Tag Archives: zen

Take a Breath, Reflect

Quote

Posted on by
2
Share

“Adorn thyself with simplicity and modesty and with indifference towards the things which lie between virtue and vice. Love mankind. Follow God.” –Marcus’ Meditations Book 7

In this case, Marcus Aurelius wants to stress to himself that to be simple and modest is best.  As for the things which “lie between virtue and vice,” maybe we really don’t know it all.  Maybe we don’t know the answer.  We all have our judgments of right and wrong, but maybe we should stop judging, at least a little bit.  Sometimes, we might just be better to just breathe…to just “be.”  Don’t judge, like we always do as humans…just exist, take a breath, take several breaths.  Be like the stone at the bottom of the river and let the water flow over you, and just be there and exist…not judging.

Take some time, and just be.

Take some time, and just be.

When you’ve mastered that, then love everything around you (especially “mankind”).  Sometimes this is hard to do, no?  ALL of mankind?  Really, really try.  Don’t hold back.  Love all of mankind.  All that is happening now, is meant to happen.  The good, the bad, and the ugly.  It is all under the auspices of the cosmos, our divine existence.

Young or old...

Young or old…

Be good to yourself, be good to those close, be good to those beyond (me, we, they…).

I “am” as I “do?”

Posted on by
Reply
Share

Who am I?   I have had many roles, and continue to have more…too many in fact.  Here are the ones I can think of:

  • Blogger
  • Father
  • Husband
  • Pilot
  • Personal Trainer
  • College Instructor
  • Teacher (to my young children)
  • Investor
  • Brother
  • Son
  • Philosopher
  • Retired Officer
  • Veteran
  • Liberty Activist

But these are just roles I play.  There were times in my past when I wanted some of these to define who I was.  Occasionally, I still latch on to one of them and think, “that’s my calling, that’s who I am?”  However, none of these roles are who I am in entirety.  I am all of these and none of them all at the same time.  When someone asks me, “what do you do?”, it’s a tough question.  I do a lot.  If someone asks me “who are you?” (which they never do), then what is the answer?  It’s an even tougher question; or is it?

What role will I play today?

What role will I play today?

I am at a point in my life where I am defined by no one thing.  This is a good thing, I think.  I have been headed in that direction for some time now.  In the past year, since I retired from military servitude, I have had much more time to explore and dive into things that I like and do things that are more productive.  I don’t have goals, so much as I have themes (I stole the “themes” theme from James Altucher: see more).  My themes are simple, yet my means seem to be surprisingly complicated.  Every time I write down the themes I wish to pursue, they come down to these three:

  1. Have Fun (through interesting and meaningful pursuits)
  2. Help People (family, job, and community)
  3. Pursue Liberty (for me and others)

I will readily admit that these three themes necessitate a grasping of this world.  However, I always try to remember that my participation in this world doesn’t necessitate my belief that this participation in it is permanent, or that I will make a lasting impact in much of what I do.  I just am, while I try.  As a philosopher, I should pursue my themes with some rational detachment.  In the end, I will be gone and so will you.  The goal then is to just “be,” while pulling your weight along the way.  At the end as I utter my last breaths, I could ask myself:

  1. “Did you enjoy it along the way?”
  2. “Did you do your best to be a positive influence on those around you?”

However I can answer these 2 questions, then that is who I am.  I hope to answer YES, to both.

PS:  I just realized 2 things:  1) This post is like an open journal entry and 2) It comprises bits and pieces of the three influencing philosophies from my life raft.

Philosophical Raft

The Problem with Maslow

Posted on by
Reply
Share

In all of my studies of Maslow (which are limited to brief undergraduate and that for this article), nowhere does anybody speak of the fact that we can CONTROL our desires.  People throw around Maslow’s Hierarchy like humans are just animals, acting instinctively with little control over our minds.

Maslow's Hierarchy

Maslow’s Hierarchy

On the spectrum of things we can control, our desires are one of those things that we have quite a lever on.  This is where a Heroic Stoic can use the tools of philosophy to modify the hierarchy.  For example, if I must have caviar and filet every day, then certainly I have set a high bar for fulfilling my physiological need of food.  What about shelter?  Do I need a 5,000 square foot home or a tent?  These things are for us to decide.  Certainly they are not easy decisions, and they require some judgment.  Many human beings live in simple dwellings with no heat/cooling, while I cannot imagine not having a powered system that controls my indoor environment.

Live here?

Live here?

Or could I?  My awareness of this fact is half the battle, isn’t it?  Could I live without central heating?  Well, first of all I live in a mild climate so I am ahead of the game.   But seriously, could I?  At first, I think it would be difficult, but eventually I can imagine that I would adapt with less clothing in Summer and bundling up in Winter.  Imagining this is therapeutic.  It allows me to see that my life as I know it can change, and it also helps me appreciate the needs I have fulfilled.  In a sense, this awareness allows me to jump up the ladder of needs fulfillment.  It helps me realize that central heating is not physiological but maybe a safety need.  When I don’t need caviar and filet for my food, then I can move on to higher needs.

...or live here?

…or live here?

Then, I can control the higher needs as well using what I know about control, fate, and impermanence.

More on that, later.

On Survival and Happiness (Maslow’s Needs)

Posted on by
Reply
Share

From “The Aviator”:  Mrs. Hepburn says, “We don’t care about money here.”   To which Howard Hughes replies, “That’s because you’ve always had it.  Some of us choose to earn our money.”

Howard Hughes' "Spruce Goose"

Howard Hughes’ “Spruce Goose”

In his 1943 paper, “A Theory of Human Motivation,”  Abraham Maslow released a motivational theory which is now commonly referred to as Maslow’s hierarchy.  In short, Maslow theorized that people fulfill their needs in the following way.

Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg

Maslow’s Hierarchy (diagram from Wikipedia)

Before a higher level need is fulfilled, the lower level needs must be met (the lowest needs are physiological, the highest self-actualization).  So, physiological needs are fulfilled before safety needs. which must be fulfilled before love/belonging needs, etc.  There are gray areas and exceptions of course (people can jump to fulfilling “higher” needs before fulfilling lower [maybe I’ll have more on that later]), but this is the general idea by which humans find happiness.  According to the Maslow’s Hierarchy then, it would be difficult to worry about your purpose or meaning in the world if you were plotting how to obtain your next meal.

One could argue then, that it was precisely Siddhartha’s (The Buddha) wealth, safety, and love around him that triggered his dissatisfaction (see his story here).  If he were busy surviving–hunting for food, building shelter, watching out for predators, strategizing when it would be a good time to safely sleep, etc.–he may not have felt the dissatisfaction (Dukkha) of not fulfilling the next level of needs.  Moreover, if he were safe, yet lonely (vis–à–vis love/belonging needs), he may have merely yearned for companionship.   As it turns out, many of his lower level needs were satisfied, so he was on to the next need, probably the self-esteem needs, then on to self-actualization…humans are always grasping, as he himself would later find out.


So looking at “The Aviator” quote above:  in essence, Howard Hughes’ reply to Katherine Hepburn’s mother represents the fact that they were working on different levels of needs.  Both, of course were pursuing happiness but each was pursuing in their own complex way.  In my opinion, Hughes was the wiser one because of his experience.  If Mrs. Hepburn were open to enlightenment, she would have realized that her wealth was not a given, and indeed a luxury that could be gone.  Undoubtedly, each person experienced Dukkha because that is what we do.  If you know how Hughes ended up, you know that he had his suffering, too.  He never did quite escape Samsara.

We are all human, after all.

Sid’s Journey from Riches to Rags to Richness

Posted on by
Reply
Share

Siddhartha Gautama, let’s call him Sid, was disenchanted with his life.  More precisely, Sid was dismayed with the condition of life in general.  You see, Sid was a prince.  He was tended to by many servants whenever he needed them.  He was protected by his father (the king) from seeing the dreary world outside the palace.  Yet, Sid inherently longed to explore outside the walls.  He knew the world that had been manufactured for him was a lie.  Even with all the protection, and all the effort to make his life worry-free, he began to notice suffering.  He knew that truth started by looking at the world as it is, both good and bad.

Living in this palace might be nice, but would it bring happiness?

Living in this palace might be nice, but would it bring happiness?

When he began exploring outside the palace walls, he really started to see grief, suffering, and sickness.  If he had waited long enough he would have seen even more suffering within the palace walls.  Servants would have been missing. Why?  From death, sickness, unhappiness with their job?  His father would have eventually died or become sick.  Others he loved could have been cross for no apparent reason.  Sid might have taken a false step on a set of stairs, and he could have fallen and broken his back.  The fact that the story of Sid, who would become the Buddha, implies that he had to leave the palace to find real suffering makes me believe there is some amount of fairy tale to it.  The departure from the palace is required as an allegory or parable to symbolize that we have to “see” everything to understand.  Nonetheless, the story makes the point that no amount of veneer on life can cover up the fact that it is “nasty, brutish, and short” (Thanks to Hobbes).

I have gone through Sid’s story before.  You can read it here.  He went out to try and find the truth, to be enlightened.  At first, he came to the conclusion that since he was not happy with all his riches, he should renunciate luxuries to find true happiness.  He became an ascetic, and he lived on virtually nothing.  But I think he realized that living on barely anything is barely living.   Furthermore, because he was starving he lacked energy to see and think.  It wasn’t until he received nourishment of goat’s milk (see page 32 here), nearly dying, that he found the energy to realize the Four Noble Truths.

This young goat needs nourishment. You do, too.

This young goat needs nourishment. You do, too.

By experiencing both extremes, Sid realized that neither was appropriate for a virtuous life.  For this reason, I think, his enlightenment (his discovery of the truth of virtuous life) necessarily was defined by The Middle Way.  In other words, Buddhist morality is one of moderation while realizing there are luxuries and deprivation in life.  When The Buddha realized this, he found true richness in life

This is not so different from the Stoic view that I previously addressed in my last post.  The Middle Way is the Stoic Way as well.

To me, it makes a lot of sense, and it has worked for many years in my journey.  As always…

““Do Not Seek To Follow In The Footsteps Of The Wise. Seek What They Sought.”–Basho