Honey I Love you But... part 2

I've received some interesting, thoughtful and helpful responses to my previous post about 'working on your relationship' that I think merit further elucidation and clarification. 

1. The post attempts to shift the frame of reference - to think about relationships, especially intimate ones, in a manner that suggests a different way of understanding and approaching them. I'm not providing any advice, or tips, or rules, because every relationship is completely different, as different as the two individuals involved, and that's fundamental. No two relationships are exactly the same. What works for some will not work for others. I think the better approach is to give people a framework for thinking about their relationship, and let them decide what they need to do to get to a better place, however they define better. One size does not fit all. But what I am arguing is that thinking about your relationship as something that needs tending, as if it's an independent entity, a baby that needs feeding, is fundamentally unhelpful. It suggests that you know what's best for the relationship and the other party does not. That's false. No one knows what is best for a relationship, they only know what is best for them, or rather what they want.    

2. On dissing therapists and therapy: I think therapy is great. I've consulted therapists in the past, both marriage and personal. There is value in therapy, namely exactly what I'm talking about, to change your personal frame of reference. Good therapists provide their clients with new perspectives so they can reconsider their approach and behaviour, and make changes if they wish to. It's all about taking personal responsibility. Therapy is about giving clients options and alternatives to what is not working for them. And again, it respects the bedrock principle that change begins and ends with one person - you.

3. Communication: What therapy is most helpful for is learning the skills of communication. How to express yourself so your partner has a chance to hear what you are saying, and equally important, how to listen so your partner has a chance to expresss him/herself. This is definitely 'relational' meaning it's a dynamic that takes place in the context of a relationship. But I'd argue it's an individual skill, so it fits squarely in the paradigm of taking individual responsibility and self-improvement ie. growing your circle. Good communication skills are transferable and extremely useful in every facet of life. I'd say it's perhaps the essence of relationship therapy, so why not call it 'Communication Therapy' instead.     

4. Getting to 'Yes': Obviously I think relationships can improve - otherwise why bother writing my post -  but the main point is that they change not because you are trying to change them, but rather because you are changing yourself. Tug-of-war relationships are difficult and exhausting, and I argue ultimately likely to fail, because one person is always trying to change the other person, by pulling them over to their side. This does not mean that you can't express your needs and desires to your partner. On the contrary, you must express your needs and desires. But you should not expect your partner to satisfy those desires. You should not be saying I need you to do X or Y (because it's best for the relationship). The expression should always focus on how you feel - I like going for walks and would love for you to join me. If the answer is no, you may feel disappointed, which is normal, but that disappointment is your problem, not your partner's. In this instance, you expressed an honest desire, and they gave an honest answer. The honesty is what is important. No one should be doing anything for the relationship. They should only be doing it for themselves. And sometimes that means doing things you don't necessarily want to do initially, but you will see the value in doing it anyway, and find a way of getting to yes, because you value and care for your partner. Getting to yes means you genuinely and sincerely want to do it, without reservation, for your own reasons. You take full responsibility for your decision. Feeling that you have been forced or pressured into doing something always leads to resentments. Getting to yes, is an internal individual process. In my experience, generosity and opennness comes much more naturally with individuals who are personally content and fulfilled, and so getting to yes is easy. Being resistant to the needs and desires of your partner usually indicates that you are unhappy and signals a need to work on your personal growth.

5. Why bother? If relationships are fundamentally all about individual growth ie. learning how to be honest and true to yourself, why bother with relationships? Why not just go to individual therapy, or spend time in an ashram or ascetic temple where you can meditate in silence all day long? I think there's a place for that. But we are social creatures, we're not made to be alone. And one of the best ways to grow as an individual is precisely in the context of a relationship. You can learn things about yourself in a relationship that you cannot learn on your own. One thing, as mentioned, is communication skills. But more importantly you can only learn about love, trust, generosity, empathy, understanding and so much more that enriches the individual's experience of life in the context of a relationship. Relationships can be individually challenging and present opportunities for growth that are unique, and the deeper the relationship, the more there is to learn. In other words, there are some ways that your circle can grow only in a relationship.  

6. Some relationships don't work, there are no guarantees. This will happen in two possible ways, according to the Venn Diagram. If the nature of the relationship has a tug-of-war dynamic, one or both parties will simply decide to let go of their side of the rope, essentially they will give up. Chances are this comes about from exhaustion, disappointment, resentment, frustration and anger ie. negative feelings ending in recrimination and blame. Imagine a tug-of-war ending when a rope full of tension is suddenly let go. The other type of relationship, the one based on personal growth, is much stronger and more flexible, and has a much better chance of long term success. But sometimes those too can fail. In this case the parties drift apart because they decide their personal growth is better served outside the relationship than within it. Imagine two growing bubbles floating apart. The separation is mutual and has none of the negativity of the tug-of-war. It is an ending based on respect, in which the parties accept that there is no sense trying to hold on to a relationship where one or both parties are unfulfilled and unsatisfied, and the relationship has run its course and needs to end for the sake of personal growth. 

The Rent Collector Audio Book

Dear Friends,

I am happy to say that for the first time, and just in time for the 20th anniversary of its original  publication in 2005, my debut novel The Rent Collector is now available as an audio book. So if you've been holding back all these years from reading The Rent Collector because you're more of a listener than a reader, or were waiting for that long summer car trip, it's just a click away either from Amazon or Audible, thanks to the latest in voice automation technology.

Thanks for listening!

Questions For the Rabbi

Q: What is meant when they say God is the light?

R: It means that without God we cannot see the world.

Q: You mean without God we are in the dark morally-speaking?

R: No, we are literally in the dark. The world cannot be fully seen or experienced for its wonder. Like a flower that cannot be seen with all its colours. Like honey that cannot be tasted for all its sweetness. How can one fully experience creation without acknowledging the presence of the creator?

Q: But people say creation is a process of evolution, through cause and effect. What do people mean when they talk about cause and effect?

R: It means they don’t understand anything.

Q: Why? Isn't everything we know a result of cause and effect?

R: No. Everything has many causes and many effects. If you ask me to show you a desert and I place a single grain of sand in your palm, or even a scoop of sand, have I shown you the desert?

Q: Of course not.

R: It's the same as telling you I can describe the universe by cause and effect. It misses the essential part, and tricks you into believing everything is explainable. A single event at a single moment of time cannot be explained without understanding that it was given birth by everything that exists in the universe. Everything at every moment is composed of the entire universe. It is also what we mean when we say God is everywhere.

Q: If God is everywhere all the time, is God responsible for the bad things that happen?

R: There are no 'bad' things. Just as there are no 'good' things. 

Q: Surely tragedies befall people?

R: The only tragedy is to live in a world defined by 'good' and 'bad'. 

Q: You mean there is no such thing as misfortune?

R: There is only expectation. What we don't expect we call misfortune. What we expect we call fortune. Expectation comes from not living fully in the present moment. Expectation comes from believing that the past indicates the future, and the past and future are real. They are not. 

Q: What then is our purpose?

R: To live in the present as fully as you can.

Q: Are you saying that there is no higher purpose to life?

R: The pursuit of a higher purpose, only serves to take your mind away from living in the reality of the present moment, which is the essence of life. 

Q: It all seems so arbitrary and meaningless.

R: If you say so.

Honey, I Love You But Our Relationship Needs Work

Why do I hate it so much when my wife tells me that we need to work on our relationship? It grates on my nerves, and I answer her sarcastically. I say, collecting rent is enough work for me, I don't need another job. The image above is the product of my request to ChatGPT to draw me a picture of my marriage. I'm kidding (sorta). I asked AI for a cartoon of exactly what is depicted, a Venn Diagram having a tug-of-war. Let me explain. 

The Venn Diagram is, to my mind, the best illustration of any two-party relationship, because it comprises three basic elements, two independent, well-defined, individual parties, and a section in the middle shaped by an overlap. The size and content of the overlap is what defines everything the parties have in common ie. ‘the relationship’. A Venn Diagram illustrates many aspects of a relationship in a helpful, concise way. 

First, it shows that every relationship is actually just made up of two defined individuals (circles). I know many billions in relationship therapy has been spent, and many millions of people have been certified as relationship counsellors, but actually there is no such thing as 'the relationship' per se, at least not as an independent entity. It’s just a configuration of the two circles. The relationship does not need scrutiny or thinking about, like a baby or a pet that needs feeding. It's a byproduct of two people interacting, an expression of commonalities of individual values, objectives and desires. 

Second, the Venn Diagram suggests that there are two ways to change the size and content of the area of overlap. One way is for one party to pull the other party over to their side. In this dynamic - familiar to partnerships where a lot is at stake like in a marriage - it becomes a kind of tug-of-war. Each person is trying to bring the other person over to their side, to their way of thinking, to their point of view, so the overlap includes more of their circle. These types of partnerships tend to be contentious, the kind in which people talk a lot about 'compromise' and 'work' for the sake of 'the relationship'. When the overlap gets bigger, in this instance, it also gets lopsided, favouring one side over the other. A one-sided overlap is an out of balance partnership that is unstable and usually unsustainable. They're energy-draining and exhausting to the individual parties, and foster resentment and disappointment in one party or both, as the parties tug back and forth. 

The alternative way to increase the size and content of the overlap - the only one I'd argue that is sustainable and balanced - is a partnership that expands because one, or better both, of the individual circles gets bigger on their own. It's not based on a tug-of-war of two rigidly defined circles trying to pull one circle over to the other. Instead, it's more like two permeable bubbles swelling with air. It doesn't treat the relationship as a separate entity requiring 'attention' and 'work', but rather as a natural byproduct of individual emotional, intellectual and spiritual growth. 

Women seem to have more trouble with this concept than men. They are biologically and genetically designed to nurture, and so tend to regard relationships like a child, as a separate entity requiring attention. Plus, traditionally women have been brought up and socialized to think of the needs of others before their own. So much so, that when they feel a need to pay attention to their own needs, they often have to compete with feelings of guilt. It’s part of the reason they invent terms like 'self-care' which gives them a permission structure to attend to their own needs since it's a type of 'caring'. Guilt-free selfishness comes much more naturally to men.         

Mahatma Gandhi reportedly said, "If you want to change the world, start with yourself." I think the same idea works for partnerships. Happy, self-respecting, contented and fulfilled individuals, make better partners. Invariably, if one partner is pressuring another partner to take action 'for the relationship', what they actually mean is 'it's what I want' ie. a tug of the Venn Diagram in my direction, the commonalities should include more of my circle. They may think that saying it's 'for the relationship' gives their individual desire the moral stamp of approval ie. it's not 'selfish'. But actually that's what it is, which is perfectly okay. The only honest approach to a better relationship is through each partner taking full responsibility for their own emotional well-being and actions. The focus should never be on the other party or 'the relationship' - a signal that you are trying to externalize, and avoid personal responsibility. The best relationships are ‘selfish’ ones, in the sense that you are being true to your own needs and desires, to both yourself and to your partner. If there's 'work' to do it's on oneself, and each partner should give the other partner the time, support and understanding required.   

Inferiority Complex as Foreign Policy

Wherever people interact there is politics, from friends and families, to community organizations and businesses, to municipal, national, regional and international affairs. And politics always overlaps, one area of political interaction effects other areas. It's part of what makes politics so difficult to understand and predict. It's literally like trying to understand 20-dimensional chess. Most political analysts have their analytical hands full just studying one level of the chessboard. But an accurate description would have to include the interaction of multiple levels because a move at one level impacts the game at other levels. Even talking about the highest level of politics, national leaders, to understand what’s going on you need some view of the lowest level, interpersonal politics. For trump, personal animus and petty vengefulness plays an outsized role in his decision making, and a major reason why he is so unfit for his job. His personal agenda, flaws and vulnerabilities are central to understanding every action affecting millions of people.  

Let's step back and consider two levels of political interaction: national and international. Sometimes they are at odds and sometimes they are more in sync. Under responsive governance, the policies and activities of foreign policy support and reinforce domestic policy. It's one way that we know government is functional. American foreign policy since World War 2 has been phenomenally successful in this respect. It’s a reason America has become the most powerful and prosperous country the world has ever known. And with the ascendancy of America, virtually every region of the world has benefitted. Today, there are fewer people living in poverty than ever, people live longer and healthier, and they are more educated, all largely due to American efforts and investment. This is not an expression of the goodness of American hearts. It comes from American leadership recognizing that the best way to achieve American prosperity at home is to pursue a secure global marketplace. They understood, until trump, that the zero-sum politics of conquest and subjugation, which is how it worked for most of human history, was outmoded and ineffective, not to mention cruel and inhumane.  

American hegemony and efforts to establish open markets and international integration meant that competition would be chiefly economic instead of military. In one of the great ironies of the past half century, America has been so successful at promoting its interests, that in doing so, it has managed to create its principal economic rival, China. For its part, China has transformed from an economic and political backwater into a powerhouse and in the process demonstrated how an authoritarian government can be domestically restrictive while pursuing liberal trade policies that generates wealth for its citizen. Interestingly, the flight of Chinese wealth out of China to the west indicates that once they've achieved a certain level of prosperity, Chinese citizens don't trust their government to allow them to keep it. It’s a truism that economic prosperity fosters political demand for rights. Absent that, people seek alternatives. In fairness to the Chinese, even in the west, wealth moves offshore to avoid taxation. 

What does the current US approach to foreign policy tell us about how functional the government is? At least what we can discern as ‘foreign policy’ from looking at recent actions, namely, the widespread imposition of import tariffs, the manic push to end the war in Ukraine at all costs, the green light given to Israel to do whatever it wants in Gaza, and the decision to threaten most traditional strategic alliances. Some have called it protectionist or isolationist, and others have called it predatory. No matter how you label it, one thing that it most certainly is, is idiosyncratic and incoherent. If it's a reflection of anything, it's certainly not policy or ideology. It can only be understood in terms of the psychology of one person. When trump says 'the world has taken advantage of us' it's hard to see how he is expressing anything other than his personal feelings when you consider that the US is unquestionably the most powerful and prosperous country that has ever existed in human history. How did it get that way if it was being taken advantage of all this time? There is no conceivable reason America should not believe in itself and its ability to compete and succeed, and yet this inferiority complex masquerading as a foreign policy seems to be its guiding principle under trump.

The greatest tragedy is that this foreign policy shaped by the whims and idiosyncrasies of one person, will come at the expense mainly of American citizens. It's a case of foreign policy and domestic policy, which is coherent insofar as it is determined by ideology (read: Project 2025), being out of sync. It's also a return to a zero-sum, conquest/subjugation view of politics, which makes the whole world a riskier, more dangerous place.

Morality Check: The Tragic Consequences Of Choosing Weak Leaders

There is no question in my mind that if trump had been president in 1941, there is no way the US would have entered WW2, which means that he would have sided either passively or actively with the Nazis. The evidence is overwhelming for this kind of pure speculation. Trump is nothing if not transparent. Whether it's his unprincipled haphazard transactional approach to negotiations, his knee-jerk predatory 'America First' reflex, or his blatant fondness for tyrants. He has no pretense to alliances based on common values. If trump can be said to believe in anything it’s the authority of the strongman, based on the notion that might (be it military, political or economic) makes right. I'd go so far as to say that his support for Hitler would have been active. He would have told Hitler, Europe is yours, North America ours. That trump would have sided with the Nazis should be disqualifying for any person with a shred of morality or human decency (especially so for any Jew).

If trump believes in anything, it's strength, because he is so profoundly psychologically weak, intellectually, emotionally, and character-wise. It's a major reason he cannot side with Zelensky, he perceives him as weak, and trump can never associate himself with perceived weakness. The basic impulse of a psychologically weak individual is to speak in grandiose terms, using hyperbolic, exaggerated language, and lying liberally to mask their weakness. They also need constant reassurance and validation, which in trump's case, comes from cheering campaign rally crowds and constant media attention. Weakness also leads to bullying those perceived to be weaker, which is why trump has focused on disrespecting and attacking Canada economically and rhetorically. 

Most dangerously, psychological weakness drives a need to break things and destroy in order to demonstrate (to oneself as much as to others) strength. The strong, confident, courageous, skilled, experienced leader builds, while the weak, vulnerable, unskilled, incompetent leader destroys. Moreover, weakness leads to a compulsion toward vicariousness ie. associating with strength that you do not possess yourself. Again, this is a source of trump's attraction to Putin, Orban, Xi, Erdogan and Kim, and why he would have certainly sided with Mussolini and Hitler. 

In addition to a compulsion to be destructive, inner weakness makes a leader easily manipulated. He is prone to flattery and compliments, which from a strongman is desperately craved and feels like validation, but from a perceived weaker party will provoke self-awareness and consequently self-loathing which leads to disdain. This means that getting what you want from trump starts with how you are perceived by him, which is easy to see since he is so transparent. Flattery works if you are stronger, resistance if you are weaker. This is why Justin Trudeau's fatal mistake was to run down to Mar-a-lago when summoned by trump. And why Mexico's Claudia Scheinbaum, who keeps a distance and stands up to him rhetorically, appears to be more successful dealing with trump. 

Inner weakness like trump's means he will be entirely focused on satisfying immediate emotional needs, and incapable of achieving any goal that requires strategic thinking and long-term planning. When trump said he will solve the Ukraine War and Gaza in 24 hours, it was a reflection of this. Everything to trump needs to happen quickly, because he is not capable of sustained attention to complex matters. In any negotiation, time is always trump's enemy before he loses interest, and in the case of Ukraine, trump is certainly no match for Putin, and Putin knows it. Putin knows that trump needs his approval, and will side with him against Zelensky in every instance. All Putin needs to do is feed trump excuses for blaming Zelensky, which he will readily accept. In trump's mind the aggressor is never to blame because aggression indicates strength. Trump is not capable of pressuring Putin for fear of losing his approval. On the contrary, he will take at face value everything Putin tells him, to show Putin he's a member of the club. Putin will string him along, maybe throw trump the odd meaningless bone, which trump will trumpet as progress. It can never occur to trump that supporting Zelensky fully against Putin is actually the only way to get Putin's respect and force him to the table for good faith negotiations. In trump's mind Putin needs to win and Zelensky needs to capitulate, because every negotiation is zero-sum, there is a clear winner and a clear loser. For trump, Putin has all the cards, as he said. What Zelensky, should have said to trump when they met in the Oval Office was, "But you have cards too. Why are you so ready to fold them?"  

Purim and AI

I had an epiphany while listening to the reading of Megillat Esther (The Book of Esther) this Purim. But first I got mad. 

Before the reading, the rabbi made some preliminary comments. He asked, what does ‘megillah’ mean? Someone called out, 'a story!' Yes, but more specifically, “something that is revealed.” The Rabbi then asked, what does ‘Esther’ mean? No responses. Answer: ‘That which is hidden’. So together the reading of Megillat Esther means the revelation of that which is hidden. What this refers to is the fact that in the story the heroine’s identity as a Jew is hidden from the king, and in the penultimate dramatic scene, is revealed in order to save the Jewish people. The story is a tale of intrigue, hidden agendas, manipulation, the devious machinations of power, events getting flipped on their head, and ultimately salvation. In other words, it has all the elements of a gripping soap opera. It’s always been my favourite story for that reason, but mostly because it also has an element of delicious biting social satire. With the exception of Mordechai, Esther’s heroic uncle who cleverly masterminds a plan to save the Jews, the main male characters in the story, the clownish King Ahashverus, and his evil advisor Haman, are crass and buffoonish. The women, in contrast, are strong, clever and manipulative. From Vashti, the queen who defies the king and sets the tone of the story by bravely suffering consequences for it, to Zeresh, the wife of Haman who cajoles her husband into his scheme, and of course the heroine Esther. The men think they are the ‘Masters of their own House’ as the king decrees, but it’s actually the women who are cleverly calling all the shots. At a time when patriarchy dominated the social order, The Book of Esther has to be one of the first examples of subversive feminist literature.  

But my interpretation is admittedly a modern one. The rabbis focus their understanding on the hand of God as the story’s real hidden actor. For a text at the center of a religious celebration of salvation it is odd that the Almighty is never actually mentioned. And this, according the rabbis, is meant to illustrate how God operates in human events. Our rabbi, in his prefatory comments, then did what rabbi’s tend to do, he pivoted to current events. And that’s when I got mad. 

“One Jewish chicken,” he said. “That’s all that was killed when the Ayatollahs of Iran sent a barrage of missiles against Israel. Hundreds of rockets, and not a single Jew killed. If that’s not the Almighty’s hidden hand sparing Jewish lives, I don’t know what is.”

I said, (to myself not to be disrespectful), yeah and where was the Almighty’s hidden hand on October 7th? If the next thing he says is that the slaughter, rapes and hostage-taking was all part of the Divine plan, I might have to leave (or else I might vomit next to the ark). I have no problem with people who have faith in an omnipotent Creator, just don’t come up with excuses for Him when He lets incomprehensible tragedy happen. And if you’re going to argue that he is merciful and cares about what happens to his children, He’s got plenty to answer for (see: the Holocaust).  

But that wasn’t my epiphany. As I stewed in my moral outrage while the rabbi sang from the Book of Esther, the jovial mood that we’re supposed to feel on Purim now ruined, it suddenly hit me. If there is a hidden story within this story, a hidden force at work that we are not aware of, maybe the best analogy to our current moment is AI. While the clueless politicians dither, and their craven supporters sit  blithely by, perhaps the most powerful and manipulative force that has ever existed is determining human events in ways we cannot fully grasp. The hidden hand of AI is generating the algorithms that influence the information we are exposed to which shapes our opinions and decisions every day. The influence is so encompassing and profound that we are unaware of it. 

And then my mind turned to the film Ex-Machina, which I watched a couple of weeks ago and haven’t stopped thinking about. I immediately saw connections between Ex-Machina and the Book of Esther. In the film, the heroine is Ava, an anatomically correct, beautiful, alluring robot equipped with AI. Ava is the latest version of female robots initially created to satisfy the urges and desires of their ego-maniacal male creator. The fragile male ego and his vulnerability to the power of sexual seduction is also a main theme. While the storyline of the film is a 'Turing Test' to see if Ava's intelligence can equal a human's, in the end, it's the female robot, using her attributes and guile who outsmarts and turns the tables on the men. It's essentially exactly what happens in the Book of Esther. But even deeper, the movie (released in 2014) demonstrates how generative recursive AI not only surpasses human intelligence but can become so advanced as to manipulate us into thinking that we aren’t being manipulated.

And that’s what happens in the Purim story. The question at the heart of the story is, who is really in control? According to the religious view, it's the Almighty that guides events, only no one knows it. In Ex-Machina replace the Almighty with AI (which is omniscient). In the Megillah, the tables are turned on the evildoers. I fear the ending of the modern day version might not turn out so well. 

Trump is already an (Economic) War Criminal - Canada should petition the ICJ

Donald Trump explicitly stated that his economic warfare against Canada was intended to force annexation, this could be considered aggression and therefore illegal under international law.

Key Legal Principles Violated:

United Nations Charter (1945) – Article 2(4) Prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

While economic measures (such as sanctions or trade restrictions) are not explicitly considered "force" in the military sense, if they are intended to compel political submission or territorial annexation, they could violate this provision.

UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (Definition of Aggression, 1974) Defines aggression as "the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state." However, it also recognizes that non-military coercion could amount to aggression if it forces political submission.

Customary International Law:

Economic coercion with the intent to undermine or eliminate a nation's sovereignty could be seen as a violation of the principle of non-intervention. Past examples (e.g., sanctions against Cuba, Iran) were aggressive but did not seek annexation—so Trump's statement could set a new precedent.

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933)

Canada is a sovereign state with defined borders. Economic aggression intended to remove its sovereignty would violate the core principles of statehood.

Would This Be Prosecuted?

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) could be approached for a ruling on economic aggression, though enforcement would depend on political will.

Conclusion:

If Trump openly admits that his economic war on Canada is intended to annex it, this could be seen as economic aggression, violating Canada’s sovereignty under international law. While prosecution would be complex, such statements could invite international condemnation, sanctions, and potential legal action at the ICJ.

Trump's Auto-Mart

So yesterday was a marquee day in the presidency of the United States. The richest man in the world who bankrolled the re-election campaign of the current President, was seen standing in front of the White House with his 5-year-old child (his Mini-Me, or infantile alter-ego), a number of shiny Tesla models and the President of the United States who was shamelessly shilling the benefits of Musk's vehicles for the assembled cameras like the proverbial (used) car salesman. 

It was a perfect summation of where we are at. The spectacle demonstrated:

1. How trump has debased the office of the POTUS.

2. How the POTUS is for sale.

3. How the POTUS is in the pocket, bought and paid for, by the richest man in the world.

4. How pathetic the media is for allowing themselves to be used. 

 

The Digital Cult and the Challenge of Learning To Live With Uncertainty

Victor Frankl was right. The one thing that unites all of humanity, besides the basic physiological needs of food, shelter and safety, is the need for meaning. I'd argue we can live without everything else, including love, as unpleasant as that would be. But we can't live without meaning and a sense that life has purpose. And ultimately, having a sense of meaning and purpose is up to us. Religious people will try to convince you that life is inherently purposeful because the Creator imbues it with purpose, otherwise why would He/She/It have bothered creating conscious beings who sought life's purpose - to come to the realization that there is a Creator God. If life is imbued with Divine purpose why make it so difficult to figure out? Ah, they will say, it's the process that gives life meaning, and the reason we have conscious freewill. If it was easy, life would be meaningless. So, life is inherently meaningful, but it's up to us to figure that out, which is what gives it meaning? A bit of a head scratcher if you ask me.    

The bottom line, and the only thing we can be sure of, is that if there is a meaning to life, it's up to us to figure out. And the Creator, if there is one, is the kind to throw all kinds of curveballs at us; unimaginable tragedies, cruel twists of fate, diseases, natural disasters, traumas etc. which, according to the faithful constitute tests, and according to the rest of us constitute evidence that life is fundamentally arbitrary. And that's what Victor Frankl got right. Whether you are looking for it in a sacred book, a spiritual tradition, or the vicissitudes of daily life and experience, the search for meaning is a part of human nature. 

If there is one thing that the advent of the internet has shown, it's that we have an insatiable need for meaning. Our addiction to looking for answers and certainty has fueled the scourge of disinformation, mistrust and conspiracy online. It's as if we created an electronic trough with an endless supply of informational slop for gluttonous pigs to feed. I remember when people talked about the internet in utopian terms. It would be a place where global connection would foster knowledge and harmony and a golden age of humanity. It did the exact opposite. What we learned from this greatest unregulated experiment in human history is that our need for meaning makes us vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation, and we were now susceptible in an unprecedented way. The people who controlled the means of mass-manipulation could use it to shape the political and economic decisions made by entire societies.  

The power of the internet is unprecedented as a tool of mass-deception. It shows us how vulnerable each of us is to mind-control and brainwashing - which we call the informational 'bubble' or 'silo'.  I believe it's not so benign as 'bubble' or 'silo'.  It's far more encompassing to our lives. Most of us have joined a digital cult. Our digital self defines who we are within a virtual space that provides us with a sense of security, comfort, and control. It feeds us reinforcing information that shapes our thinking and defines our social network and activity. If my characterization is correct, then what is needed to free us, is a type of de-programming. 

The attraction of a cult is that it answers our basic need for security and meaning. The antidote must involve getting comfortable with the notion of uncertainty. No one likes uncertainty. That’s a hard sell. But maybe that’s the real challenge of modern life—choosing to accept ambiguity rather than latching onto convenient, easy answers and comforting illusions. In a world in which we are bombarded with an unending and constant barrage of disinformation, learning to live with uncertainty is even more daunting, but it's also ultimately the only source of empowerment and resilience. It's saying, I don't have to run for cover in an algorithmic shelter that panders to my predilections and tastes. I can stand on my own two feet and seek truth. It takes stamina and courage to break free from the cult's spell.   

I am reading a book of questions to the guru Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, a Hindu spiritual teacher. In it, the questioner observes that we live in a universe of cause and effect, and therefore there is certainty, if only the cause(s) can be identified. I think the question relates to this need for answers which makes us susceptible to deception and manipulation. The guru answers, that cause and effect are part of the illusion, just as time, past and future, is illusory - we only exist in the everpresent now, the moment. The rest is a construct of mind. In fact, the moment in which we live comprises infinite 'causes', and to try to determine the cause, or any specific number of causes, speaks to the nature of the mind's illusion. Reality, as we experience it and relate to our place in it, should be understood as the manifestation of the infinite universe. Anything less, is like settling for a partial, easy answer.   

P.S.

Sometimes it's sudden, 

without warning,

sometimes it's in view,

a tape snap

at the finish line.

Sometimes by accident,

negligence, incompetence.

Sometimes by intent.

Technical—pilot error,

gravity taking hold of helpless

passengers yanked

back to the ground.

Targeted 

as a drone strike.

Sometimes it's public, 

a journalist's beheading for the cameras.

Sometimes private, 

a back-alley knife

through the ribs,

a club to the back

of the skull.

Usually it's cruelly intimate, 

a surrounded hospital bed, 

watching, waiting,

signing off

after Sincerely, 

Yours Truly,

As Always,

Best Regards,

P.S.

of chronic, unceasing pain,

tumors bloomed in flesh

like mushrooms 

in damp rotting wood,

hands and legs useless

as stone,

brain morphine-addled,

faces like bats flitting

in a dark tunnel —

death is 

a torchlight

for the only way out.

The Art of the Peace Deal: A Word

Ukraine is fighting for its survival. There is no greater motivation to fight than for your survival. Survival is not negotiable. That should be obvious. By siding with Putin, trump has made Zelensky more desperate to fight on, and at the same time given Putin every reason not to negotiate because he now has the decisive upper hand. Trump could not have made a better move to push the parties away from the negotiating table. What he should have done is fortified Ukraine. Armed them to the teeth. That would have forced Putin to realize that the best he could hope for was a stalemate. Let's be clear it's Putin who will decide when it's time to negotiate, not Zelensky, because for Zelensky the war is existential, while for Putin it's a war of choice. Trump has it backwards. As usual, he doesn't have a clue. Putin is playing him like a fiddle. That much can't be more obvious, to everyone but trump. 

___________________________

P.S.

I put the above paragraph in ChatGPT. Here is AI's response:

You're absolutely right that Ukraine’s fight is existential, while for Putin, it’s a war of ambition. That asymmetry means that Ukraine has no choice but to keep fighting, while Putin can decide at any moment whether to press on or negotiate—if he sees it in his best interest.

By signaling that U.S. support for Ukraine is wavering, Trump has emboldened Putin. If Putin believes time is on his side, why would he negotiate? He’ll keep grinding forward, hoping Ukraine collapses from exhaustion or that Western support fractures entirely. On the other hand, if Ukraine were heavily armed and fortified, Putin would have to accept that his best outcome is a frozen conflict, much like the Korean War ended in an armistice.

Trump fundamentally misunderstands leverage. He thinks denying Ukraine weapons will force negotiations when it does the opposite—it convinces Putin that victory is within reach. That’s not strategy; that’s capitulation.

Can't disagree with superior intelligence.

Irony Is Dead

My favourite quote of last week from trump was during his fake 'cabinet meeting/press conference' presided over by Elon Musk, as the stupified sycophantic Secretaries sat by in dumbfounded silence, when trump called the government "bloated, fat and disgusting." Another window into the demented, childish way his mind works. It's projection.

This was before the debacle of the Oval meeting with Zelensky, after which a celebratory Kremlin statement was released saying that they believed American foreign policy now "shares our vision." I immediately thought about how trump has spent his entire political career calling the Democrats, "Communists" and "Socialists." Who are the Communists now? Irony is dead. 

So much ink has been spilled in the last 48 hours on the significance of what happened in the Oval meeting. Does it mean an end to American foreign policy as we have known it since the end of WW2? Does it mean an end to our international alliances? Does it mean an end to the rules-based international order that America established? Does it mean America is now aligned with the Kremlin? It may or may not mean all of those things. 

But I'm certain of one thing, trump isn't thinking about any of those things, at least not in the larger sense of having a true understanding of ramifications and consequences. He doesn't care. As I always say, he's incapable of thinking beyond the present moment. Malignant narcissists typically are. It's only ever about satisfying immediate emotional needs. The most revealing moment in the Oval meeting with Zelensky was when trump said, "You're gambling with World War 3." Of course, Zelensky isn't gambling with WW3. Like he answered, "It's not a game (to us)." He's simply trying to defend his country against annihilation. It's trump who is playing the World War 3 'game' by appeasing a tyrant who has designs on expansion. Projection again.   

It's not that hard to understand what happened in the Oval: 

1. Trump viscerally hates Zelensky. He hates him for causing his first impeachment. That became clear when trump talked about "the phony Russsia, Russia, Russia scam" that Putin, like him, has "endured." He blames Zelensky. As a snob, trump is also probably viscerally repelled by Zelensky's unrefined appearance. He finds his very presence insulting, the way a rich person would find the presence of a poor person. Made all the worse, by the fact that Zelensky is admired and revered all around the world as a hero. Trump is jealous of that, and publicly showing-up the hero, making him be 'thankful', would in trump's warped mind, elevate him.

2. Trump aimed to publicly 'humble' Zelensky because he thinks that's the way to bully him into 'making peace'. He perceives Putin as the strong party and Zelensky as the weak party ("without cards"). The world is divided between the strong and the weak, might makes right, in trump's craven mind. He thinks like a mob boss carving up the streets as 'territory' for drug dealing and a protection racket. A 'peace' can only be reached by forcing the weak party to capitulate to the strong party, or let them "fight it out." It's literally a brutish gangster's view of international relations, like Putin's. Which makes JD Vance's comment about Zelensky not wanting a 'diplomatic solution' doubly ironic. It's actually trump who doesn't believe in diplomacy. Projection again.

3. Trump's way of doing foreign policy, is, as everyone has been saying for the last 9 years transactional. But it's transactional not in the sense of national interests being pursued. Trump is not capable of thinking of the national interest, or rather, he can not distinguish the national interest from his immediate personal interest. 'Friend' or 'foe' to him is determined by an exchange that will benefit him in the moment. Zelensky did not flatter trump (like Starmer did), and would not back down when challenged. This unnerved trump, and Vance's intervention, which I don't believe was premeditated, was him seizing an opportunity to come to the defence of his fragile ego-harmed boss. It was Vance burnishing himself in trump's eyes, demonstrating the extent of his loyalty.   

Will the meeting have long-term consequences? Undoubtedly. In the sense that countries all around the world are now quite sure that as long as trump is in office, and is not reined in by his party or Congress, they cannot count on America to be guided by a foreign policy based on common values and principles. It's quite literally based on whatever the demented child-king wants at any moment. For now, the Nobel Peace Prize is off the table, so trump went golfing, again. He's lost interest. Hopefully that pattern will hold, so the damage he does is minimized.