Do you see what I see?

It’s late morning on a Tuesday and I’ve nearly arrived at my hotel in Pittsburg, PA. As I attempt to focus my attention on both the road and Google Maps on my iPhone, I notice that I’m traveling through a residential area. Pausing at a stop sign I take one last look at my directions and turn more of my focus on the neighborhood I’m driving through. If I’m going to be staying in this area for two nights I’d like to see if I can determine whether or not safety might be an issue. Two minutes into my foray it seems clear to me that I’m driving through a working class, mostly white, neighborhood. Not an ideal place for a young black male, but certainly not a place that raises serious safety red flags. This sentiment quickly fades as I make my final turn onto the hotel road and look to the house on the left. Suspended from this citizen’s porch is a giant American flag accompanied by an equally giant confederate flag. Well fuck!

First and foremost I’m simply stunned. I didn't expect to see such a thing in Pittsburg. My second thought, I’ve got to find another hotel. My third thought, I hope no one has spotted the 27 year old black male driving through the neighborhood in his silver sports car with out of state tags and decided to call the police to give me a friendly ‘hello’. My final thought, this has got to be, at best, a neighborhood with at least one other household that shares the values so tastefully displayed before my eyes. What kind of neighborhood allows one of its citizens to display such a problematic symbol of hatred, murder, and racism? Clearly the resident(s) of this home felt comfortable/secure enough to boldly display their support for a way of life that represents pain and suffering for an entire racial group in this country.

I didn’t have time to mull over these thoughts for too long, as I had to get to a seminar at the conference I was in Pittsburg to attend. Later on, however, I revisited this experience in a different context. I began to wonder if my white counterparts in ecology might have a similar racially charged context they deal with in life. It took me about as long to answer that question as it took you to laugh after reading it. I strongly suspect that such an experience would have a different, and much less measured effect on the majority of individuals I was sharing this conference with. So what follows is a series of questions and/or thoughts meant to give those who may not know a glimpse at a genre of internal dialogue that I experience on a fairly regular basis.

Do you see that giant confederate flag?

Do you see the neighbors that support that flag?

Do you see the silent neighbors afraid to speak out against that flag?

Do you see that Obama is only another (big) step in the right direction?

Do you see a post-racial society?

Do you see that I’m genuinely concerned about my safety?

Do you see that I think this whole situation is unfair because most others wouldn’t be worried?

Do you see that I’m spending half an hour on my phone calling other hotels to see if they have any vacant rooms?

Do you see that this is going to cost me $80 more?

Do you see that there are no other rooms in the city?

Do you see that I have no other choice but to return to a place where I’m worried about being seen, having my car broken into, being stopped by police, or worse?

Do you see that I’ve missed an afternoon session because I was on the phone?

Do you know the names Emmett Till and Amadou Diallo?

Do you see that I haven’t even thought about the presentation I have to give at 8AM tomorrow morning?

Do you see me checking my car five times before I go to bed?

Do you see me cancelling a dinner with friends partially because I’m worried about returning to this neighborhood at night?

Do you hear me not mentioning any of this to my friends?

Do you see me nervously wondering if the receptionist lives in the neighborhood I just drove through?

Do you see the suspicious glances I cast at every white person I see in and around the hotel?

Do you see the guilt on my face afterwards?

Do you hear hatred and fear laugh and cheer?

Do you see the concern on my face when I wake up in the morning, wondering if my car is still in the parking lot?

Do you see me leave the hotel 20 minutes late because I want it to be a little brighter outside before I leave?

Do you see me speeding down the highway to make up time?

Do you see me notice that the overwhelming majority of workers in the conference center are black?

Do you see me notice that the overwhelming majority of scientists in the conference center aren’t?

Do you see a tinge on sadness on my face as I contemplate these thoughts?

Do you see the surprise on the black workers’ faces when I walk in with my nametag?

Do you see that I’ve noticed only four other black males with nametags like mine at this conference in two days?

Do you see that I have spent most of the morning thinking about my race and my people’s history?

Do you see my silent sigh as I glance at the timeline of ecology and see only old white men?

Do you see me wonder if that bothers you as much as it bothers me?

Do you see that simply I don’t have the option to freak out about my presentation because I don’t have the time?

Do you see that I’ve had to get good at public speaking by age ten because there’s a lot I think about besides my annunciation?

Do you see the bead of sweat that runs down the side of my face as I drive past that confederate flag for a second time?

Did you see that I didn’t sweat during my presentation?

Do you see that the air conditioning is on in my car?

Do you see my relief as I check out of my hotel room?

Do you see that not one of these thoughts has to do with my academic field of study?

Do you see that I decided to stay one night instead of two?

RSVP "Maybe"

Under the category of things I don't understand/things that I find slightly irksome are when people choose to RSVP as 'maybe'; as in maybe I'll come or maybe I won't. I have no issue with people being undecided about whether or not they will attend an event. My issue is with the idea that being undecided is a satisfactory and appropriate ANSWER to an invitation. Jim, "hey Chris, I'm having a party next weekend, if you're not free that evening do you want to stop by?" Chris, "I don't know Jim, maybe". What do you say to that? Better yet, what do you think after getting a response like that? In conversation the 'maybe' is usually followed by 'I'll have to check my schedule' or 'I'll have to ask my significant other' or 'I've got "X" event that may or may not conflict with your party' or whatever. This, however, is not the case when RSVPing to online events. Some people do take the liberty of posting an explanation, but the reasons are usually lame. 'We'll see how much work I get done beforehand' or 'I'll try to make it, but...blah...blah...blah'.

Okay, try to pause and put aside the fact that I sound like a bitter looser with no friends who puts on events that no one comes to. I'm none of those things and most of the events I put on are fairly well attended.

The reason I, for the most, detest the 'maybe' response is because 'maybe' is usually just a euphemism for 'no'. Consider the 'maybe' response of 'we'll see how much work I get done'. Put down your shovel and stop moving the horse-shit. It's up to you to get said work done IF you want to come to the event. In most cases we know how much time our work will take, or we know how much time we want to spend doing it if it's going to take a really long time. In either case we should be able to gauge whether or not attending an event is likely or not given our work load. The farther off an event the more this response irks me. Yes, you could end up with more work that could prevent you from attending, but I would argue most of the time we have a pretty good idea of what our workload will be for the coming week or two; especially if we're students.

The flip side of this or any other 'maybe' explanation is if an event sounded interesting or worth while enough then it would be a lot easier to gauge whether or not you had time for it. If I said to you your favorite music artist was coming to town next week you would probably adjust your schedule to make time for the concert. I agree, most events are not as exciting as say, seeing Jill Scott in concert, but that's exactly my point. If something sounds marginally interesting then maybe you don't want to say 'no' because part of you wants to go...kinda sorta. I get those feelings, I just find it a lame answer. Such feelings happen to most of us on a regular basis, but in the end we're either going to go, or we're not going to go, and most of the time when we say 'maybe' we end up not going.

So what's my point? Let's be less patronizing and simply say 'no' when we want to say 'maybe'. If you're not sure at the moment of whether or not you want to attend, take some time to forget, remind yourself later, and then if you still feel the same way you're probably not that interested in going so just say/click/text 'not going to make it'. Most importantly, let's stop offering up lame excuses that obviously implicate our lack of excitement for an event. Most people's feelings aren't going to be hurt if you decline to come, but trying to dodge responsibility for the decision to come insults peoples' intelligence (or at least it insults mine). Very few people are going to shun you for saying no to an event. If they do they're either pretty shallow folks, or they put on lame events. Either way there's good reason to stop being in the same place they are.

I get it. We don't want to hurt each other's feelings and by saying 'maybe' at least we're not saying 'no', and maybe we'll decide later to attend. Maybe we'll speed through our work and finish way ahead of time, or maybe we'll find an extra $10 in the sofa and be able to come, or maybe the initial desire to attend an event that doesn't sound that interesting will suddenly leave and we'll be enthused enough to come out. Maybe. But most likely that's bullshit and even more likely we know it's bullshit we just don't want the other person to know that we're not coming. In that scenario at least one, and probably two, people are being lied to. Such attitudes towards how we communicate with each other is detrimental in my opinion. And that's my broader point. Let's stop lying to each other and lying to ourselves. We're big boys and big girls now. There's nothing wrong with taking our time to decide, there's nothing wrong with having too much work to do, there's nothing wrong with having something more interesting to do, and there's nothing wrong with simply not wanting to do something that doesn't seem that interesting.

Let's stop the maybes people. In the words of master Yoda, " do or do not, there is no try". Yes or no people, there is no maybe.

Scary Stuff

Read this (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/06/25/fire_dog.ART_ART_06-25-09_A1_DSE9JB8.html?sid=101) then read my response.

I don't know where to start with this. The fact that this man remains on active duty is the most upsetting thing. What Michael Vick did was awful, but the fact that this guy can kill animals in the manner that he did and is still being paid by citizen is incredible.

Killing animals in this way, lying about, showing no remorse, and bragging about it is a sign of a seriously mentally disturbed person. What's even more ridiculous is that fact that a judge can fix his mouth to say that such a crime is 'totally out of character'. What kind of idiot thinks that stringing up dogs and shooting them 11 times is an isolated event?! Does the judge really believe a stable person can commit such an act? What kind of character does a person have that allows them to murder animals, lie to their family about it, and brag about the act to co-workers? Does the judge want us to believe that a 90 day sentence will help Santuomo realize the seriousness of his actions?

The man wasn't remorseful when he refused to let neighbors watch his dogs, he wasn't remorse when he strung them up, he wasn't remorseful when he shot one of his pets 6 times in the head (6 times!), he wasn't remorseful when he lied to his ex-wife and children about what happened to the dogs (what kind of person deliberately kills something their children love?), and he certainly wasn't remorseful when he bragged to co-workers about what he had done. How is it possible that a judge is not more disturbed by this? There may not be laws in place to punish this man more properly, but the fact that Hale claims this to be an isolated event is beyond belief.

What kind of world is this?! Dog fighting is wrong in my opinion, but this man's actions are far more disturbing and far more dangerous. Dog fighting has rules, barbaric and disgusting to some, but let's not forget that humans once cheered such acts when their fellow men and women were in the arena.

Never has it been acceptable for humans to betray the loyalties of devoted servants for no sensible reason. The man had plenty of alternatives, but chose to kill simply for the act of ending life, innocent life at that. The purpose of dog fights isn't to kill dogs, if it were people wouldn't fight dogs they would do what Santuomo did and forget the battles completely.

Unfortunately one cannot ignore the fact that Santuomo is a white male who appears to be getting off extremely light for his crimes. One has to wonder, given the legacy of the judicial system's treatment of race and crime, whether a judge would be so flippant about these actions if Santuomo were a black man. How convinced might he be of a black Santuomo's remorse in a similar situation? Of course we cannot know the answer, but racial bias is just as valid an explanation as complete incompetence when considering the judge's comments. How do you make sense of Hale's comments?

Whether or not you think race has something to do with how this case is viewed and presented by the media, the law, and the law officials recognize that others consider it an issue. Recognize that racial bias is still a very big issue in this country and that injustice is still an institutional problem (The Jena 6 is one recent example among many others). Be concerned that a premeditated brutal murder of animals for the sole purpose of ending their lives is considered 'an isolated event' by a judge. Be aware that the man responsible for this act can remain on active duty despite his conviction. Ask yourself how such a thing can be possible. If you're as disturbed as I am about how this situation is unfolding ask yourself what mindset and philosophy has to exist to support the actions of those confronting this situation. While some explanations are more complex than others they are all disturbing.

Our primary problem in this society is not people like David Santuomo, our primary problem is judges like Harland Hale. Individuals who refuse reason, yet are responsible for upholding reason will do more damage than any Santuomo ever could. Judges like H.H. Hale transform the actions of a Santuomo from an isolated problem to a systemic problem.

Things I want my children to consider

So this is a collection of thoughts I had sometime while in India. It is a collection of philosophical axioms I think are important in my life and things I would want my children to consider. I plan to add to this list as I grow older, but also as I rummage through the many thoughts I write down on bits of notebook paper. So there's more to come! Enjoy!

1) Try to talk to yourself as much as possible. It will be harder than you may initially think, but few things you do in life will be more important.

2) Questions can be more valuable than answers.

3) You can be assured that the more material substance you crave/own the less mental substance you'll be able to possess. There is only room for an abundance of one.

4) Seek to understand your emotions; specifically where they come from. This is the only way to control them.

5) Anger is almost never productive. Limit your exposure to it through axiom number 4.

6) You are what you eat. I mean this almost literally.

7) You live in a universe where the most important, if not the only, constant is change. Don't fight this principle, especially in your thinking. Remember, you are a product of that same universe.

8) Understand as much as you possibly can, but be aware that the more you try to understand the more patience will demand of you.

9) Don't believe everything you think.

10) Avoid extremes; especially in your thinking.

11) Your core principles should be few and general. Numerous principles reflect an inability or an unwillingness to accept axiom number 7; a desire for things to remain just as they are.

12) Be cynical when contemplating things that are 'popular'. Such things are often devoid of clear thinking.

13) Love and fear are the most volatile emotions humans possess. Take extra care when dealing with either or both.

14) Plant something, preferably food, and watch it grow. I know of few better ways to have a spiritual experience.

15) Your mind is your most valuable possession. If you do not intensely exercise your ability to think and reason you will fall victim to a universe that changes constantly.

16) Thinking is a choice. You have the ability to turn off your mind. Doing so is akin to falling asleep while driving. Remember, there are worse things than death.

17) The more you think, the more reality reveals itself to you. This will increase you ability to see and perceive the unpleasant, but it will also instill a confidence that no human can shake and that few understand.

18) Fear without reason is deadly.

19) Read. Everyday.

20) Be patient with the things you desire. Rarely does reason accompany rushing.

Why I don't talk to people

While in India I was reminded of something I’ve been very disappointed to learn about people, but adults especially. People don’t ask themselves the question ‘why?’. Moreover, when confronted with the question in relation to their actions many people dismiss the relevance of asking such a question by claiming there is no answer to the question. Before I begin to tell the tale let me start by stating the importance of being able to answer ‘why’ when faced with evaluating actions.

            The simple question of ‘why’ is the gateway to reason, humanity’s most important tool for dealing with reality. Why gives meaning and purpose to actions and causes us to think critically. There is a reason why children often ask ‘why’ incessantly; they are attempting to find meaning; they are exercising their minds just as they exercise their muscles on the playground. Besides being a tool of reason the question ‘why’ is also the motivation behind the currency of exchange between minds, reason. With anything that is not immediately clear one, assuming they care to understand, would ask a variety of questions to ascertain understanding; the most philosophical question being ‘why?’ If a person is to be understood then they must explain themselves to the person asking ‘why?’ (again, assume the person being asked desires to explain themselves). When examining one’s own actions and thoughts a person must also turn to ‘why’ in order to better understand themselves. Without embracing the question ‘why?’ a person remains a child acting on feelings without critical thought; a practice that can cause tremendous damage to a person’s life.

            So, during a visit to Kumbhalgahr Wildlife Sanctuary I asked a question concerning marriage of the people I was with. The question was simply what is the best thing about being married, the worst thing, and one thing you know now that would have been useful at the beginning of your marriage. All the people in the room were older than myself by at least 5 years, all were academics, all but two were white Americans,  and all but one had been married at least 5 years. I waited until the second round of scotch before asking this question in hopes that people would be loose enough to answer.  Not surprisingly they assumed that I asked the question because I was very nearly ready to ask someone to marry me. When I told them I was very single their interest in answering my question dropped precipitously. This in itself was very discouraging as it shouldn’t matter what stage of a relationship I was in. If anything knowing the answer to my question would be more useful to someone of my status than someone who has mostly made up their mind to get married.

            Nonetheless I pressed the issue and tried to assure them that I was very sincere about the question. Upon realizing I was serious a few proceeded to give mostly incoherent dribble, saying marriage is ‘great’, ‘easier than they thought’, ‘an everyday struggle’, etc. Interestingly none of them answered my question. The best answer was given by Dr. X who said that marriage was about caring for someone else in life. He said it was important to be an individual, but to also have responsibilities outside of oneself in order to stay grounded. I disagree with some of this philosophy, but at least it was coherent and defensible.

            The most upsetting part of this experience was Dr. Y’s response as we were leaving to go downstairs for dinner. He explained that much of marriage is ‘just doing’ for the other person. He continued by saying that once you’re married you do things for the other person because you are married, you sacrifice because that’s what marriage is all about. ‘Just like doing things for your kids, you simply do the things you’re supposed to do’ he finished. Quite appalled by this point I explained that I was interested in the ‘why’ behind such actions. He replied, ‘there is no why, you just act’.

            This is one of the worst things I’ve heard an adult say. Moreover, this statement came from a respected, tenured, scientist! Later on during the visit I discovered that Dr. Y is a Christian, which explains why he’s not particularly interested in discovering the reasons behind his actions. Nevertheless, the rest of the faculty members either didn’t answer anything or avoided the question by chiding me for asking such a question at my young age of 25.

            Needless to say I was disappointed with this response and appalled at Dr. Y’s answer. It is experiences like this that cause me to title entries such as this one. How is one able to grow and improve as a person when their questions aren’t taken seriously or answered at all? How is one expected to be comfortable with just acting because one finds themselves in a particular situation? How are people expected to have meaningful conversations when people are clearly not interested in the question ‘why?’ I am continuously confronted with conversations like this from peers and those older than me. I cannot grow in an environment with people that communicate the way most people communicate their ideas and thoughts. This is why I normally don't have meaningful conversations with most people and why I absolutely treasure the times when I do. The intellectual culture, as I’ve observed thus far, is deteriorating rapidly and it’s disappointing to be reminded that such deterioration is facilitated by those who should be supporting it. I wonder why that is?

Save the environment or save your wallet? Wait, what’s the difference?

Without a doubt the phrase and practice of ‘going green’ is one of this countries fastest growing phenomenon. Celebrities and homemakers alike are becoming increasingly aware of how to minimize their impact on the environment. Fascinating new technologies are popping up everywhere offering consumers opportunities to make lifestyle changes that are more environmentally conscious. Companies are innovating and changing in order to become the ‘most green’ in their respective industries. ‘Going green’ appears to have tremendous momentum, but I would argue that there is an element missing from this movement that, if included, would help propel environmentally conscious living even further and faster. The element that’s missing from the green movement is a proper emphasis on the economic viability of adopting green principles.

            There are two primary obstacles standing in the way of green technologies and practices from becoming mainstream among most Americans; the initial costs and an understanding of why it’s important to go green. Many of the big flashy green technological innovations (hybrid cars, solar panel electricity, grey water recycling systems, radiant wall heating system, indoor greenhouse, earthships, etc.) require an initial investment that many Americans cannot afford. The second obstacle is even more problematic because the issue is philosophical for the most part. Philosophical change takes much longer as people must understand and evaluate what they know and decide that their knowledge could benefit from new knowledge. Fortunately there is a philosophical principle embedded within American society that speaks to all people very clearly, money. It is through an appeal to this unifying entity that green industry should focus more of their attention in order to grow a movement that has enormous potential (I will not make the argument for money as a sound and moral foundation in which to advocate the green movement beyond stating that I think it is such a foundation).

The first question that needs to be addressed is how can expensive green technologies, technologies with obvious benefits, become more accessible (cheaper and more widely available) to more people. One could say that that process has already begun with those who are able to afford such technologies taking advantage of fantastic innovations. More and more we see celebrities and the exceptionally wealthy make small changes in their lifestyle that have the potential to impact other consumers. Solar panels and hybrid SUVs can be found in an increasing number of homes in Beverly Hills. From the other end of the perspective, grass roots type community movements are springing up across the nation as people are learning more about organic produce, simple green improvements for their homes, recycling programs, and the like. The result of these miniature movements is an increase in the number of products and services offered on the ‘green market’. As the market grows, more products become available. As more products become available, competition increases. Better competitors are determined by who can offer the best and cheapest products. This example, of course, is a basic economic principle. We see examples of this principle in action with the ever increasing green products available (just walk into any Lowes or Home Depot), the falling costs in various green technologies, and even the creation of a green television network (Planet Green). All of these phenomena would not exist without a growing market. So the issue of green products becoming less expensive and more accessible seems to be a problem that should continue to get better so long as consumers see value in what they are buying.

It would seem then that to expedite an explosion of green technology and green living one would have to show the consumer that it is in their best interest to invest in green products. Since products and services are acquired through an exchange of money the most logical strategy would be to appeal to the economic advantages of choosing green products over non-green products. It may simply be an artifact of those who started the green movement that such an emphasis was not a part of the agenda from the beginning, but continuing to deemphasize economic benefits to going green in favor of an ambiguous sense of altruistic sacrifice for the sake of the environment is misguided at best. Most Americans live apart from the environmental elements and processes that sustain their life and lifestyle. While many see this as a problem I would argue that such an issue doesn’t matter. In terms of green technologies, for the most part, what’s green is also what’s more economical in the long run. This idea is due to nature of green technologies and innovation; such innovation leads to improvements in efficiency of production and waste disposal. Humans, like all other organisms, are products of the environment and must live with what they produce. Human progress depends on how well we manage what we produce and the byproducts (waste) of such production. Getting people to understand this principle, or rather think about this principle when deciding what to buy is unrealistic. Luckily such a principle can be represented when a person chooses to buy solar panels for their new home rather than connecting to the power grid. There may be a variety of reasons why they made such a decision, but I would almost guarantee that such a decision is not made without a foreseeable economic payoff. And so should be the impetus for promoting green products, not petitions to people’s conscience about how buying this widget helps prevent polar bear extinction because it reduces greenhouse gasses. People don’t think about polar bears when they’re buying a car. They think about whether or not making such a purchase makes sense given the price.

The pitch for any green product or service should be simple: Buy our product because it will save you X amount of money because it’s X times more efficient than the other product. IBM has a fantastic line of commercials highlighting the fact that economics and the environment don’t have to oppose each other. Most people do not make decision without considering how things will benefit them. The easiest way to appeal to this characteristic of humanity is to appeal to what we care about most, our means of sustaining and improving our lives. Money is what we’ve chosen to represent our means of survival and progress. Our survival and progress depends on a healthy and efficient use of our environment. Why not take full advantage of such a relationship? A greener, cheaper, more efficient future is waiting, we must simply acknowledge that those three adjectives are one in the same. 

The 'I feel' epidemic

There is something very troubling about the way people speak these days. I'm not talking about foul language, or improper grammar. I'm not talking about racism, sexism, classism, or any other kind of 'ism'. I'm talking about the reference people use when talking about what they think; their feelings. Listen closely to any given discussion in this country, where ideas are being sincerely discussed, and you'll hear one of the most disturbing phrases known to man; 'I feel like... (insert thought here)'.

What's the big deal you ask? Feelings are valid, right? Everybody has them, everyone uses them, everybody is entitled to them, and no one can prevent them from occurring. All true statements, but those statements do not validate substituting feelings for thoughts. Any given two year old has feelings. What makes adults adults is the fact that we are able to manage our feelings in order to properly communicate and interact with others. One cannot argue with feelings, one cannot debate feelings, one cannot effectively discuss the validity of feelings the way one can discuss the validity of thoughts.

I think the subconscious aim of using the phrase 'I feel like (blank)' is to avoid any earnest discussion of ideas. Try asking someone to explain what they feel (think) and observe what happens. In my experience people usually respond by saying, 'I don't know, I just do', whether it is in these many words or with their body language. Usually when I question people's feelings (thoughts and ideas) they become visually uncomfortable and proceed to do everything they can to end the conversation. This is disturbing because it is evidence that people are actively attempting to invalidate their minds.

Humans, in order to communicate effectively with other humans, must have some common currency of exchange recognized by those they are communicating with. This currency is logic and reason. No one would be able to understand each other if we didn't share a universal sense making protocol. It's quite unbelievable the number people I talk to that don't recognize this fact. We would not be able to determine what is correct or what is false. Yes, some ideas are not about determining who is right and who is wrong (far fewer ideas, however, than most would claim), but the process by which we understand any idea, including ones where we cannot determine who is right and who is wrong, involves logic and reason. You may feel anything you want, but if you are going to discuss it with anyone besides yourself you must use the currency of logic if you wish to be understood.

Feelings, in most cases, make terrible currency for thought exchange. They constantly change, they vary in intensity, they are primarily subjective and person specific, they are valid simply because they exist, and they are often times difficult (or impossible) to understand (as is often the case when dealing with women) (yeah, I said it!). How can people hope to effectively communicate using such a poor medium? I think that's the point, they don't wish to communicate effectively. It's been my experience that most people don't want to be asked to explain their ideas. Most people don't want you to ask them why they've just said what they've said. Most people want to talk and be understood, and if they aren't understood then they'd rather you pretend like you understood and shut the hell up with any questions.

Am I splitting hairs? No, I don't THINK I am. Why? Because saying 'I feel like what I've said makes sense' is not the same as saying 'I think that what I've said makes sense'. One statement is accurate and the other is complete garbage. The idea that what I've said makes sense is not a product of my feelings; it's a product of my mind. I could not have written this blog when I was twelve; it has taken thirteen years for me to develop my mind to point where I can write something like this. This blog entry is a glimpse of my mind at work, as is every statement I make for others to hear. This is the case for every human being on this planet, regardless of age, ethnicity, gender, or whatever. Is this an intimidating notion? It certainly can be, especially to those who are just beginning to use their mind instead of their feelings (i.e. children). Yet many of us never mature past this point to overcome the discomfort of being judged by what we say. We even go to such lengths to deny the discomfort of explaining our ideas that we've declared it wrong and immoral to be judgmental. We avoid discussions by claiming a person can be certain of nothing and that words are nothing but relative abstractions or simply sounds. We've even begun substituting the word 'think' with the word 'feel' in an attempt to further distance ourselves from showing each other what's in our minds.

It's no wonder, as people continue to avoid the question 'why?', they have begun to substitute thoughts with feelings. Do not make the mistake of calling your thoughts feelings. Take the time to think why you think what you think. Examine why you feel what you feel and transforms your feelings to thoughts. Stand on the product of you mind and not the ever changing, unpredictable, immediate, and often volatile ground of your feelings. Seek to exchange ideas with the most consistent and valid currency humans have logic and reason. Yes, thoughts require work to develop, but development is what life is about. Take responsibility for your mind, graduate beyond merely feeling to actually thinking. And most importantly, do not succumb to the fear of being judged by your thoughts and ideas by calling them feelings; you will never grow up if you do.