Tuesday, April 24, 2012

"I Just Want Everything to Stay the Same," Is Not an Option

If one reads the editorials and letters to the editors of any publication (which fewer do these days), the theme that stands out, is the demand by the writer that everything should stay the same -- forevermore, and if they did, all the problems of the world and humanity, would be solved.  "If only everything would stay the same," so people would never grow old, children would never grow up, crimes would never be committed, and accidents would never happen -- if only everything would stay the same.

But the reality of the world and life, is that everything is constantly changing -- and the choice we have, is not whether to change or to stay (remain) the same, but how does that inevitable change manifest.  Do things gets better, or do things get worse -- because we merely hope that they will stay the same, while denying that change is already underway?

Yet by far, the major "work" of many institutions, organizations and individuals (invariably presuming to be acting on everybody else's behalf), is to maintain the status quo against the challenges (of change), and to perpetuate that way as the only way it can be -- and always has been -- they would have everyone believe.  Once they can get others to buy into the legitimacy of their way as the only way, or the only natural way, or the only right-thinking (politically/socially correct)  way, then the battle is already won -- against the challenge of other ways they could be, if one were to rethink life -- wholly and freshly from the beginning, so that the past has no greater claim on the future than the present.

Then we would all live in the present moment, with the defenders (elite) of the status quo past, having no greater claim to the course and development of the future (repeating the past).  Mainly what keeps that past alive, are the thoughts that make it so -- as the official and only way they could/should be thought.  This simply becomes more apparent when there are more alternative  points of view than just the one promulgated by the "politically correct" hierarchy of that time and society -- which at times have varied from the religious, noble, "enlightened," as well as the infamous brutal, ruthless and suppressive -- even at times, calling themselves the "democratic people's republic," and other such euphemisms.

In that manner, they got many to believe that everything they believed, was the truth they discovered for themselves, instead of just being implanted by the "experts" and "professionals," who saw it as their job -- to do the thinking for everybody else, and to learn the latest propaganda techniques for deceiving and manipulating thought -- because it was just a whole lot faster and more convenient than mastering the facts themselves.  It was enough just to get people to repeat the easiest cliche possible -- and whether they could stand any test of truth became immaterial, as long as they could get as many people as possible to do so as their self-evident power -- to control the thinking of every other.  That is what they believed made them "democratic."

Sunday, April 15, 2012

The Quality of Life is Change (and Movement)

The quality that distinguishes the living from the dead (inanimate), is its ability to change (move) rather than remain fixed and constant for all eternity. That's why it is very disturbing to go to the homes where people are dying and no longer living fully, or even barely -- and may continue on in that way for decades. For such people particularly, it is necessary to get back to the rudiments of movement and through that basics of understanding, achieve their momentary greatest shape and functioning -- much as the world champion athletes also have to do in order to achieve their peak performance.

Many will be surprised to learn that the great champions do not all bound out of bed and run a marathon before they settle down to breakfast and a hectic schedule of interviews, presentations and sales -- but are more likely to be the slowest out of bed, wondering if they'll even be able to get up that day, so exhausted and immobilized are they from the previous day's, as well as accumulative exertions. Eventually they don't, and decide to retire -- before they are routed from the platforms by the new champions. That is also life -- in the larger sense of that concept -- to keep improving itself beyond the individual exertions and outcomes. Life simply goes on -- with or without any particular individual, and dying and death is a part of that greater play of life.

Dying and death is what we have to come to understand, so we can better realize how we can live even better -- but we cannot achieve that just by denying dying and death as though it will never happen -- because it will happen to everyone of us. So by defining how we die, we can also determine how much better we can live -- and not just die for many years and fear that end. Understanding anything, is the ending of that fear -- and the ending of anything, is the beginning of something else, and so is essentially understanding and embracing change (and movement) -- so that when things change, we can change with it, and not just as the dying do -- wish that everything will never change, and so they withdraw further into their self-isolating worlds that do not, until there is no difference.

One doesn't have to change the world, in order to change. Change comes about through the simplest of movements -- and not the most complex -- at the very beginning, because the smallest real difference, sets in motion a different course of events. But if one thinks that one has to change the world before they can make any change in their own lives, then they are paralyzed by the overwhelming impossibility of such undertakings -- including "winning" before even deciding what they want to do.

And so the wisest piece of advice, has been that in order to go (get) anywhere, one must begin with understanding the mechanics of a single step -- but before stampeding off to be first at the starting line, one should ask even, what does a step consist of? Can one in fact, take that first step while still in bed, or even for that matter, seated? That is, is it possible to "walk" while seated, or even lying?

That seems like a preposterous and absurd question one should not even think to ask, but without considering it, the bicycle or airplane would never have come about -- because the first airplane required one to be in a lying (aerodynamic) position, and the former required one to be in a sitting (ergonomic) position to actualize into reality -- by which walking (locomotion) became optimized a hundredfold.

The purpose and meaning of human existence (organization) and industry (work) is not simply to do what has always been done at the most rudimentary level, more, faster and requiring more effort (manpower) -- but even better, to achieve miraculous results with a minimum of the consumption of those resources -- until we have arrived at the genius of the present time as the computer in its many forms and applications -- that make life infinitely better than was even imaginable a short time ago.

Then that measure (magnitude) of change is profound -- changing everything else, along with the course of history and development (evolution), that we call "progress," and not merely repeating the same things we've always done before, so that the future can only be a diminishing vision of the past as the prime of one's existence -- and not a better life than could be imagined even a short time ago.

That is the real power and meaning of change brought about through the simplest proper understanding of movement, and not the fog of complexity it has become -- to disguise any real insight into that process with all the "sound and fury" signifying nothing of any great consequence, but undoubtedly consuming all one's time, energy and resources -- as though that in itself, was the measure of anything of consequence.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

What Are they "Experienced" At?

If one is very "experienced," but in all the wrong things -- or way the government is headed, then that is no asset, but in fact, the greatest liability, because that's the only thing one knows and thinks they can be.

Hawaii's problem is the bureaucratic/consensus perspective -- rather than the creative/entrepreneurial one of people who don't know any better that that's the way things have to be -- forevermore. We don't "need" any more lifelong bureaucratic perspective of continuing what we've always done before -- which is to maintain the status quo of giving the government workers, and particularly the schools and school teachers, more money to do less work (smaller classes).

We're quickly reaching the tipping point where so much money is being paid for government worker wages, benefits, pensions and nonworking compensation, that no money is "left over," to actually provide government services anymore -- and to meet the challenges of the future rather than to continue the problems of the past for permanent job security -- for those originally hired to eliminate the problem.

The schools particularly, are a good example of a function that should move increasingly online -- when then, the students have contact and exposure to the original discoverers and inventors of new ideas, and not just ideas passed on to the fifth level of people who have never had an original idea -- but who think they can teach that process. One learns art from an artist -- and not a government bureaucrat who can tell one all the reasons it is dangerous to paint or dance.

So let us be very clear about what it is important to be "experienced" and a "leader" at or we will end up with a whole legislature of people who are experienced at maintaining the present litany of problems -- for their own lifelong job security, by which they become, even more experienced. We need people as leaders who can discover new ways of doing things -- as the way we want to be. There's a reason the old ways are failing. That is the problem and not the solution -- obviously.

Sunday, April 01, 2012

Everything You Know Is Wrong

At 6, 16, and 26, almost anything seems to work; at 36, 46, and 56, one realizes that what they thought worked, might not; then at 66, 76, 86..., it seems like nothing works anymore, no matter what. So, then, that is the true test of what really works -- and not that anything could. That's what separates those who "know" something, and those who just "think" they do.

Beginning about age 60, very few can avoid the telltale signs of aging -- which is largely that the muscles of the body begin to shrink dramatically -- impacting their appearance as well as their functioning. Even if they're still running marathons or lifting weights, they're not doing as much or as well as they used to earlier -- which leads them inescapably to believe that the end is imminent, if not near. It is just one downhill slide from there -- if there is no measure by which one can actually improve -- yet that possibility indeed exists, if they radically change the measure of what they believe to be significant, in ways they hadn't even thought to develop and measure previously.

And that is range of their motion (by voluntary muscular contraction) -- at the critical axes (joints) of the wrists, ankles, and neck -- which most have not thought to move at all, and may have even been advised and instructed, that those parts cannot and shouldn't be moved -- rather than that, those are the critical areas that remain capable of improvement one's entire lifetime, and should be meaningful to measure, when all else fails. That capability must be telling us something.

I've never encountered those who are still responsive, who could not improve their range of movement at those sites -- even when they could not make improvement in any of the more familiar ways one measures physical improvement or decline. That obviously has to be the key to continuing improvement -- and the very meaning of responsiveness in the ways that one can still indicate that difference and acknowledgment. But in doing so, that also indicates the underlying and prerequisite health and functioning of the supporting and connecting structures that make the end movements (expressions) possible.

And that is all the movement one really needs to remain fully functional -- at the extremities of the human body -- such as the fingertip, or the gesture of a smile and recognition. One doesn't have to do a 500 lb bench press to signal agreement -- or disapproval, for that matter. Those expressions and communications, can be conveyed with the slightest movements at the head (face), hands (writing and grasping), or feet (shifting weight for balance and stability). Those are the meaningful and expressive human movements -- and not the running of marathons, or lifting of weights. The least gesture, tells us more, and can set much greater forces into motion.

It's fitting that such movements are called articulations -- as well, meaning the range of that expression. Humans are distinguished by such fine motor movements more than they are the powerful gross motor movements -- which in humans, are weak relative to all other animals. Pound for pound, the human is the least powerful animal of all. But because of the ability to communicate intent and understanding far more effectively, can marshal the productivity and ingenuity of those who came before, as well as those around presently.

Such fine motor movements and control, is the passing on of culture -- by which the genius of previous generations, can be expressed in another age -- in a way that gross movement/brute force cannot, because it is too indistinct and the subtleties are not communicated. And while these communications and subtleties do not seem so important at 6, 16, 26, they become increasingly important at 66, 76, 86... -- as the skills necessary to maintain and optimize life at that stage and development.

Nobody at 100, will be impressive as a marathoner or weightlifter -- if that is all they have to offer. Most everyone else, will be more productive and helpful in that regard -- including the 6 year old. The competitive and survival advantage of the 100 year old, would be the awareness of that proper perspective -- to measure all the others -- without their own ego, getting in the way of those assessments.

So it is not that the 76 year old should still be capable of doing what a 26 year old does and can do better, but they need to do what the 26 year old does not do as well because they don't have economies and efficiencies that many years of experience will give them an advantage in knowing the appropriate effort and risk to give to such situations and circumstances. In that way, life can still be better (for all), but not simply at being an adolescent again -- ignoring all the risks and pitfalls, that got them to their present age.

You don't want to be attempting a 500 lb bench press on your 100th birthday -- as an indication of one's fitness, or qualification for survival. However, to exhibit a greater range of movement at the head, hands and feet than normally exhibited by most, would greatly impress even the most casual of observers. They would be aware of the presence of a great vitality and awareness unmatched by most others -- even if all other things were equal.

"Fitness" is about this advantage one has beyond the others -- and not competing at a disadvantage, no matter how large a "handicap" one is given, which is really the acknowledgment that one really isn't to be taken as an equal, or seriously anymore. But is there a way one can compete at an advantage -- which nobody else thinks to do, and articulate?

That is what distinguishes individuals at any age, at any time, in any generation. They don't simply do what everybody else does; they do what everybody else does not even think to do, or can imagine doing.

Those are manifested at the distinctly and uniquely human structures at the extremities, that have made the march of human evolution possible -- that we seek to master.