear, or to create crafts, time to think or to spend on relationships.  Social gatherings happened, but without the hurry and frenzy.  The work of spring, summer and fall was over, and the stored food and supplies provided sustenance until spring.

Winter is still for turning inwards.  Most of us no longer have to grow, harvest and preserve our food and supplies for winter.  Cities especially, but also rural areas, with the advent of electricity, are no longer bound to the season’s ration of light.  Not many of us have to build a fire or live with the cold.   Home maintenance is done by contractors at whatever time an item needs repair.  It would appear that the seasons no longer affect us.  At heart, though, our bodies, our genes and cells, follow the ancient rhythms.  Winter is a time to reduce activity, to be still more often, to think, read, meditate or pray, to sleep longer, to commune with others in a more relaxed way.  We need to draw in our energy to replenish it.   There is often a feeling that it would be nice to hibernate, even though humans are not a fully hibernating species.

Sadly, the techno-social structure that supports us – electricity, stores full of food, central heating, cars and mass transit, and the omnipresent pressures of work and work deadlines, the social events that are “musts” and which themselves incorporate deadlines and hurry – this structure has created a kind of amnesia of the need to turn inward and slow down.   We, too, are creatures of nature, and reflect its cycles.  It is to our detriment that we forget this.  Illness, breakdowns and burnout result if we forget too long.  The energy of nature is the same energy of which we are composed; we are not robots.  We are not children of technology, composed of the energy of technology, whatever may be the momentum of the moment.  However we do it, may each of us this winter find a way to turn inwards, slow down, and, hopefully, feel our connection with the natural world with which we share an origin.

Peace,  Diane