Naked or Nude or ?

Last night at the Off Center Theater in Austin, George Krause showed his sfumato (to smoke, no outlines) life-sized photos of people without clothes.

Soon after I arrived at the exhibition, a woman started to undress. I thought that someone was inspired by the photographs and decided that they would make a statement as well. Before I knew it, 10 or 15 people were all naked, wandering around the pictures that hung diagonally from a grid on the theater's stage. So we had three groups of people. The ethereal ones, radiating light in the photos. Their counterparts (and some of the models in the photos), moving around the gallery as if clothes (and shame) had never been invented, and then there was me, and you, and the others, still clinging to, and hiding behind, our clothes.

Somewhat reminiscent of Richard Avedon's pictures of the American West, he photographed these people as they were, so it seems. They are not naked, as Adam and Eve are often portrayed in the Garden of Eden. There is no shame, yet the figures are not sexual. They are just there, as if they never wore clothes. Yet not innocent as Brooke Shields appeared in The Blue Lagoon.

And perhaps the man above was being a little shy. They are not nudes, as in an Edward Weston or an Alfred Steiglitz. They are not romantic. And they are very beautiful. But not beautiful like a flower, or a lion. They show more the effects of living in the 21st century. Their bodies did not seem to have been physically challenged to survive. Some have been worn from the effects of aging. Others have been shaped by their love of food.

George said that he was trying to redefine the nude. These are non-sexual figures. They are not idealized figures, but were photographed with the care that one might use in photographing the last of a species of a beetle soon to go extinct. The light from behind obscures the edges, so they appear like sources of energy rather that objects reflecting light. They are one with their surrounding spaces. As imperfect as these specimens are, they are part of the world, melting into the space that we all share. They are us. We are them.

Anger serves a constructive purpose... not.

Click on picture to enlarge.

I'm glad that Hans suggested I write about anger serving a constructive purpose... because that makes me a little angry. It is actually pragmatism that ticks me off. William James, in trying to find a philosophy that would blend the empiricist and the religious, wrote that

The tangible fact at the root of all our thought-distinctions, however subtle, is that there is no one of them so fine as to consist in anything but a possible difference of practice. To attain perfect clearness in our thoughts of an object, then, we need only consider what conceivable effects of a practical kind the object may involve—what sensations we are to expect from it, and what reactions we must prepare.

There is nothing that doesn't have a constructive purpose. If it wasn't for Hitler, my father-in-law would not have gone to Germany to fight, and instead would have had kids earlier. My wife would not have been born, and hence, my kids would not have been born, and I'd still be running around with a red wagon and two socks that don't match.

Does that mean we celebrate Hitler?

There are a number of emotions that don't make the world any sweeter: hate, jealousy, envy, and last, but not least, anger. Some constructive action comes from each of these, but we also can arrive at those actions simply by doing jobs that need to be done.

We don't need to get angry at a baby because she soiled her diapers. We can simply see changing her diapers as a job to be done. We don't need to get angry at the Exxon for polluting the air. We can simply (or maybe not so simply) find a way to improve the emissions or clean the air.

And we don't need to rationalize the poisons because of some off-beat benefit(s). We should look instead at 1) the poisons' ill effects, physically and mentally, on ourselves and others and 2) what problems need to be solved because suffering is occurring. That's it.

More on Dogma, Analysis, and Intuitive Wisdom... and Anger

So when we are in the analysis mode, and hear intuitive wisdom, rather than "waking up"... as in the koans, we take it as dogma. I think that is why the book we used for the global warming course was so upsetting to me.

My dad went from atheist, to agnostic, to... on his deathbed... speaking about meeting his wife in heaven. Dogma, analysis, intuitive wisdom. So the same thought, "atheism or meeting his wife," can be dogma or intuitive wisdom. Maybe that is what makes communication about the climate so difficult. One person's dogma is another person's intuitive wisdom.

I've heard some speak of anger as a result of fear. It seems that fear is what we feel when we don't know what to do. We are in the "victim" mode, succumbing to the defensive role. The samurai warrior does not feel any anger (nor fear). Feeling (and expressing) anger, to me, is a fault... where to others it is an expression of how we really feel... or what makes us real.

Al Gore's Dogma and Anger, and the limit to my intuitive wisdom.

Chevy Chase, from the Climate Reality Project sent me this missive today:

Dear Kim,

I don't know about you, but I get angry when I hear people claim that global warming isn't real. We know that the science is clear and climate change is an urgent problem. And we need more people to learn the truth....

The letter went on to talk about how Al Gore trained 3000 people to talk about climate change and Chevy wanted my money to pay for more presentations.

Driving to the Zen Center I wondered if Chevy Chase's anger was more a threat to our lives that climate change.

The other day I read the words in an email, "destroy the planet," and I questioned whether there was some less violent way of describing our precious lives on earth. Then G asked me if I was going to sign up for the Environmental Workshop and I told her that I would get angry. She said that it would be an opportunity to practice "equanimity." (Don't you love Buddhists?) She added, think of all the stuff you've gotten from global warming to write about.

Then I read on one of my previous blog posts a comment from a former colleague, M, in St. Louis,

"What is the debate really? This is proven and accepted science. Are we to debate the veracity of human evolution, the spherical nature of the earth, the age of the planet?"

I barely could get out of my chair this afternoon to go to the Zen Center, afraid that the dogma was making me into an obedient zombie. Anyway... I did go and was glad to be back after a couple weeks of playing hooky.

I was shoved out of my chair by this brilliant little paragraph that was sent to me from the Juniperpath.org website (no relation to Austin's Juniper).

The Three Moments is a model for describing the process of inner realization on the Buddhist path. T.R.V. Murti first coined the term in his classic work, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism¹. Murti saw the main task of Buddhist training as “purifying the mind and freeing it of the cobwebs and clogs of dogmatism.”² This occurs by examining and, ultimately, deconstructing the artificial edifice on which one’s inner life is built. The result is a refined level of awareness that is the basis for reorienting how we experience and engage the world.

The three moments comprise three states of inner maturation along the spiritual path: dogma, critical analysis, and intuitive wisdom. They can be summarized as follows:

• Dogma: the unquestioned acceptance of what we know.
• Critical analysis: examining what we know.
• Intuitive Wisdom: going beyond what we know.

_________________________________________
1 T.R.V. Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, (New Delhi, India: Munshiram Manoharlal 1955), 140-143
2 The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, 146

So what a beautiful gift to get that email. Just as William Blake spoke of innocence, experience, and organized innocence, so does the Buddhist path of dogma, analysis, and intuitive wisdom show us the stages of understanding. Perhaps it is just dogma for those who claim that knowing the planet is burning is not rocket science, and that you see one melting iceberg and you know that the world is coming to an end... and that it is our fault.

If you've gotten this far, you need a little humor. Please see the Onion's take on the environment where they report that "If global warming isn't under control by 2006, scientists say it will achieve unstoppable momentum, destroying the only planet we have."

So if by now you are scratching your head and wondering what I believe anyway... join the club. I do believe that anger should have no part of this conversation. That might be the limit of my "intuitive wisdom."

Kate's questions about emissions

Anonymous said...
Do you remember long ago when there was that oil thing in the gulf? We had conversation where I felt that one could point to the executives at BP as the biggest sinners in that situation and you felt that we couldn’t judge BE executives any more harshly than we judge ourselves since we use the product the executives make available to us.

If one makes the assumption that certain entities (corporations, consumer collectives, etc.) produce more CO2 emissions than other entities, do you feel/suspect/believe that the largest ‘sinners’ should ‘be made’ to reduce carbon emissions by means other than leading by example? If yes, how? If no, why not?

PS -- If you grow to hate me, you can ask me to stop and I will.

Kate

There are no sinners in my world. Each is trying to do what's good, as Plato argued. Sometimes they don't see the effect of our actions. And actions aren't all good or all bad. Actions benefit some and hurt others. I don't step on the scorpion to save its life, and then it takes the life of another sentient being. Good action or bad action? Savior or sinner?

My view on the carbon emissions is to not regulate them (by law) but rather to sue the companies for the cost of cleaning them up. If you spray painted on my car, I would hold you responsible to make my car "right." In the same way, companies should be responsible for hurting the shared environment.

Kate, you are a great teacher for me. Thanks!

More from Kate on Climate Change

Kate asked,

"What evidence or reasoning would move you to suspect that indeed humanity has an effected climate by increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? What would one have to present to you in order to make you feel that climate change is more likely reality than not?

And. . . Just out of curiosity. . . At this point, what do you feel would seem like the most appropriate response to the issue of climate change; personally and/or politically?"

When I was growing up (as if I'm grown up now) my father would say he was an atheist. Later, when he moved to California and made friends with "believers" he turned to becoming an agnostic. I questioned him on this, and he claimed he was never an atheist. "How can we know?" he'd say.

I was glad to see that Austin is considering a ban on all bags, plastic and paper. I believe (not know) that our environment will be better with less waste. I believe that I cough when there is lots of pollution. I like clean air and clean water.

Today in the NY Times there was an article about the poor air quality in Texas. I do believe that is the result of humans filling the air with not good for humans stuff.

I think the most appropriate response for me is 1) to make a smaller footprint and 2) show others how that can be done. Ok... I'll turn off the space heater under my desk... right now...

Let me try again...

I got a call that I didn't really answer Kate's question about what would convince me that there is really man-made global warming. So I will try again.

Kate, the answer is "nothing." Here's why.

I don't think anything could convince me that anything is true with absolute certainty. I have a lot of suspicions about how things are as we all do. We sense that OJ might have done the deed or not. But are we certain? Imagine that he confessed and DNA evidence confirmed his confession. Would we then be certain? We all know of situations where people confessed to crimes that they didn't do, and also that evidence is sometimes planted. This is one of the reasons I'm not for the death sentence.

Is it really 74° in my house? The thermometer says so. The temperature actually probably varies in every room. Does my thermometer really say it is 74°, or is that just my belief about what I'm seeing when I look at it?

When I was a kid I had a big argument with my friend Mark about whether or not Altman's camera store was across the street from Marshall Fields in Chicago. I was sure it was, and he was sure it wasn't. Finally we went downtown to see who was right. I appeared to be wrong... but even after standing in front of Altmans and seeing what was across the street, would I give someone 1,000,000 to 1 odds that it was where it was? Or would there still be some doubt?

Also when I was a kid Damon sold me a two-headed nickel. I ran home to my mom to get a dollar or two for it. I told my mom that we'd be rich with this rare nickel. When I returned home with the nickel, I looked at it more closely and saw the seam where it was soldered together. I'd been had.

What would it take to convince me?

Kate asked “what it would take to convince me of global warming?” I think I've been frustrating others by appearing stubborn about this issue, when really I'm not willing to accept much of anything as truth.

I take about 10 pills a day... various vitamins and supplements. Do I believe in these pills? No. Would I know the difference if I didn't take one of them? Probably not. Some are those that my doctor or nutritionist recommended. Do I trust them? Not really. I think they read some study or studies that indicated my health and/or longevity would be increased if I took these. I'm aware that these pills are changing fashions. What one decade recommends another condemns. And I take the pills because my best guess is that it might be of benefit.

And so it is with global warming. Right now, the majority of scientists seem to agree that our planet is warming up, and that man (and woman) caused that warming. I'm aware of multiple instances where scientists agreed and then found that the holy grail was false. I'll accept very little, if anything, as “truth.”

At the same time, I see inaction as an action. Staying still is a movement. We must do something, so we make our best guess. We are driving on a road, and we assume that there is not a giant pothole when we go around the bend. Are we sure? No. Do we slow down? Probably not.

We have plenty of indications that we are not living in a sustainable manner. We throw our trash out of our car, and then we notice that the highways are unsightly. So we change our behavior, seeing the effect of our actions.

In a very complex and interrelated planet, we don't know what causes what. Was it a butterfly flapping its wing, or Mrs. O'Leary's cow that started the fire? Is there really a fire?

We make our best guess, and take those pills. Are we right? I'm not sure. Do we act? Yes.

Homeless Art

Art from the Streets, an annual art show in Austin by the Homeless, was quite an experience. I especially liked the pieces below, but was most struck with the depiction of the crazy world by the homeless. It was apparent, meeting the artists, that it was not only poverty that put them on the street, but also that they heard the "beat of a different drummer."

Global Warming Dilemma and Improving the Quality of Our Lives

I read Melissa Prado Little's blog about the Austin Zen Center's Fall Practice Period's theme of global warming and made this comment:

We talk about putting out fires, but not putting out insidious smoldering. That's the difficulty with global warming. It isn't something that people see when they wake up in the morning. So they aren't concerned as they are with the toaster being stuck and the toast is burning.

The mathematics of cause and effect, and the art of extrapolation are beyond most people's abilities. So we trust a majority of scientists and act... or we trust our everyday experience and not act. We reflect on the times when we were told of a danger and later it proved to be wrong (WMDs in Iraq, for example.)

Which is why on humans can become Buddhas. It is they (humans) have the hearts and minds to be pulled from so many different directions.

In the preface to her blog, she talked about "improving the quality of her life." That's something we all want to do... right? I wrote this as a comment:

I'm curious about "improving the quality of my life." Everyone wants to do that. Some might say "less stress" or "more love" or "more happiness." But what would it take for us to not strive for that. Instead, we could simply take the meal that has been served. No dissatisfaction!

That doesn't mean that you stagnate. Rather you'd (and me too) would just experience the meal (life) as it appears. Does that make sense?

So instead of waking up and wanting your life to be better, how about feeling gratitude that it is as it is?

What did Buddha mean?

There is a story about the Buddha being asked where a temple should be built. He pointed toward the ground, and a blade of grass sprouted up, marking the spot.

Another story is that he was asked what a robe should look like, and he pointed toward a rice field and said, "like that."

A common interpretation of these actions is that everywhere is sacred. This misinterpretation shows how our Western minds generalize. I think he meant that this place "here" is sacred, as is this moment. Let's not go anywhere else. Be here and now... for that's all that exists, and, as my teacher reminded me the other day, even the here and now only exists in our minds.

Dogen is said to have said that there is no place to spit (because everything is sacred). I tried to find this quote in his writing but could not. I wonder if he just meant that you should not spit here, for this spot is sacred.

What is it about us that wants to form opinions? Why is it not enough to stay with what we have in front of us. One problem with generalizing is that we've left the planet and have gone into our minds. Which is probably what my Western mind is doing now.

Barking Dogs

I can't write anything tonight, I thought, because the dog across the street is barking. He's a basset hound. Now he has stopped. I guess either he respects writers, or else the arsenic laced turkey leg did the trick (just kidding).

Oh... he's alive again.

Anyway, I think pets are silly. Sometimes cute. Sometimes smart. But what a waste of money! I hear stories of people spending vast amount of their money and time caring for their dog. Most of my life I had dogs. Finally I resented the commitment.

So now that I've complained about the Christ in the doctor's office, and the dog across the street that is barking because his master is gone... what is next?

I have a complaint bracelet that I'm supposed to wear... so I don't complain. If you wear it and you complain you are supposed to change it to another wrist. I only have two wrists so I took it off. I guess I could wear it at night... if I had a virgin wrist to put it on. 21 days is all you need to be perfect (not complain). See: http://www.acomplaintfreeworld.org/

So the dog's owner just came home and I saw him find my note stuck in his door, telling him that his dog was backing. Luckily his dog was barking when he came home... so he won't think I'm delusional. I left my phone number... I wonder if he'll call me.

When you walk dogs here you carry some bags and then you have to scoop up the poop and carry it home. That is not one of my favorite things to do.

Guess I'll volunteer to take care of my daughter's dog next week when she goes out-of-town. He's quite a special creature.

Noam Chomsky Strikes Again

Here is a short clip from Noam Chomsky. He articulates why we should not to spend much time on climate change denialists. I love his comment, "you don't have to be an expert."

There is another group that is not on board with the predictors of doomsday. These are the thinkers who dare to question their colleagues about such a politically charged topic.

I'm reading now a great book, Useless Arithmetic—Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict the Future, that describes in great detail the difference between qualitative and quantitative modeling... and why in a complex and chaotic world our guesses about outcomes have been so prone to failure. I just read the chapters about fish and AIDS (different chapters). Our numbers were so wrong about what would be sustainable fishing that we have wiped out entire fish populations. Our numbers were very much guesses on the numbers dying of AIDS in Africa. Even the numbers on second hand smoke are very suspect, though we know (qualitatively) that it ain't good to breathe SMS.

I was amused to read about the Oracle of Delphi, who for hundreds of years, told people the truth... always in a stupor. It was later found that the river behind where the Oracle hung out emitted ethylene, a gas that has been used as an anesthetic.

(Click on quote to enlarge it.)

Emotions at the Doctor's Office

Christmas decorations. Innocent. Yet I felt very emotional the other day as the nurses put up Christmas decorations in my doctor's office.

I started thinking about those who don't celebrate Christmas. I felt that they were oblivious to me who doesn't accept Jesus as the son of God. He was a very cool dude, though.

That office has an international clientele. How many of them belong to an assortment of other religions, or no religion? What would they think about the Christmas decorations? Did the nurses and doctors realize that Christmas isn't for everyone.

In California, there is a cross on Mt. Soledad... or was, until enough people complained. Click on the link and read the article.

Is this different than a Christmas tree in a quasi-public place like a doctor's office? I remember that in the Community College where I worked we passed a rule that office holiday decorations had to be non-denominational. I liked that.

Should I complain to the doctor's office? I'm already the trouble maker because I suggested that the nurses change gloves from one patient to the next. They told me that the gloves are to protect the nurses, not the patients.

Opinions?

Banana Peeling Event

Banana peeling was found at Ohare airport turning itself inside out as a protest against Global Climate Change. Airport police were called to douse it with pepper spray but they were stopped in their tracks by coed with smart phone. Canine patrol was then brought in to "bark it into submission" but instead the dogs laid on the backs and laughed. If that wasn't enough, Grandma Moses, flying back to her home in Iowa, started laughing so hard that the banana peeling jumped into the mixer at the juice bar to become totally masticated.

Yes, Kate, teach all the denial theories too!

Kate asked, when reading that I suggested that both sides of the global warning issue should be presented, whether I thought that intelligent design should be presented in a course on evolution. My first response was "no," that is different.

But then I remembered a lecture I heard by a mathematician about why we shouldn't teach intelligent design in the schools. He proceeded to teach a lot of very interesting science in disproving intelligent design. As I listened to him, I started to visualize students coming to school with backward thoughts and how important it is to their education that the errors in their thinking be discussed.

I'm now visiting my in-laws and had the global climate change discussion with my father-in-law. Like 53% of the tea party, he believed that man probably didn't cause climate change, and that soon it was just as likely that it would cool down as it would start to warm up.

I did feel like taking the other side but quickly realized that I would not be able to convince him that, as my global warning teacher says, we are on a train, doing our "own thing" and that the train is about a mile from the edge of a cliff... and soon we would all die.

I wished then that I could show him charts and graphs proving our demise. What better deed would there be than to save the Earth?

Do we all think that what we believe is fact?

El Contrario, Hijacker

I suggested to the teacher of my global warming class that we hear both sides. He said that he'd been told that if you go there, the class will be hijacked... and you'll never get it back.

I remember my frustration in college, trying to guess what the professor thought about the subject. Did he like this or that artist? Did he like capitalism or communism? Socrates or Kant? It was a good frustration.

In Pilates today my teacher said I was holding my breath. I told her I was mad... and so I started to vent about how I was more interested in the debate than in the resolution. I told her that I'd believe in God if no one else did... just to keep things alive. She didn't believe me.

But it is also that I have a place in my heart for the underdog.

Today some were clapping because a coal plant was being shut down. I felt sorry for the plant, no longer useful to man. I Googled "clean coal" and found a nice article about how we were going to great ends to make coal more tolerable.

If I hear once more that global warning is true because "so many scientists believe in it" I think I'll ... Since when is this a test? I'm not saying that the Earth isn't warming up, or that man didn't cause the warming... I just would like to know more about how we know that.

I named myself, "Mr. Contrary" and a friend coined "El Contrario" which I like better.

So questions remain:

1) What is happening to the Earth?

2) What is the effect of what is happening?

3) If negative, how can we prevent what is happening?

I believe this is a great opportunity to learn about statistics and extrapolation.

Unfortunately (said partly in jest) I'm more interested in the examination of the knowledge and how it has polarized believers and non-believers than I am in the condition of the Earth. How could I take such a heartless position? Probably because I am so skeptical that we know the effects of our actions in such an interconnected world.

In the meantime, I remain committed to what the zen teacher Reb Anderson said, "walk on the Earth as if it is your mother's face."

Non-profits in a Free Society

Non-profits benefit by their status, allowing them to not pay taxes. They have resources paid for by other citizens, including fire and police protection. Other citizens pay for these resources by coercion, though they may not necessarily subscribe to the aims of the non-profit, whether it be a church or a planned-parenthood center.

Next time I'm asked to give to a non-profit, I should say that "I give at the office." It would be a true statement (if I had a real job).

Sometimes non-profits decide to persuade others to think as they do. This might be to accept Jesus as their lord and savior, or it might be to use every means available to keep a pipeline from being built. Again, this points out the problem of forcing individuals (through taxes) to support an organization that might be advocating for a position that is not their politics of choice.

Some might think the non-profits might sink if they did not get this support. Some will. Others will enjoy a new freedom, where they can now support political action and candidates to their hearts content. And they might get more support from like-minded individuals.

The new revenue to the government hopefully will be returned to the citizenship, rather than to enable the government to become still larger. With the citizenship having more money falling out of their pants, hopefully they will give more charitable contributions than they did before.

And should these individuals be able to deduct their contributions? No! That is just another example of the government supporting the non-profits by subsidizing individuals who give to it.

We could transition to this new status to free non-profits over a number of years to give them time to develop a new base of support.

Pool Career

Someone posted to our neighborhood elist that they wanted a pool player for a team that plays every Sunday evening at Slick Willies. My wife usually goes to dinner with a friend on Sunday nights, so I thought... why not? Maybe I could think of it as Zen archery or something. So I told them I'd join the team.

Last night I got to Slick Willies... watched for a while and then asked if I could hit some balls. They pointed me to a table on the other side of the room... and I played by myself for about an hour. I was surprised at how physical it is... something I had not noticed the last time I played about 40+ years ago.

I came back to my team and noticed that a couple were playing and they were quite good. Then I asked, "how long do the games go?" They said, oh, tonight we'll be done by 9:30, but sometimes we might go to 12:30am.

Realizing that this would be 6 hours and 30 minutes of my life, I told them I didn't want to be on the team.

Maybe I can find a ping pong team. Maybe they don't go on so long.

Hat

Press Check

Nothing like a new 5 million dollar press that prints 8 colors and a coating without blinking an eye. Remember when the printer would scoop out some ink with a knife... and put it on a platen or roller... no more! Inside will be run later on today. Then a day each for the next three operations that make it a book.

Almost Printed

New book, Digital Photography: A Workbook, keyed to Digital Photography: A Basic Manual by Henry Horenstein. Let me know if you are a photo teacher and want a review copy.

Hydration Station

Scale

I've often heard artists talk about scale as "big." I believe it really refers to "looking big" which is achieved by having something small next to something big, like a small rock next to a bigger one. Notice the stunning color of the one rock, and the texture of the ordinary (not so attractive) piece of concrete. There are some live plants, and some not so live plants. A virtual world, just when I step out of my car.

Hot in Austin

Taken with a DSLR (not an iPhone). 

I think the thermometer hit its limit. 

I thought of this as a crucifix.
If you click on the picture you can see it bigger... and see the temp.

Still lifes with Orange

Inside my morning Mexican restaurant. Amazing sharpness for an iPhone, isn't it? Both pictures taken without moving anything but the camera. The bottom one I saw from where I was sitting and then got up and took it. Then as I brought the camera down I saw the top one in the "ground glass."

Non-intentional/Intentional (Who wins?)

I turned the corner and was struck with these shadows painting the fence. I pulled out my trusty iPhone and inadvertently took a picture of the street. Much more interesting to me. How about you?

Same old, same old

Most of my pictures seem to have the same composition. I start in the bottom left, Then move to the upper right. Then return down and over to the left. I liked the spots of red and green. I upped the saturation and sharpened it a little. Taken with IPhone 3GS (like most of my recent pictures).

Costco Intention

I started to take a picture of the edge of my shopping cart at Costco, when another cart began to whiz by. First my inner voice said, "wait." But then another inner voice said, "give it a try." So I did.

Alligatorscape and Hatscape