The Truth Can be Made up if You Know How

"The truth can be made up, if you know how."  

~Lily Tomlin, performing as Edith Anne

My friend Em posted this video to my Facebook wall, and I found that I had more to say about it than would lend itself to a short comment, so my response is below.

I applaud AngryLittleGirl's effort to encourage logical thinking, and she reveals her balanced perspective by using both scientific claims as well as religious ones. She's right:  all results and statements of fact put into some claim on a label, or an official announcement should be checked; and that this one should be too. The statistic cited ("98% of Americans are scientifically illiterate") was based on outdated (but accurate) data and while the numbers are still high, it is not 98% anymore. I'm sure her professor was trying to communicate the fact that scientific knowledge is sorely lacking, but he did so by citing an outdated though not-inaccurate resource. And because a statement can be true in some cases and false in another, he should have checked new data, and used specific examples in the way he phrased that statement. Like, "49% of Americans don't know that the Earth revolves around the sun." There are many versions and disciplines of scientific knowledge, and blanket statements like the one her Professor made, are, indeed, counterproductive, and do nothing to advance the very real benefits of understanding science and the knowledge we have gleaned from it.

The New York Times interviewed Dr. Jon D. Miller,  "political scientist who directs the Center for Biomedical Communications at the medical school," and who "studies how much Americans know about science and what they think about it."

His findings are not encouraging....

While scientific literacy has doubled over the past two decades, only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are "scientifically savvy and alert," he said in an interview. Most of the rest "don't have a clue." At a time when science permeates debates on everything from global warming to stem cell research, he said, people's inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process..

...Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century..."

Dr. Miller also said, "seventeen percent believe the earth revolves around the sun ONCE A DAY." Considering that we now know what the facts are regarding the movement and position of planets in our solar system, this statistic is disturbing in its own right. According to Literacy News,

• "64 per cent of people questioned for a recent poll said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution in schools
• 38 per cent favored replacing evolution with creationism.
• 80 per cent of Americans surveyed by the CNN TV news network believe that their government is hiding evidence of the existence of space aliens.
• 70 per cent believe it likely that Saddam Hussein was involved personally in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
• 40 per cent of Americans believe in the “endtimes”, according to a survey carried out in 2002. Of those believers, almost half thought this would occur in their lifetime with a return of Jesus from heaven.
• The United States is 49th in the world in literacy (the New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004).
• The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy
• 55% of Americans believed they’ve been assisted by “guardian angels”
  
  is America really #1…or is that just propaganda?" [1]

Kudos to AngryLittleGirl for pointing out the things she did in her video, as I am a strong proponent of truth, and a strong opponent of the falsehoods so often found in mainstream culture, to include medicine, general science and religiosity.

Even when science clarifies our understanding, it is often rejected by the American public. The American Dialect Society chose "Plutoed" a neologism, as their word of the year in 2006.  "I was plutoed" became a colloquialism springing from the retraction of Pluto's status as the 9th planet in our solar system. It rendered the mobiles above our baby cribs outdated, and parents everywhere were then charged with snapping Pluto from the danglous collection. [2] Some mobiles ceased to hang properly and became lopsided, and this was simply unacceptable. Underlying this sarcasm is the point that when science recognizes an erroneous conclusion, they adjust the data accordingly, and we should not become so overly attached to ideas that when new information contradicts it, we come unglued and seek to protest it in favor of maintaining the beloved status quo.

According to Authors Chris Mooney and Sheril Kitshenbaum, in their book "UnscientificAmerica: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future,"

"The problem isn't merely the dramatic cultural gap between scientists and the broader American public. It's the way this disconnect becomes self-reinforcing, even magnified, when it resurfaces in key sectors of society that powerfully shape the way we think, and where science ought to have far more influence than it actually does—in politics, in the news media, in the entertainment industry, and in the religious community. Consider:

In the political arena from 2001 through 2008, we saw the United States governed by an administration widely denounced for a disdain of science literally unprecedented in modern American history. Judged next to this staggering low, the Obama administration gives reason for hope. But science continues to occupy a ghettoized section of the political arena, one that few elected officials really understand or prioritize. Too many politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, fail to see the underlying role of science in most of the issues they address, even though it is nearly always present. In fact, politicians tend to be leery of seeming too scientifically savvy: There's the danger of coming off as an Adlai Stevenson egghead.

We're still struggling with the problem that historian Richard Hofstadter outlined in his classic 1962 work, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, which documented how the disdain of intellectuals had become such a powerful fixture of American culture. The problem is particularly acute when it comes to scientists, and has been to varying degrees since our nation's inception: We've even rewritten the biography of one of our most cherished founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, to recast him as a tinkering everyman, rather than a deep-thinking scientist of the first rank. Alexis De Tocqueville similarly remarked upon Americans' interest in the practical, but not so much the theoretical, side of science—the goods delivered at the end, rather than the intellectual challenges and questioning encountered along the way. For a very, very long time, American scientists have found themselves pitted against our businesslike, can-do attitudes as well as our piety. When John McCain and Sarah Palin made fun of research on fruit flies and grizzly bears on the 2008 campaign trail, they were appealing to precisely this anti-intellectual strand in the American character. They thought they'd score points that way, and probably they did.

And if you think politicians are bad, let's turn to the traditional news media, where attention to science is in steep decline. A 2008 analysis by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that if you sit down to watch five hours of cable news, you will probably only see one minute's worth of coverage devoted to science and technology—compared with 10 minutes of celebrity and entertainment content, 12 minutes of accidents and disasters, and “26 minutes or more” of crime.  From 1989 to 2005, meanwhile, the number of newspapers featuring weekly science or science-related sections shrank by nearly two-thirds, from 95 to 34. And since then both trends have continued or perhaps even accelerated: In 2008 the esteemed Washington Post killed its science page and CNN laid off its entire science, technology, and environment unit.

As a result of this upheaval, what we might broadly call science communication—the always problematic bridge between the experts and everybody else—is in a state of crisis. For even as business-driven cutbacks the “old” media are killing science content, the “new” media are probably hurting science as much as helping it. The Internet has simultaneously become the best and also the worst source of science information. Yes, you can find great science on the web; and yet you can also find the most stunning misrepresentations and distortions. Without the Internet, the modern anti-vaccination movement probably wouldn't exist, at least not in its current form. Jenny McCarthy, celebrity vaccine critic extraordinaire, is proud of her degree from the “University of Google.”

More generally, thanks to the Internet and ongoing changes in the traditional news industry, we increasingly live in an oversaturated media environment in which citizens happily pick and chose their own sources of information. This means they can simply avoid learning (or even hearing) anything meaningful about science unless they're already inclined to go looking for it—and most won't be. And they can shop online for “expertise” as easily as they can for Christmas gifts.

When we shift our gaze to another extremely powerful source of information about science—the entertainment media—we find the situation more complex but still dismaying. From Grey's Anatomy to CSI to The Day The Earth Stood Still (the Keanu Reeves version), science and technology provide fodder for many popular television and film plotlines. In fact, there appears to be a growing trend of basing stories on scientific themes, especially in the case of primetime medical dramas. But whether such entertainment depictions contribute to a science-friendly culture is less clear. Often we see little effort devoted to achieving basic scientific plausibility or getting the details right; and we simultaneously find Hollywood obsessed with paranormalist UFO and “fringe science” narratives and recurrent stories of “mad scientists” playing God. Scientists in film and television tend to be depicted as villains, geeks, or jerks. Rare indeed is the Hollywood film or scripted drama that tells a story about science that's both serious and also entertaining. That strongly affects how we think.

And then there's religion, the source of perhaps the single deepest fissure in the science-society relationship. Surveys overwhelmingly show that Americans care a great deal about faith; many scientists, by contrast, couldn't care less. There's nothing wrong with that, except that some scientists and science supporters have been driven to the point of outright combativeness by the so-called New Atheist movement, led by Sam Harris, Oxford's Richard Dawkins, and others. Meanwhile, many U.S. religious believers are just as extreme: They reject bedrock scientific findings—an entire field, evolutionary biology—because they wrongly consider such knowledge incompatible with faith. The zealots on both sides generate unending polarization, squeeze out the middle, and leave all too many Americans convinced that science poses a threat to their values and the upbringing of their children.

For all these reasons, the rift between science and mainstream American culture is growing wider and wider. Nearly a decade into the 21st century, we have strong reason to worry that the serious appreciation of science could become confined to a small group of already dedicated elites—something like eating caviar, rather than a value we all share."

Other points AngryLittleGirl made...

"Gullible is not in the dictionary" (title of her video, and statement within). This is (I can only assume and hope) a sarcasm based on the fact that you have to be gullible to believe the statement. Gullible is, of course, in the dictionary. Still another example of an erroneous statement that people believe without checking the facts. So while some pick this point out of the content and argue that she must be "retarded" as one commenter posted about her video, they are showing their own GULLIBILITY. She was making another point, lost on some of her critics.

"Airborne is not regulated by the FDA" - hopefully she was again being sarcastic, because herbal products are regulated by the FDA. It gets complicated and often convoluted, however, when the details are considered. The FDA regulates products considered drugs; the herbal supplements are marketed and labeled as "dietary supplements" which makes them a FOOD product. The criteria for the labeling and sale of these items is not the same as that for drugs.  So general claims such as "glucosamine chondroitin is important for joint health" is a factual claim. However there are variables like the purity of the raw material used to make that supplement, and whether or not any particular supplement will function as well taken as a dietary supplement, as it would when garnered naturally through foods ingested. An article in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology contended, "adulteration, inappropriate formulation, or lack of understanding of plant and drug interactions have led to adverse reactions that are sometimes life threatening or lethal." [3] Certain species of echinacea (the main active ingredient in Airborne) are medicinally beneficial, but this is where non-regulation by the FDA plays a role--they do not control whether or not a manufacturer uses the medicinal version, nor whether or not the preparation is handled properly to maintain those beneficial properties. And of course there are conflicting results in the way of clinical studies of the effectiveness of echinacea as a beneficial health supplement, or if it is merely useless, or even that it acts only as a placebo. Until there is more conclusive scientific evidence, either could be true.

Additionally, even if the FDA were to regulate herbs such as echinacea as closely as a drug, I don't trust everything the FDA says either, because (a) the FDA has proven itself biased by the usual political maneuvering, (case in point: their alliance with big tobacco, who is trying to block the mainstream integration of use of Electronic Cigarettes as a way to help 50 million Americans get away from tobacco. There is a lie campaign going on as we speak by the FDA and the World Health Organization. This much is clear if you look at the details of this issue. So FDA as paragon of honesty? Notsamuch. --and  (b) there are many ways to mince words and use euphemistic phrasing to say something that is true, but misleading. Politicians and pundits do it all the time. 

Thus, when a particular statement is circulated, one must always check the facts and variables behind it to see if it is an HONEST statement through implication or suggestion--whether or not it is actually  "factual."

Regarding her comments on religion, she is also correct in her assessment, as historicity and research has shown.

A 2007 study by Michigan State University determined that just 28 percent of American adults could be considered scientifically literate. In February, the California Academy of Sciences released the findings of a survey which found that most Americans couldn’t pass a basic scientific literacy test. The findings:

    * Just 53% of adults knew how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun.

    * Just 59% knew that the earliest humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs.

    * Only 47% of adults could provide a rough estimate of the percent of the Earth's surface that is covered with water. (The Academy decided that the correct answer range for this question was anything between 65% and 75%.)

    * A mere 21% were able to answer those three questions correctly.

In July, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released the results of a survey of 2,001 adult Americans regarding science issues. Among the findings: just 46% knew that electrons are smaller than atoms.

Those findings shouldn’t be surprising. Ignorance of the sciences and the natural world has plagued the world for centuries. This centuries-long suspicion of science,

which continues today with regular attacks on Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, was recognized by British scientist and novelist C.P. Snow in the 1950s when he delivered a famous lecture called “The Two Cultures.” Snow argued that there was a growing disconnect between the culture of the sciences and the culture of the humanities, and that bridging that gap in understanding was critical to understanding and addressing the world’s problems. Snow placed “Literary intellectuals at one pole – at the other scientists…Between the two a gulf of mutual incomprehension.” Snow then laid out a critical point about the general public’s lack of understanding of energy and thermodynamics. As Snow put it:

 A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?

Indeed, while most moderately cultured people will be familiar with the Bard’s A Comedy of Errors or The Merchant of Venice, the laws of thermodynamics -- the rules that ruthlessly police the world of energy -- are considered by most people to be the domain of nerds and wonks. Thus, the first law of thermodynamics: energy is neither created nor destroyed; and the second law: energy tends to become more random and less available -- are relegated to the realm of too much information. For most people, basic physics is seen as nerdy, beyond their ken, too troublesome to learn.

This apathy – or perhaps it’s antipathy -- towards science makes it laughably easy for the public to be deceived. Alas, this apathy toward science in America is matched – or perhaps even exceeded – by the lack of interest in mathematics. Over the past few years, the US has been inundated with depressing data about the state of our country’s mathematical skills. A 2008 study published by the American Mathematical Society put it bluntly: “it is deemed uncool within the social context of USA middle and high schools to do mathematics.” It went on to explain that “Very few USA high schools teach the advanced mathematical skills, such as writing rigorous essay-style proofs, needed to excel.” Another report issued in 2008, this one from the Department of Education’s National Mathematics Advisory Panel declared that math education in the U.S. “is broken and must be fixed.” The report found “that 27% of eighth-graders could not correctly shade 1/3 of a rectangle and 45% could not solve a word problem that required dividing fractions.” The report also found poor math skills among adults:

    * 78% of adults could not explain how to compute the interest paid on a loan.

    * 71% couldn’t calculate miles per gallon on a trip.

    * 58% were unable to calculate a 10% tip for a lunch bill.

Given these disheartening numbers, there’s little reason to be surprised that so many Americans are ready to embrace fallacious claims by the many energy charlatans who insist that the US could quit using hydrocarbons if only there were more political will to do so. Those claims ignore the vast scale of US energy consumption. On an average day, the US consumes about 41 million barrels of oil equivalent in the form of oil, natural gas, and coal. That’s nearly five times as much energy as is produced by Saudi Arabia in the form of oil on an average day. (Since 1973 the Saudis have pumped an average of about 8.3 million barrels per day).

It has taken the US more than a century to build a $14 trillion economy – an economy that is based almost entirely on abundant supplies of oil, coal, and natural gas. No matter what energy technologies come along in the near future – electric cars, solar panels, wind turbines, etc. -- moving the US and world economies away from hydrocarbons will take most of the 21st century.

That’s the reality – and it doesn’t take a calculator to confirm it. " [4]

The need here, is for more and better science education. The problem with meeting that need is that scientific concepts are often prohibitively complicated and the average American has neither the patience nor the education to understand those concepts, and so the issue becomes one of inaccessibility. In order to change this paradigm, science must cultivate spokespersons capable of communicating difficult concepts in a clear, concise (and though I hate to suggest it) more colloquial and simplified ways. (we should be thankful for the legacy of people like Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson in this regard). The challenge is about insuring that this simplified version of teaching does not venture over into misleading conclusions, or the watering down of facts, and continues to be accurate and truthful while still communicating the necessary information.

--------------------------------------------------------------

[1] "'1 in 5 adult Americans think the sun revolves around the earth' ...how is that possible?" http://www.literacynews.com/2010/03/1-in-5-adult-americans-think-the-sun-revolves-around-the-earth-how-is-that-possible/

[2] (oh look:  i just invented another neologism. danglous [adj.]--something with the characteristic of dangling. Sort of like one of my other neologisms: Protuberous--adjective version of the noun, protuberance.) 
[3] Elvin-Lewis M., "Should we be concerned about herbal remedies,"Journal of Ethnopharmacology 75 (2001) 141-164.) also Refer to the  US Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.
[4]  Posted on Aug. 21, 2009. By Robert Bryce. Scientifically Illiterate and Innumerate: Why Americans Are So Easily Bamboozled About Energy. http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2210)

The Truth Can be Made up if You Know How

Mind-Bending Esoterica

 Open Letter to Spiritual Person Regarding Belief in Supernatural

based on several posts on Facebook to my Wall. 

First,  this subject matter does not lend itself to a sound-byte. That's why science is often wrongly interpreted as unable to respond to wild claims from believers in the supernatural. Complicated things require complicated explanations. 

Second, this content is not directed at you, CMorte, exclusively. I will be speaking both toward your comments, and toward the spiritual community at large.

Third, yes I was a little harsh.  I will try to keep my anger at bay long enough to explain why I react that way....this is where Political Correctness and progress intersect (if not with a simple fender-bender, then certainly with an eardrum-splitting crash). Political Correctness has discouraged us, as a society, from speaking the truth, for fear it might damage someone's fragile sensibilities.  Progress should never be impeded by a need to coddle adults who respond to the world as children. 

This leads to other things, the least of which is redefining the meaning of words, so that no one can communicate clearly anymore. 

I am working on my own book as well, (Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology) and the more I have researched and learned THE FACTS, the more I have moved toward a certain intensity about how damaging and ridiculous this subject is. So yes, I get intense, because this type of worldview has caused and is causing great suffering and peril and death to us all. It's causing a great number of otherwise intelligent people to cling to a collection of atavistic concepts that have not, and never will serve humanity in any ultimately beneficial way. Any benefits that spirituality ostensibly provides to its adherents, can be found equally in the  worldview of philosophy and ethics, communities of other kinds, and so on. It's a myth that the only morality, hope, purpose and comfort to be found, resides only in the supernatural. And this supernatural belief paradigm endangers ME and those I love, and humanity in general. 

So yes, I take it personally, though not so long ago, I didn't. I thought "live and let live"--as long as it didn't infringe on my pursuit of happiness or my rights or my freedoms or my safety. Now, I take it personally, because it has been personalized and all those privately individual aspects are under siege. Now it DOES infringe on my pursuit of happiness, my freedoms and rights, and my safety. Now, we are seeing the results of people believing in the supernatural, and WANTING or NEEDING to believe in it, coupled with a technological society that allows them to act on it in a global way. It leads to the corruption of scientific principals, the twisting of facts to suit a more comfortable set of ideas in the believer. And that affects us ALL. 

But I guess Christians are the only ones allowed righteous anger; because they are the bedrock of belief in this country. All other beliefs seem to just spring from there. How often in the last decade, have Christians backed off the dogma and simply adopted the tenets that they liked best, dropping the rest? How often do we hear "I'm spiritual, but not religious"? This indicates not only that morality and goodness is inherent in people regardless of the presence of religion, but also the often lethargic evolution of a realization; a concept no longer making sense. It's  a rare individual who denies a prevailing and sanctioned lie with the severity of a guillotine. Mostly, the denial comes in incremental steps away from the doctrine, when a human brain is niggled constantly by cognitive dissonance. Thus, "spirituality" is one of those steps. It's still a belief in supernatural, just without the main supernatural component of a supreme deity at the helm.

 You said,

i am at a stand-still in my research because I am convinced now that we have the power within our minds to recreate a haunting based on our beliefs. i refuse to say that nothing or everything can be debunked but that if we believe we are being haunted evidence will back it up simply because the power of our minds is so powerful it can manifest our beliefs on film."

Jae Baeli: Yes i do have a strong mind. Not the point here. I asked for proof. You don't seem to have any. You just have assertions.

CMorte: "the proof lies in the research of Dr. Bohm and his colleuges. they believed so strongly in the holographic universe theory that it seems to explain alot of our mind's capabilities"

If you're referring to Dr. David Bohm, the physicist--he interpreted quantum mechanics in his own way, but his theory of holographic universe was overall rejected, since his premises required connections that are subliminal and which violate the principles of special relativity. There is no real evidence of his theory, nor of the subquantum forces he includes in his postulate. If there ever is any evidence to support his claims, then science will find it, test it and it will then be accepted if proven to a high degree of certainty. Until then, it is not to be considered "proof" in the true definition of the word.

But notice that Bohm was well known to be gullible and to entertain esoteric ideas with no basis in fact. Bohm carried a key around with him he believed Uri Geller bent, with the power of his mind, as if it were a holy relic. We now know exactly how this key-bending was done. Michael Shermer even demonstrated it on a video. So while Bohm might have been a brilliant mind, it didn't preclude him having some erroneous, illogical, and delusional ideas about other things, which again, were never proven to have any veracity whatsoever.

CMorte: "Paranormal is anything that can not be explained by science. parapsychology is anything that our minds have created that can not be cured by medication - my definitions"

Jae Baeli:"I am aware of the definitions of these words."

There are many things that haven't yet been explained by science, but they do not fall into the category of paranormal. Also, to say "anything our minds have created" is to give the subject a wide field. There are also many things our minds create that aren't explained fully, yet don't require medication. This type of vagueness is also a component of the communication problem between rationalists and spiritualists.

CMorte: "I was being a smart ass bout meds. In this realm nobody is an expert. As far as im concerned nobody knows anything"

Jae Baeli: "there are quite a few people who know quite a few things. I find that statement absurd....especially since you seem to be so convinced of your own beliefs...so which is it? you believe in everything? nothing? only in what YOU believe, but not in anything else? the tooth fairy? Leprechauns?"

CMorte: "scientifically none of that is proven but i like to lend credit to the believers. when some people believe so hard in something it is true to them. miracles happen or whatever that motivate them to believe harder. i think (and i'm not telling anybody else what to think) anything is possible...by nobody knows anything i was talking about the paranormal. i figured as a skeptic you would agree. i just got off work and was catching up and saw all this. i am sorry really i am. i didn't expect you to take it so personally. i just posted it on your wall because i didn't want to send it in a message."

Why do you "like to lend credit to the believers?" Why is that your goal? What purpose does that serve in your estimation? What you describe is a manifestation of delusion, created in the minds of those who are susceptible to magical ideas. The end result is that they "believe harder" and I contend this is a negative, not a positive, because it entrenches them even more deeply into delusion and denial, and perpetuates the deification of falsehood, and the dismissal of truth.

As a skeptic, I don't accept as fact things unproven--that much is true. That doesn't mean I don't believe in anything. I believe in quite a few things. Like education, honesty, self-awareness, truth, self-responsibility, friendship, love, learning, ethics, separation of church and state, etc....These beliefs don't affect my ability to recognize facts and truth. And they do not reportedly determine the fate of my soul, or exist under threat of suffering if i don't choose to embrace them. They are concepts that inform the quality of my daily life and my interactions with others. I have imposed a subjective value on these things, for those reasons. This is nothing like the tenets of faith and belief in supernatural, as these ideas are attached to the concepts of guilt, fear, suffering and death, springing, as they did, from monotheistic belief systems. So it follows that supernatural belief systems are insidious in their ability to usurp the thinking mind, and instead draw on the primitive reactions of the amygdala, where reason cannot get a foothold.

So when you say you are a skeptic, CMorte,  I have to point out that the data seems to indicate otherwise. You say you "don't believe in anything" -- but that's not any truer for you than it is for me, as I pointed out above. This statement is contradicted by the things you write. And you are even writing a monstrous book about guiding people on "the other side"!! That implicitly states a belief in souls, afterlife, and all things supernatural (it also assumes facts not in evidence, which is YOUR BELIEF in something). When you speak of demons and goddesses and anything else supernatural, and you frame it in a context of having experienced phenomena like this, then you BELIEVE IT. The fact that you have labeled these things, means you think you know what the experiences actually were, and thus, they are real to you. This, while admitting to drug use during at least some of those experiences. It's easy to see why you would count those experiences as "real"--you were under the influence of something as strong as your own wishes and needs, namely, a drug. 

The significance of this becomes clear. It's not Astrophysics. We know that the drug Ketamine can induce a Near Death Experience in the brain, too. We also know that electrical impulses in the brain, when pinpointed and excited manually by a surgeon, can also produce other experiences of that sort. That doesn't mean it "happened" objectively, it only happened subjectively. This is not, however, indicative of truth. When people say "It's true because I saw it" or "It's real because I felt it" or "I know it in my heart"--they are misusing the terminology of true/real/know. True and meaningful are not the same in this context; nor is Knowing and believing. But the spiritual folks among us continue to try to blur the line, and combine belief with fact. It can't be done, unless you change the definitions.

Additionally, when you announce you have no beliefs, I wonder why that seems a badge of honor to you?  "no belief" would include love, honesty, ethics, conservation, charity, alternative fuels, voting, kindness, equal rights, etc--the word "anything" in this context is all inclusive, just like the word "nothing" which is "no thing." Believing "in nothing" doesn't make you an atheist. NOT believing in supernatural beings and realms is what makes you an atheist. You are not, by definition, an atheist. Semantics is an important issue, here. I can say that I believe in UFO's and this would be a true statement because I know that UFO is an abbreviation for Unidentified Flying Object, and yes, there have been instances when an object was flying and it could not be identified. That doesn't mean I believe that they are spaceships, piloted by extraterrestrials. And it doesn't speak to my opinion on whether or not that might be possible. These are more examples of logical fallacy, and the variables inside these arguments are the catalyst for misunderstanding. Thus, you must understand what you are saying, and you must use the same dictionary everyone else has agreed to use. That's what a standardized dictionary is for.

Additionally, saying that you don't believe in anything means you can't make a logical decision based on facts; and that ought not be referenced as a source of pride, in my opinion. Then, in a heel-spin of contradiction, you speak of things as if they are true, when they are not. So perhaps you're not communicating yourself accurately. Is that it?  Or do you merely deceive yourself by saying you don't believe in anything? I contend that you do believe in many things (as all humans do), and it comes through repeatedly in everything you talk about. I'm not sure what compels you to deny participation in the act of owning what you believe. It requires no courage to stand aside and say you don't believe in anything. That's not being open-minded, that's refusing to take responsibility for your own ability to make decisions. I find that stance intellectually dishonest.

My issue with it is that belief should be predicated on truth. So I don't use it in the same context as it is used colloquially and theologically. And yes I do get intense about it, because it's high time the logical and rational among us stop allowing Believers to make all the rules and get all the free passes, while systematically destroying everything that would save us, the planet and honor our own evolution as sentient beings. It's no longer innocuous to be spiritual or religious. It now bleeds over into the lives of EVERYONE. Unfounded beliefs keep children from learning the science that will allow them to understand how life and the universe really operates; unfounded beliefs map young minds into knots of hatred, superstition and fear rather than in acceptance, discernment and clarity; unfounded beliefs cause people to neglect proven medical care for themselves or their children; unfounded beliefs cause people to kill each other, start wars, commit acts of torture, genocide, infanticide, hate crimes, cause oppression, starvation,  child abuse, rape; unfounded beliefs incite groups to intend and plan takeovers of our secular government; unfounded beliefs cause someone in power to put their finger on a red button that will annihilate life as we know it. 

Damn right I get intense. 

I have a right to live, and THEY don't have the right to take it from me. 

Now you might think you are not in this category, but I contend you are only a step away, because all it takes is the willingness to accept ideas without proof, which you have already demonstrated repeatedly. So I'm sorry if my intensity offends you. But I'm pretty weary of biting my lip about it. As Frantz Fanon said, "There comes a time when silence becomes dishonesty." I have no desire to be guilty of either.

You said, "i am not trying to be offensive. i am not trying to argue."  This is the way spiritual people weasel out of the fray. They deny any malice, and say they don't want to argue. The reason is, if they engage in a rational argument, their beliefs and postulates will be shown false and even sometimes absurd, and this is not something they are open to. 

Now, I have been accused of being single-minded in my recent full conversion to atheism. And further, been accused of hypocrisy on some level, because I cannot be persuaded to believe again. But the point to be had here, is that I WAS A BELIEVER. I  said all those same things, clung to all those same ideas, and defended them to others, just as believers do now to me. So I have been on the "other side" in that regard (pun intended) and made a logical decision to deny its veracity, based on the development of my intelligence, and the evidence and clarity of thought and reason. So implications of my stubborn single-mindedness are unfounded. I came to conclusions based on facts, and now honor my conclusions, since there have been no other facts or evidence to change them.

You said,

"in fact, I was posting something personal to me that was mainly just some ideas. wasn't trying to get everyone riled up. i was just speaking to you as a friend not as a scientist or an expert."

So, if you speak casually, in a friend-kind-of-way, this excludes the necessity for truth? or rational thinking? or clarity of belief? If you are merely ruminating innocently, why work so hard on a book that is quite copious and detailed regarding supernatural forces and conditions in a plane of existence no one has proof for, and even you yourself haven't experienced in reality? I think what you are really doing is back-peddling in the face of a rational argument.

"in this realm evidence is anything that happens consistantly and with documented evidence. alot of this eye/camera/orb stuff can only be based on the ghost documentary shows i saw on tv. not saying it is real but it is "believeable" to me. i can't physically show you or else it wouldn't be paranormal. some things are consistant with the research tho and that is electromagnetic energy that when charged from a source lights up. and seems to be consistant with a haunting and the frequency of our chakras. that is all i have as far as evidence. sorry to have let you down today."

You mention "evidence" so glibly, it's clear you  don't understand the meaning of the word as I mean it, which is as science sees it. When I  speak of evidence, I refer to empirical, not anecdotal. I refer to the use of scientific method with falsifiability and double-blind procedures at play; not a photograph that "seems" to indicate something magical or out of the ordinary. You mention the "Frequency of chakras"--yet, again, you use another unprovable item to prove your other unprovable item. Chakras are an IDEA that became a cultural meme, but have no basis in fact.  Adherents imbue the idea with some supposed authority beyond the realm of science, but this also places it beyond the realm of fact and thus, of truth. But try to get a believer to understand this, and you'll be at it for eons. The irony with this sort of thought-paradigm is that if you don't know how to think things through properly and logically, you are unaware that you don't know how to think things through properly and logically. That's why the arguments go on between the rational and the irrational--between atheists and spiritual/religious individuals. The problem can only be solved by educating as many people as possible in the skills of rational thought.

At the risk of this eons-long head-butting, I will point out that you have repeatedly utilized logical fallacy, and in fact, used almost all of the most common ones:

• Tautology, or circular reasoning (A=B because A=B).
• Special Pleading, AKA ad hoc reasoning, (arbitrarily adding new elements in an effort to repair their lack of validity)
• Non-sequiter, (implying a logical connection where none exists)
• Moving the Goalpost (A method of denial that moves the criteria out of range of the evidence)
• post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for after this, therefore because of this; assuming a cause and effect relationship of things simply because one thing came before another), 
• Inconsistency --Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others).
• God of the Gaps (which is merely explaining something mysterious by plugging in a supernatural explanation);  
• Confusing association with causation, (similar to post-hoc, except it's when two things happen in proximity of time or location, and are assumed to be related).
• Argument from Personal Incredulity, (lack of personal understanding is interpreted to mean it cannot be true)
• Argument from Authority, (stating a claim is true because a person or group perceived as an authority says so)
• Argument from Ignorance (a statement must be true because we don't know it isn't true)

Understand that in all the 200,000 years that humans have been on the earth, not once has there been empirical evidence of supernatural claims. Never. Not even enough to serve in a court of law under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" edict. This fact must give us pause. If something were indeed true, in all those millennia, wouldn't we have some shred of proof for it?

But humans are relentless in their need to depend on the supernatural to find their value in this life. Matthew Alper, author of The God Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God, approaches this subject head-on, in what seems to be an emerging understanding among scientific circles about why humans are so staunchly attached to the ideas of the supernatural:

"Essentially, what I'm suggesting is that humans are innately "hard-wired" to perceive a spiritual reality. We are "hard-wired" to believe in forces that transcend the limitations of this, our physical reality. Most controversial of all, if what I'm suggesting is true, it would imply that God is not necessarily something that exists "out there," beyond and independent of us, but rather as the product of an inherited perception, the manifestation of an evolutionary adaptation that exists within the human brain. And why would our species have evolved such a seemingly abstract trait? -In order to enable us to deal with our species' unique and otherwise debilitating awareness of death.

With the dawn of human intelligence, for the first time in the history of terrestrial life, an organism could point its powers of perception back upon its own being; it could recognize its own self as an object. For the first time, when an animal kneeled down to drink from the watering hole, it recognized its own reflection. Only humans possess the advanced capacity for self-awareness. Though, in many ways, this capacity has helped to make our species the most versatile and powerful creature on earth, it also represents the source of our greatest affliction. This is because once we became aware of the fact that we exist, we became equally aware of not just the possibility that one day we might not, but the certainty that one day we will not. With the advent of our species, with the emergence of self-conscious awareness, a life form became cognizant of the fact that it is going to die. All we had to do was to look around us to see that death was inevitable and inescapable. More terrifying yet, death could befall us at anytime. Any moment can be our last.

All life is "hard-wired" to avoid those things that represent a threat to its existence. When an animal gets too close to fire, for example, it reflexively pulls away. It is this negative stimulus, this experience we call pain, that prompts all forms of life to avoid such potential life threats. Pain, therefore, acts as nature's electric prod that incites us to avoid those things which may jeopardize our existence.

In the "higher" animals, most particularly among the mammals, threatening circumstances elicit a particular type of pain we refer to as anxiety. Anxiety constitutes a type of pain meant to prompt these "higher" order animals to avoid potentially hazardous circumstances. For example, a rabbit is cornered by a mountain lion. In such a situation, the rabbit is pumped with adrenaline, charged with the painful symptoms of anxiety, all meant to incite the rabbit to most effectively escape from the source of its discomfort, in this case the mountain lion. In its healthiest form, anxiety is meant to prompt an animal to avoid or escape a potentially hazardous experience. In humans, however, once we became aware of the fact that death was not only inescapable but that it could come at any moment, we were left in a state of constant mortal peril, a state of unceasing anxiety - much like rabbits perpetually cornered by a mountain lion from which there is no escape. With the emergence of self-awareness, humans became the dysfunctional animal, rendered helpless by an inherent and unceasing anxiety disorder. Unless nature could somehow relieve us of this debilitating awareness of death, it's possible our species might have soon become extinct. It was suddenly critical that our animal be modified in some way that would allow us to maintain self-conscious awareness, while enabling us to deal with our unique awareness of our own mortalities, of death.

Here lies the origin of humankind's spiritual function, an evolutionary adaptation that compels our species to believe that though our physical bodies will one day perish, our "spirits" or "souls" will persist for all eternity. Only once our species was instilled with this inherent (mis)perception that there is something more "out there," that we are immortal beings, were we able to survive our debilitating awareness of death."

And that is a compelling argument about why people believe in the supernatural, and why logic and reason seem so out of reach for those who desperately need something outside of themselves to give them courage or purpose or hope. It is my fervent desire, to see the swelling of ranks in those who find these things inside themselves, instead.

Mind-Bending Esoterica

The Great Ant Crusades of 2010

Ants. Cute, when they're animated in a movie, not so cute when they are like invading armies all over your countertops. 

Several times a day now, I have to kill and remove the carcasses of the little black soldiers who find every tiny drop of anything edible. It makes me feel like I'm not a good housekeeper. 
 

But they sometimes congregate in a little circle in one spot, like it's an Ant Rave and someone has some X. I look and can't see anything to cause such excitement. So I'm off the hook on the housekeeping. If I can't see it after I've wiped the counter tops down, then it's not my fault, right? (I bet those with OCD never have ants. )

I have since discovered that good-old white vinegar, which I use for so many things, also repels ants. But that means they are going elsewhere. Maybe in my house...

And sure enough...
Today I woke to find them congregating on my desk. Big no-no. That felt more like an invasion than the ones on the counter tops in the kitchen. Then after cleaning my desk of the buggers, using vinegar, I later opened one of the drawers to get something, and saw them congregated in there. Probably having a come-to-Jesus meeting, since they had heard of my efforts in the kitchen and on the desktop....I pulled everything out of the drawer and sprayed vinegar and vacuumed again. Then, a few minutes later, I saw some crawling in and out underneath the keys of my keyboard...that's probably a lost cause. All manner of crumbs are up under there. I nearly always have my meals at my desk while I work. So I had to shake out my keyboard and vacuum again to try to pull all the goodies out of there. 

If that won't get them, then this blog will, I'm sure I'm pummeling to death the remaining ants under there.

The Great Ant Crusades of 2010

Monk Invader

Dreamed...I was in a house, not sure where, and the front door was open, screendoor closed. A man in a monk's cassock-- with two kids next to him, digging through a pile of leaves and trash just outside the door--it was as though I had cleaned up the yard and piled it up. The Monk was taking stuff from the trash and putting it into a gunny sack.


He sees me and opens the screen door and walks right into my house. I start to move toward the other side of the room, as he says something to me with a sweet, pleading voice. I'm trying to remember where I put my gun, thinking I might need it, just in case. And he pulls a pistol from his other sleeve and grabs me,  jams it under my left arm and shoots me. I fall to the floor and he moves toward the other rooms with his sack, looking for things. 
I am in no pain. But I wonder how long before I bleed out. He might be here too long for me to get help. So I am moving toward the dresser for the gun, looking in the drawer, but gun's not there. I'm searching in nightstand, blood now draining down my side, it's not there either. I'm trying to think where i left it...I became weak and dropped to my knees, wondering where I left my iPhone. It's not in my pocket...


I fall to the ground and turn my head to see those two kids he brought with him, standing just on the other side of the screendoor, just staring down at me numbly. I can hear the monk coming from the other room; I see him carrying the sack full of things, he turns as he walks by, and looks down at me. Then he lifts his gun at me again.
I wake up

Monk Invader

Awkward.

Saturday, I was to meet this woman at Metropolis (for the first time).

When I stepped inside, a woman waiting at the counter turned, smiled at me and came toward me, as i said, "Rhonda?" (Not just as a courtesy, but because I couldn't believe this was her. She didn't look like her photo). But she said "yes" and shook my hand.

We chatted-- awkward small talk-- as I was trying to get over the fact that she was NOTHING like I thought she'd be. And she was tall and lanky and her voice was odd. Too low. She even looked a little mannish. I wondered if she was actually a tranny.

We stood at the counter waiting on our coffees, and soon another woman walked up and introduced herself and it seemed she was ALSO there to meet her. Increasingly awkward. It became apparent that this girl had overbooked. I made a joke about it, and made the best of it. (I had a moment where I wanted to say--okay, this is not cool. I think I'll be leaving." 

But then I thought maybe that was too harsh and I needed to reel in my attitude. We sat (the three of us) and chatted, and Rhonda seemed confused by the situation but didn't say much.
Still awkward.

Then, like a breath of fresh air, ANOTHER woman walked up to the table.

Another date?? i thought for just a nanosecond. You really need a personal assistant.

But I recognized this new one.
"Jae?" she said to me.
Rhonda. The genuine article.

Now I realized my date was standing by the table, not either of the women sitting down. She had not overbooked, she had merely misheard me when i called her name, and didn't say anything out loud to clear up the misunderstanding. What were the odds that I would meet a woman at 2pm, at a certain coffee shop on a certain day, and there would be another meeting there between two lesbians at exactly the same time?

We all got a laugh out of it. An awkward laugh.

Soon me and the Real Rhonda were at another table. She wanted the scoop on that situation. I told her what happened. She looked JUST like her picture and I was relieved. She was pretty, personable, and not the least bit mannish or oddly confused.

So from now on, I will never assume that the person I am meeting will be the only person there waiting on another person they are meeting.

Awkward.

Two Alarm Fires, No Waiting

Around 1 a.m., I had just gotten home from an evening out, and my friend Em called. 

While we were chatting, a VERY LOUD alarm went off. INSIDE MY APT....

Let me just say, i HATE loud noises. Especially ones that feel like they are shredding my eardrums. 

I tracked the source to a big casing on the wall above a filing cabinet.  I pulled the barstool over, climbed up, and popped the casing off, but saw no battery. Then i realized it was the doorbell. So my attention went to the wall plate six inches to the left. It had a little round hole, and when i covered it with my hand, the piercing alarm dulled. I just kept my hand there for a few seconds, enjoying the respite from the piercing shrilling. There were two screws. Flathead variety. I ran to the closet and pulled out the tool drawer, but could not locate the flathead bit for my multi-bit ratcheting screwdriver was.  The sound. The sound. That shrilling. Still permeating all the airspace.

I did the only thing any self-respecting alarm-induced psychotic would do. Brute force was called for. I fetched my hammer and proceeded to silence the offender. My head was going to explode if  I had to listen to that screaming alarm much longer. I took the claw part of the hammer and tried to pry the plate off. It was not cooperating. With frustration, and a smidgen of encroaching insanity, I just whacked the plate with the hammer. It didn't stop, so I whacked it again. It stuttered. I was making progress. Whack! Whack! Whack!  

The faceplate was cracking nicely now, but that sound. That sound. that shrill, ear-bleeding sound was still torturing me. I just started pounding on it until it finally caved in. UntiI the guts  were beaten out of their metal wall-cave, I saw some square module, attached to wires, but no battery. How do I shut this thing off??? I knew that if i had to make a phone call to some night maintenance number and then wait for them to arrive, I would, by then, be fit for a straight-jacket. My head was already pounding. (My ears have always been sensitive to high-pitched noises. That's why I don't use a standard alarm clock, and have avoidance behaviors about other shrill noises. Like screaming children, bagpipes,  tea kettles, and the way some women talk.).

I was about to attach the hammer claw to it and pull, but pictured myself being electrocuted--fried up into a crispy critter with no one around to take me to the emergency room.  (my polydactyle cat, Monkey, had opposable thumbs, as I've mentioned, but still can't seem to use them to offer any help in emergencies. Or even with household chores). But that sound. that sound.  I didn't care anymore. I hooked the wires and got a grip on the rubber of the hammer handle and pulled. Nothing. My options dwindling, I allowed my amygdala to take over and behave in utter primitive stress response; what I like to call: Kill it until it is dead.

I pried and pulled and pounded until finally, finally...the shrieking alarm was dead.

Silence. Blessed silence. Except for the echo of the sound in my head.

Sighing, I looked down at the plaster pieces, the broken liquor bottle that had been on the filing cabinet below. The gutted alarm. The precious, demolished and silenced alarm, hanging out of the wall.

MY ears were ringing, and then i realized, it was not just in my ears, but

outside. I rushed to the door and opened it to the bracing sound again.

A Larger, louder alarm. The mother-sound of all the baby-sounds, that were apparently connected into all the apartments on the building. I went out to the sidewalk just as the firetrucks pulled up.

Bold as neon, I snagged the firefighter and interrogated him. He didn't think there was a fire. They were wandering around and considering a trip into the building. I informed them that the outside alarm had gone off before, without the aid of a fire.

I had to go in. The alarm was too much. In my Bluetooth ear bud, Em was asking me if i had a fire plan. Not really. I knew the sliding glass door was  a few feet away from me most of the time. (the sliding glass door with the almost-broken latch....yes. I have some calls to make). And I knew what to grab. The cats. My hard drive, and probably not much more than that except for my iPhone and wallet and keys and such. I realized that it would be a good idea to take care of t hat missing plan.

In my current situation, I didn't know whether or not to load the cats in a carrier. Or actually remove my hard drive from the computer. After a few minutes of wandering around looking at all the things that were to burn up in the maybe-fire, and lamenting the lack of renter's insurance, I went back outside for an update. They had found nothing. I studied the roof and facade of the building and saw no flames. Smelled no smoke. Then my neighbors began to gather  on the outside stairs, looking over. I filled them in on what I knew and asked if their alarms were going off in their apartments. Yes. That's why they were out there. They had been run out by the noise. Em said it was too bad they didn't have hammers like I did.

Another trip inside, and back out in a few minutes, to talk to the firefighter again. He said that they had found the issue. Someone had pulled the fire alarm lever in the breezeway and broken off the handle. Normally, they would be able to reset it, but it was broken. One of my neighbors had reported to them that the guy living above her had done it. So someone was now busted for causing all this. Or at least, i hope they were busted. If not as an official police arrest, then in the mouth.

Not sure what I will tell maintenance when I call them to repair the murdered alarm in my wall. Maybe that I panicked. Maybe that I had an anxiety disorder and just had to stop the noise. Hopefully, they will be understanding and just repair the damn thing without charging me.

Now, as I write this, it strikes me that this is the second time in as many weeks that I have talked to an arriving fireman. I didn't blog the other experience. It was minor. But, I had gone to the post office late at night, to try to mail some of my books from their 24-hour package kiosk, and while using the computer screen to weigh and send, realized they didn't have the media mail option on the machine. I didn't want to pay $8 to send a book, when i could spend $2. And I had two different books to send. So I decided to come back out to the post office during business hours and do it at the counter. When i canceled out of the program on the screen,  the fire alarm went off. I first glanced around to see if anyone else was there, and peered down the hall, to see the flashing light next to the red alarm.

So I got out of there, just in case the Federal Government had decided to install some protective device that would slam down with metal bars and block all the doors. I get paranoid like that. sometimes.

Outside, I realized as I pulled out of the lot, that I looked like someone leaving the scene of the crime. I didn't want to wait for some 3 a.m. visit from detectives who wanted to know what i was doing at the post office, just before it BURNED DOWN.  The last thing I needed was a

Domestic Terrorism charge from the Office of Homeland Security. So, I stopped and waited, to see if i could hear firetrucks. After a few seconds,  I did, so I didn't call 911. I turned around and waited, and told the fireman what happened. I didn't know very much, but  I wanted him to know I took the time to inform them, and I wanted to officially be seen cooperating. Nothing came of it. I guess it was a false alarm too.

Now, this apartment alarm fiasco. The question remains. Why have I been involved in two false alarms?

Two Alarm Fires, No Waiting

Projection

My eyes slid open at midnight, my attention on the projection clock image on the ceiling over my bed.

12:00.

In the darkness, I watched it until it changed to -
12:01.

And then tears rolled down both checks and pooled at my temples.

I closed my eyes again.

Projection

My Author Bio - by Justice Harlow

Baeli was born to spin a yarn. The daughter of a professional musician, she arrived in Wichita and began her journey with a song in her heart and a plethora of passion erupting from her pen. This love of lyrics, prose and poetry was just the simple seed of what would grow into a wordsmith's obsession with the creation of multifarious characters and storylines that fork with dual plot lines into romance and intrigue.

Oklahoma, Arkansas and Colorado are just a few locales that surface in Baeli's novels as these places are ones she drank in from her time in University, to retreating for self exploration. Each place is rich in bucolic terrain and provided grand palettes for her mysteries and suspenseful romances. Townies and their coveted colloquialisms provided divine fodder for tales too real to be true.

There is nothing like experience to craft a character. Baeli has plenty to spare—from a stint in the military to late nights spent delivering newspapers or waiting tables. Each job was a necessity, but one that Baeli turned into a study in the human condition or sometimes inhumane conditions. Some of Baeli's fondest endeavors were fronting an all female band for seven years in Little Rock and her enjoyable time as a managing editor for a women's press.

In recent years, Baeli has pursued technology with a perverse passion. Website building, blogging and creating and maintaining online forums have shared the docket with her ever-present story crafting. Baeli has relied on her technical writing roots and expanded her repertoire, enabling her to edit for herself and other writers, both accomplished and aspiring.

With over 200 song writing credits and 15 books to her credit, Kelli Jae Baeli shows no signs of wear. She has returned to her beloved Colorado where she may be found amongst the Denverites, people-watching over coffee and conversation...awaiting the next story to inspire and entrance.
~Justice Harlow

The author can be followed on Twitter @JaeBaeli. Reader and Professional reviews, as well as Feedback, Praises, and First-Born Children, are cheerfully accepted via her website, jaebaeli.com.

My Author Bio - by Justice Harlow

Fat Chance: Lament of a Transplanted Single

Before moving here, I never had to worry about what my friends thought of me. They knew me. Sometimes for 10 or 20 years--a few of them longer than that. And I was in relationships usually. Serial monogamist. So I didn't have to worry about the impression I made, or if I was going to get laid anytime soon, or whether there was someone to confide in, play with...now, it's all new. New State, new city, new people, and SINGLE, though not NEWLY SINGLE. Aside from a five month relationship, I've been single for what? 4 or 5 years? Add to this paradigm, the difficulties of being a small percentage of the population in several Identity markers, and being older, and it's a recipe for angst. Dating was never something I did much of, because I was always either in a relationship or leaving one to go into another.

I'm still puzzled by the dynamics of dating. Women will tell you things that aren't true--either because they think it's what you want to hear, or because they're not self-actualized enough to know what the truth is. And then they punish you later for behaving according to the information they gave. (like having a profile that portrays them as ready and open to finding love, going on 4 dates, saying point-blank they are attracted to you, postponing going out in favor of a kissfest in front of the fireplace, and then suddenly disappearing, only to pop back up with a Dear Jane note that they are simply not ready to date or have a relationship, like they thought). Or the shorter variation of that: they will behave as though they like you and they are enjoying a rapport with you and then just evaporate, like you were someone they just chatted with at a bus stop.

I had to start looking at how * I* responded to women in order to get some insight about why THEY respond in certain ways to me. I wanted to understand what they might be thinking. The edification wasn't always complete. But this is what happens for me. When I meet women. I might not be attracted physically, or not attracted personality- wise, or there's some other deal breaker. Or any combination of the three. Or,  rarely, I will meet a woman I am actually attracted to. Like a little giddy-crush-type attracted. Like being distracted by their lips when they talk, and wondering what it would be like to kiss them, sort of attracted. This is something new for me since moving here. i just can't recall the last time I met someone in my previous life I was actually chemically attracted to--strongly. Attractions were always predicated on concessions. "Ok, not attracted to her voice, but she has a nice smile" or "hate the way she's so butch, but she's sweet." or "She's got a drinking problem, but she makes me laugh." Stuff like that. When I say really attracted to, I mean, voice, lips, eyes, diction, hair, dress, personality, ethics, worldview, etc--the whole nine.

But when that happens, then the stressors begin--does she like me too? is she attracted to me? if she seems to like me, is she just pretending? Is she losing interest because I talk about writing too much? Because I have too much to say about too many things? Because she can sense my need for sex and intimacy and, ultimately a partner? Or is it just because I'm fat? I say fat, because that's how it feels. I am "overweight." But to me, it's fat. I don't have Body Dysmorphic Disorder.  When I look in the mirror I don't plunge into a depression and stick my finger down my throat or carve FAT in my arm with a pickle fork. I can appreciate when I look good aside from the weight. Sometimes I might say, "Oh, I'm having a good face day." And a few times, after checking my appearance in the mirror before a date, I'd say. "Okay. I'd date me." And I know if I ever could get the extra tonnage off, I'd be the first one to parade around in my underwear, or have no qualms about getting naked with a hottie, while the lights were still on in the room.

But fat is ugly. I don't like it on me, and I'm not attracted to it on others. Though, I must digress here and qualify that with this: I am also not attracted to skinny women. I like curves, softness. I don't want to feel like I need to wear a Michelin Man suit to keep from being impaled by a hip bone. And I could still be attracted to an overweight woman--and HAVE, more than once. I guess it's just about how she carries it and dresses, and whether she has other qualities that intrigue or attract me.  But I am disgusted by my own naked reflection, and that's not going to change until the reflection does.

I hear some people saying, "You should love yourself as you are, you're beautiful on the inside." bullshit. No one will ever see how beautiful you are on the inside until they can get past the outside. That's just how it works. it's a rare person who does not see or respond to the attraction-factor. it's hard-wired into the human brain. An evolutionary fact. Those who can be attracted to anyone might have an advantage when it comes to finding dates and partners, but then again, i wonder if that's actually a DEFECT...and besides, if I am with someone who can be attracted to anyone they like on "The inside", no matter what they look like, how does that make me feel special? "I love being with you Jae...or that crack whore over there. Either one, doesn't matter."

So, while I was too dense to appreciate the body I had when I was younger, I care that I don't have the body I want now --because I think that maybe that woman I've just met and enjoyed coffee or a glass of wine with is thinking "She's nice enough, but I'm not attracted to fat girls." 

And then I get mad and feel persecuted on some esoteric level because it took so many years for me to even be able to WALK again. (One previous girlfriend during one of those particularly trying disability binges even said she was embarrassed to be seen with me on those forearm crutches. I guess if you're going to be a Jerry's Kid, you better be really cute, and a KID. Her comment has never left my head, and I can still recall the profound anger and pain it caused me to be rejected for being disabled). 

So--the fat-thing-- It's not like I just sit in front of the TV 24/7 eating Twinkies and Chic-o-sticks. (though I love TV, Twinkies and Chic-o-sticks. One of my favorite meals is also biscuits and gravy, but I've had that once in the last two years.) I have done everything within my power to get all this extra weight off, to include dieting, food science, portion control, drinking gallons of water, and consuming any number of other supplements and pills and potions. But since I couldn't exercise for so many years due to injury andpain, I just could not lose weight. period. And even though I have a great deal of mobility and don't LOOK like I have limitations, I still do. Eating less never works for me. I just stay at one weight. (Overeating, though, will make me gain. Yay). I have one of those metabolisms that doesn't respond to starving or eating less.

 Looking back at my weight in the Army and when I was younger, I can see that the problem for me is, I don't get enough exercise as I did during those times--or enough of the right exercise. Because, while I can do way more than I used to, I can only do certain things without risking re-injury.  And I hate that with the red hot burning passion of a thousand suns. 

I went on a full-fledged exercise binge when I discovered i could play racquetball again. And then I started working out everyday on the Gazelle and lifting light hand weights, too. Then POP! Blew a disc. Cervical disc rupture. Herniated Disco --and it took 8 weeks of special treatments, pain meds, and being in bed 99% of the time, to heal that. And I had to do it all by myself with no one to help me. 

So, now, I do a lot of walking. I'm thrilled that I can walk 2 or 3 miles at a time, when not so many years ago, I couldn't walk 2 or 3 yards. Preferable to the Crutches, and the scooter before that, and the wheelchair before that, I assure you. Yet, all this walking doesn't seem to change my weight.

The upshot is, no one knows or cares about your physiological history or your challenges in the past, when they meet you for the first time. They only see the packaging. And while I try to make the package as attractive as possible, there's only so much I can do with this extra blubber and the effects of aging. I quit smoking tobacco and now use electronic (vapor) cigs; I use Apple Cider vinegar on my skin because it gives it a vibrant and healthy glow; I use a Derma-Wand device on it too--it's a home face-lift type thing; I take mega-vitamins and supplements in a shake everyday. I tan, I use coconut oil as a lotion, because it's natural and beneficial in many ways to skin and system; I wear makeup when I go out in public and always fix my hair, and wear nice jewelry. I always try to dress attractively too--especially if I'm meeting anyone for the first time.  As the saying goes, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. And while I don't consider myself a sow's ear, I still only have so much to work with. 

What I want--crave--is to find someone who will not only be attracted to me, but to whom I will also be attracted, and that we will enjoy a harmonious lifetime commitment filled with love and laughter and hope and purpose. 

And the voice in my head grunts, FAT chance.

Fat Chance: Lament of a Transplanted Single