Ernie The Attorney

Subtlety & Fear

What if every day you showed up to work, eager to do something really good? Something meaningful.

What if you came up with ideas on how to do things better? Not at first, but only after you felt confident that you understood the point of the work and all of the subtle forces surrounding it.

What if, upon hearing your suggestions, your boss rejected them without much consideration? What if he made you feel small, suggesting that you were distracted? Your boss directs your attention to the goal: "do it this way," he says. The "goal" is to do it by a certain method. There is nothing subtle about the goal, or how to achieve it. Systems are never subtle.

Eventually you become demoralized. You wonder what the point of your work is. Why do you feel disloyal? Why doesn't your boss appreciate you?

Well, stop being so selfish. Get a grip.

Put yourself in your boss's shoes. He's worked in the system a long time; he know how things are supposed to be done. It's hard trying to get people to work within a system. Bosses don't have time for subtlety and novel ideas. They have to teach lots of people the old system, the one that they learned. Organizations like the one you work in need authority, and they need people to follow along without a lot of backtalk. What do you really want anyway?

Do you want something real?

What if every day you felt a sense of satisfaction about your work? What if you could try a new approach at the very moment you realized it was better? What if your boss completely supported this? What if you were the boss? What if you worked for yourself?

You would not be free of authority. But you would be free of institutional, corporate authority. Does that scare you? Then what are you afraid of?

You'll make mistakes, no doubt. But that's not what scares you, is it?

Fundamentalism & Religious Delusion

Richard Dawkins' excellent bookThe God Delusion is currently #12 on the NY Times best-seller list for paperback non-fiction. Dawkins is a scientist and wants to let people know that it's okay to be an atheist, despite strong resistance to the idea of questioning religious faith. His criticism of religious beliefs is polite and thoughtful, but of course that does not appease the faithful. The 'faithful' might also be called 'fundamentalists.'

What's a fundamentalist? Someone who looks at all new information to see if it matches their beliefs (or principles) and ignores that which doesn't match. The more extreme fundamentalists don't simply ignore the information, they become agitated. And really extreme fundamentalists have been known to attack. So offering new ideas can be harmful to your health. Especially if religion is involved. Just ask Galileo.

And where isn't religion involved? Even today, it's everywhere—even in places that seem implausible. Two hundred years ago our founders created a Constitution demanding the complete separation of church and state, but today practical reality tilts in precisely the opposite direction. Polls show that most Americans will elect only those political leaders who believe in God. Dawkins' is not running for U.S. President, but he has an important message: it's okay, sensible even, to question things that are unsupported by evidence. And he thinks that there isn't any meaningful evidence of God's existence.

Perhaps, though, he misunderstands the essence of religious faith.

The nice thing about a belief in God is that it offers us comfort and security. Who cares if it's provable? If it provides security then it must be a good thing. Non-fundamentalists, such as Dawkins, question even this proposition:

Then there is the security created by man in the idea of God. Many people ask me whether I believe in God, whether there is a God. You cannot discuss it. Most of our conceptions of God, of reality, of truth, are merely speculative imitations. Therefore, they are utterly false, and all our religions are based on such falsitites. A man who has lived all his life in a prison can only speculate about freedom; a man who has never experienced the ecstasy of freedom cannot know freedom. So it is of little avail to discuss God, truth; but if you have the intelligence, the intensity to destroy the barriers around you then you will know for yourself the fulfillment of life. You will no longer be a slave in a social or religious system.

By the way, the above words weren't written by Richard Dawkins, the scientist. They were spoken by J. Krishnamurti, a supremely spiritual man. His message was also that people should examine things for themselves, without preconceptions or conceptualizations. To him, this was the essence of spirituality.

Krishnamurti didn't want any followers, but he wound up having some, and still does. You don't hear much about them because they don't attract attention. They haven't started any wars, or persecuted people whose views they disagree with. Maybe they're deeply examining the world around them, which distracts them from the noble task of foisting views on others.

But back to Dawkins' book. Why is it called The God Delusion? It has to do with what the writer Robert Pirsig once observed: "When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

Amen to that, Brother Pirsig. Amen.

Learning when to quit

I just finished reading Seth Godin's excellent book, The Dip. It's "a little book that teaches you when to quit (and when to stick)." I have been thinking about this problem for several months now.

Mainly, I have thought about it in my yoga practice.

I've found that if I don't push myself I get bored, and of course I don't progress. But if I push too hard or in a thoughtless way then I tend to hurt myself. There seems to be this very fine balance point of (1) letting go and relaxing, while (2) creating a steady intention to go a bit farther. While thinking of those things, I also have to pay attention to my body's physical resistance, which is not always the same. Sometimes I can't go as far today as I have been going for the past week. And that's when I push, thinking I'm supposed to challenge myself. That's when I get injured.

There's an ego thing involved, of course.

Godin's book is interesting because it suggests that it's often a good idea to give up, a notion that at first seems completely heretical. Yet he shows that many successful people have become successful by quitting something big. Michael Crichton, after graduating from Harvard medical school, decided he didn't want to practice medicine (even though he would easily have made a lot of money) because he didn't think he'd be happy. He didn't even try it out for a few years. Instead he went on to be wildly successful doing something that he loved doing, but which presented a less certain future when he embarked on it. Smart people know when to quit, Godin says.

Usually.

He points out that smart people have one big weakness that usually keeps them from quitting at the right time. "Pride is the enemy of the Smart Quitter." This might be Hillary Clinton's problem. We all know that she's very smart, but somehow her campaign isn't winding up the way she first envisioned it. She's having financial trouble. The likelihood of her winning the nomination is getting smaller, and the cost of winning it is getting harder even from a non-financial standpoint. And despite it all, she proclaims she "won't quit."

Godin offers an interesting thought about the aftermath of quitting: it often feels very comforting. "One reason people feel really good after they quit a dead-end project is that they discover that hurting one's pride is not fatal." Obviously everyone wants to win, but it's true that learning how to lose is important too. Hillary touts herself as 'the experience candidate' and yet maybe she hasn't had enough experience learning when to give up. She's only run for elected office once (the U.S. Senate), and she won. That's the only elected position she's ever held, and now she's seeking one of the most important positions in our country.

It's true that a lot of skills can be learned on the job. But I can't think of too many world leaders who've learned the difficult art of quitting after they've been elected. That's probably the main reason so many wars continue even after it becomes clear they're both hopeless and unpopular.

How the tortoise beat the hare

The other day I saw a black SUV rev its engine and then zoom past a car on narrow street because the driver was impatient. As the SUV passed by I could see the driver, a soccer mom, casually talking on her cellphone. I looked back and saw that she had not made the light, so her NASCAR move was apparently for naught.

In the blog world I see people racing around trying every new gizmo/software and then offering up their immediate impressions as though this has great utility. One well-known tech blogger, whom I shall not name, seems to think that every conversation or encounter he has needs to be recorded and then served up to his many followers. What's most amazing is that hoards of people eagerly await this kind of information. He has wonderful backstage access to new technology, but his observations don't seem to have much value.

The mainstream media has been serving us 'stupid pie' for years. To keep their ratings up, they package their message for the lowest intellect. When bloggers first appeared there was hope that this would change but, alas, it appears that popular bloggers with continuous partial attention disorder are doing the same thing.

I've discovered somewhat recently that I don't enjoy, or benefit from, the hectic stream of observations made by people who would rather push the buzzer than listen to the whole question. Many of them are really nice people. But I can't let myself be part of their mad rush anymore, and so I've decided to let them pass me by.

When I was a kid I could never understand how the rabbit lost the race to the tortoise. The rabbit was much faster than the tortoise, and there was no reason why he shouldn't win. Turns out there is a reason: the rabbit has no idea where it's going.

Sadly, most of us are rabbits.

Do you mind?

J. Krishnamurti was a great Indian spiritual teacher who traveled the world giving lectures that were well attended by people seeking some deeper understanding.  Krishnamurti refused to give any pat answers, and his basic message was that you have to discover the truth by looking inside yourself. Many people had trouble understanding him, but they could sense that he grasped something powerful.  At one of his last lectures he surprised his audience by asking "Do you want to know my secret?"

Everyone became silent and sharply attentive.  Many in the audience had been coming to his lectures for over two decades and still failed to grasp the essence of his message.  Finally, after all these years, the master was going to distill it into something simple.  "This is my secret," he said. "I don't mind what happens."

How you do what you do...

There's a zen saying  –“chop wood, carry water”– that I invoke when I find myself getting antsy.  It reminds me that it's about how you do things, as much as what you do.  In the end we'll all die, survived perhaps by a few close friends.  Oh and speaking of which, if any of you survive me then I'd appreciate a eulogy something along the lines of this one.

My Bible Studies continue...

As I mentioned last week, I've resolved to read the Bible.  I'm still in the midst of Genesis: quite a fantastic story.  Old Testament God wasn't much into explaining things, which is probably why Eve was so easy beguiled into eating the apple.  If only he'd explained why the tree of knowledge was so terrible we'd probably still be happily cavorting in the nude. 

Of course, as any prolific creator knows, it's hard to foresee the weird evolution of one's work.  When God was starting out he foolishly expected man to abide his dictates without question (kind of like expecting Gilligan not to botch the rescue mission).  From time to time, drastic measures were employed.  Yet somehow man never seemed to get the message.  And so God was forced to start from scratch, which was what the 40 days of flooding was all about (Microsoft, are you listening?)

It's easy to criticize Old Testament God for being rash and overly judgmental, but in fact he was supremely patient with the chosen people.  For example, when Abraham got one of his slave girls pregnant, God didn't strike him down or even say anything.  Of course, Abraham got a major whammy when his wife Sarah took her son Isaac out to play and ran into Abraham's concubine, who was out strolling with the illegitimate son.  Needless to say Abraham got an earful from Sarah and became despondent.  But God took him aside and told him he'd clean up the mess, relocating the concubine and her son to a new place --and even offering to give them a great blessing. So God, at times, came across almost like a good drinking buddy.

I realize that my interpretations of the Bible are not in line with official dogma, but they have enriched my appreciation of religion.  Reading the Bible has been helpful in understanding the evolution of man's relationship with God.  Perhaps, I could benefit from a Bible study group, like the one advertised in a sign on St. Charles Avenue.  Close examination of the sign, which is pictured on the left (click on it for a larger view), reveals an interesting message.

As much as I'd like to find out about the Parks & Parkway's interpretation of the Bible, I don't really want to study religion in a group setting.  One on one study with Reverend Charles is much more appealing.  I had no idea that the Apostle Luke wasn't from New Jersey.  Did you?

Biblical power

My Uncle George, who made his living as a freelance writer, used to exhort me to read the Bible from cover to cover.  I found this odd because his contempt for organized religion was open and seething.  When I was sixteen I finally thought to ask why I should bother to read the Bible if it wasn't a pathway to salvation.  "Oh right," Uncle George reflected, "well, you should appreciate the quality of writing, because it's truly stunning.  Especially the New Testament."  After a pause he continued. "Did you know that, of all the books ever published, the Bible has the highest percentage of one syllable words?" 

I didn't know that.  I still don't because, other than my uncle's swift pronouncement, I've never heard this factoid again.  I understood his point, though:  the Bible's message was linguistically simple and easily accessible, even though early religious leaders used its message to advance political goals.

Today's political leaders still rely on the power of the Bible, and with good reason. Polls show that 60% percent of voters prefer candidates who believe in God. And many voters think that the Bible is the literal word of God.  I thought about the Bible's importance in politics as I watched this fairly recent YouTube video.  Rick Klau said (weeks ago) that Mike Huckabee's response made him a lock for the Republican nomination, and the recent Iowa caucus results lend support to Rick's prediction.  I agree that Huckabee handled the question adeptly, but I was baffled at the notion that religion is such a bellweather in contemporary American politics.  Huckabee's rise makes me dwell on the importance of the Bible in modern society.  This, in turn, reminded me that I'd failed to follow through on my uncle's suggestion. So I've resolved to actually read the Bible --to experience its literary and spiritual majesty directly, bypassing the venal filters of politicians and evangelical TV ministers.

I'm less interested in the quality of writing or the literal veracity of the Bible, and more curious about the transcendent message.  Ideally, understanding the eternal mysteries of existence shouldn't hinge on the word-symbols that have been translated through many languages and many generations.  I don't believe the Bible needs to be literally true in order to convey important messages.  And I'm glad I can draw my own conclusions about the Bible without having to convince others that my conclusions are 'right,' or widely acceptable.

Is it possible to find spiritual meaning in the Bible without external guidance?  Or without believing that every word is literally true?  I guess I'll find out.

As for mixing the religion and politics, I'm not in favor of that. And I doubt my allegiance will shift from Obama to Huckabee anytime soon.  I like Huckabee, but I wouldn't feel comfortable with him as the President, and I'm definitely glad he wasn't the governor of Louisiana when Hurricane Katrina happened. It would seem that when religion intrudes into interpretation of insurance policies things have gotten out of hand. But that's just my opinion.  No doubt the polling numbers offer a more enlightened view.

Freshly resolved for New Years, but needing a good 'how-to' book

New Years is a popular time to make resolutions (most of which go unfulfilled, but that's not something we celebrate or dwell on).  I was reminded of this as I entered the local Barnes and Noble because right up front there were books about fitness and yoga, followed by books on saving and financial planning.  However, being the sort of person who likes to get below the surface, I walked past these grab-bag offerings and headed toward the section on Enlightenment.  After much searching I realized that there was no section on Enlightenment.  The New Age section was the closest thing I could find.

I was quickly overwhelmed by the vast collection.  There was a book called "Astral Traveling for Beginners," which astonished me.  I don't want to arrogantly dismiss the possibility of Astral Traveling, but the notion that I could learn this by reading a beginner's guidebook is hard for me to grasp.  Have we evolved to the point where ancient mysticism is now available to the masses?  Apparently so.

Continuing to browse, I spotted a book called The Complete Idiots Guide to Communicating with Spirits.  In this book one learns:

• Meditative Methods - to help you tap into your innate medium abilities
• Guidance and Assistance - from family and friends who have crossed to the other side
• Comfort and Healing - through spirit contact and messages

Many people might think me an idiot for holding such a book, so I glanced around.  Seeing no one, I opened the book and found this incisive rebuttal to my petty fear:

"You’re no idiot, of course. You know life is a journey and that physical birth and death are its points of transition. Many people, across cultures and faiths, believe the spirit lives on—and have experienced contact with the spirits of loved ones who have passed to the higher side. This contact is joyous, comforting, and healing—but you wonder if it’s really real and whether you can share in it, too. Don’t give up the spirit!"

Despite the allure of a new form of communication, this wasn't my idea of 'spiritual enlightenment.'  Fortunately, there are many, many books in the Complete Idiot series that deal with spiritual matters.  The Complete Idiot's Guide to Toltec Wisdom by Sheri A. Rosenthal, DPM was intriguing.  It contained a foreword by Miguel Ruiz, the master of Toltec wisdom and author of The Four Arguments (not part of the Complete Idiot series).  The book purports to be 'filled with practical tools that readers can employ immediately.'  The web page for the book has a form so you can be notified immediately if the author releases a new book. Unfortunately, there is no convenient way to be notified when the author achieves Total Enlightenment.

In the end I decided to play it safe and stick to the well-worn path.  The Complete Idiot's Guide to Jesus is "perfect for Bible study experts, new believers, and the just plain curious." If I make good progress with that then maybe next year I'll be ready to speak with ghosts and Toltecs.

So what about truth?

'Truth' is one of those words that we use so frequently that we never really stop to think about what it means.  We talk about 'the truth' as though there is this fixed thing that exists in an observable state that we can all agree on.  It would be nice if we could agree on some truths, but if you look at the sweep of human history you'll see that people have been fighting about 'truths' for centuries.  Is there a God?  Who are the 'chosen people'? The list goes on and on.

Okay, so we're not so good with discovering spiritual truth (assuming there is such a thing).  What about scientific truth?  The fable of science that we tell ourselves is this: A bunch of smart people who like to measure things very precisely conduct experiments and then they determine what conditions lead to certain outcomes.  If the same conditions always lead to the same outcome then we have discovered 'causation.'  In real life isolating conditions that lead to other conditions is hard.  So what happens with these really smart guys is that they write lots of obtuse papers and attend conferences where they speak in a language that is incomprehensible to local news reporters.  But that doesn't stop the poofy-haired anchorman from trying to explain that scientists have now discovered that, say, coffee is actually good for you. Oh, but we all know that caffeine research isn't where the action is.

Stem-cell research is a fascinating field of study, as is everything in the field of genomics.  The notion that life has a blueprint that is encoded into cellular structures, or even smaller structures, is mind-boggling.  If there is agreement among scientists about what is possible we have to remember that it isn't really 'truth.'  At least not a 'commonly perceivable truth.' Why not?  Well, because we usually perceive the world we live in through certain filters.  The political realm is one strong filter.  But let's not forget about religious filters.  A lot of people in this country rely heavily on so-called 'religious leaders' to help them make sense of the world that they live in, which leads to some very interesting notions of what might be 'true.' (See e.g. Pat Robertson explaining what caused the recent ice storms).

I used to watch the local news to find out 'what happened' what happened in my community.  And I used to believe in Santa Clause.  More recently, I have decided that it's better for me to decide for myself what is true.  I have great respect for scientists and anyone who tries to suppress prejudice and bias in making estimates about what is true. But, frankly, we're all human and those are hard tendencies to suppress.  One thing I am pretty sure of, though: the chances that groups of humans will be able to identify 'the truth' is zilch. Assuming that 'the truth' is something that can be manifest in the three-dimensional world that we all think of as a receptacle for reality.

One True Sentence - not coming soon

Hemingway's advice to aspiring writers was characteristically brief: "All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence that you know."  I'd like to to follow this advice, but I have a lot of preparation to do first.

I don't know many true things and so I don't have a lot of material to work with.  I know a lot of untrue things, and even more things that I treat as true without really thinking about it.  For example, the other day my brother sneezed and I said "God bless you."  In the silence that followed I had time to reflect on why I said this.  I don't particularly understand what God is, and I don't have any idea why a blessing is so important after one sneezes.  I seem to remember some myth about the soul being briefly in peril after a sneeze, and an offer of God's blessing has some beneficial effect.  Or so it was believed.

But I don't believe that, and so I resolved not to say "God bless you" whenever someone sneezes.  But it seems impolite not to say something.  And that something will have to be a short unobtrusive comment.  I decided not to spend too much time agonizing over this, and made snap decision to simply say "Bless you."  It has religious overtones, but so what?  At least I'd be saying something in a purposeful way instead of offering an automatic incantation.

A few minutes later, my brother sneezed again.  "God bless you" I said reflexively before I had time to think.  Geez, how lame.  I knew that finding truth was elusive.  Looks like dispensing with poor habits of thought is hard too.  But, that's what I'll have to do first if I want to write true sentences.  Don't wait around because this could take awhile...

Take my advice, please.

Today I had the opportunity to offer advice to two people.  One person called and asked for my advice, and the other person didn't ask for my advice (but, in the grand tradition of being human, I offered it anyway).  The person who asked for the advice needed merely to be told that I didn't have any special knowledge, which was a welcome message.  The person that didn't ask for my advice didn't seem to receive it well.

I try to refrain from offering advice because people rarely appreciate it, and it seems to be a waste of time.  Which raises an important question: why agree to speak at Continuing Legal Education (CLE) seminars? 

Well, first, the people attending CLEs are there because they have to get a certain number of hourly credits, and so if they have to get advice from someone there's no great harm in being the one who offers it up. They get official credit for ignoring my advice, which is productive for them.  And, for every hour of CLE advice doled out I get three hours of CLE credit, which is really productive for me. 

So, I guess if you're forced to deal with advice, then it's definitely better to give than to receive.  That's all I'm saying. 

My short holiday offering.

Thank you for reading, for wondering, and for caring. 

And, most of all, thank you for connecting.

Have a great holiday!

Today's moment of zen

I got a nice email from Alan Cathcart, asking if I knew of any blogs that were focused on spirituality in the workplace.  I didn't so I'm hoping that some of you can help him out.  Meanwhile, check out Alan's very inspiring webpage.  Namaste.