Monthly Archives: February 2009

The Listener: A Psychoanalyst Examines His Life – Allen Wheelis

Wife
Chapter VII

.
.
.
.
ILSE AND I sit at a table in the sun. We have finished lunch, are having coffee. We are at the edge of a cliff, look over miles of blue water to a wooded peninsula and another island, above which Mount Rainier rises abruptly from the sea, solitary, cov­ered with a glimmering whiteness merging with the blue­-white sky. Ilse wears an orange halter dress and a straw hat. Through the filigree brim of the hat the sun makes a bright grid on her cheek. Her brown arms rest on the table.

“There’s no place for me here,” she says. “I’m not needed. Except as a cook. I don’t mind cooking if I’m also a compan­ion, but I won’t be just a cook. Joan can fix your meals. Maybe you’ll like that better . . . You don’t want a companion. You don’t speak. Whatever you think, whatever you feel, it stays inside. You don’t tell me. After breakfast you disappear into that study and talk to God. Joan wanders off into the woods and talks to animals. I have no one to talk to. I wait.”

Monty comes racing up to the table, pushes at my arm. I look up. Down the slope in the orchard Joan is on her knees, hair falling over her face. Presently she stands, lifts her cupped hands to eye level, slowly opens them. A movement of head indicates her observation of a ladybug in flight. I shift the cof­fee cup as Monty paws at my arm.

“I’m not important to you,” Ilse says. “You care about Joan and you care about your work. That’s all. I’m like Monty. I keep nudging but can’t get your attention. He wants to tell you Something. And you look up. But as soon as you reassure your­self that Joan is all right, you lose interest. But it’s still impor­tant to him. Maybe he’s found a snake and wants to show you.”

She stands. “Come on, Monty. I’ll go with you.” She holds out her hand and starts off, but Monty won’t follow. He sits beside me. “Nobody here wants me,” she says. “That’s why I’m leaving. “

I draw her down beside me, put my arms around her, kiss her. “I want you. What does it take to convince you? Have you forgotten last night?”

“Last night! Ha! Why is there nothing left over? Why are you not with me? Really with me?”

“Remember how cold it was at midnight? How we wan­dered through the orchard, arms around each other? That blackness of forest, that icy blaze of stars? And later, how warm?”

“And where is it now? Where has it gone? All morning you were in your study. On the cross! Why do you leave me alone? Always! Always! I would take you down and bathe your feet, but you’ll have none of it. You want the nails left in place. You don’t believe you could stand up on your own, move around in life and just live. You bequeath your life,to posterity because you’re afraid to live it with me. Your passion goes into your work. Your romantic feelings go to Joan. I get what’s left, the carnality. Thanks a lot! Even that could be something. I try to make it mean more to you, to spill over into the rest of living, to mean to you what it means to me. I can’t tell you. I try to show you. Something in you holds back.”

In the cold night she flings herself wide, takes me in beyond her control of what may at such depths then happen to her. I am touched by her trust and by that response which wells up in her, gushes over in a voice from another world. “Oh, Allen! . . . Allen! . . . Darling!” By allowing me to touch her so deeply, she makes me a god. Her arms are tight around me. I am the source and the object of her passion. It begins and ends in me. The world has disappeared.

But my desire does not end in her. I reach into her for something that lies beyond. My heart is a galloping hoofbeat, but in the dark press I pursue a secret end. I strain into her for something to carry me away. Not the wave that lifts us both; something else. Something I reach for but do not touch. I just miss. And when the wave drops me back in the same bed alongside the same woman, who sighs in utter happiness and snuggles against me, and I caress the soft black hair and mur­mur in her ear-then under cover of darkness failure pools in my eyes. I have been close but have missed.

I hear the hum of eternity. I think of the trolley at the foot of Nob Hill, cable thrumming under the street; I’m the grip­man, I lean back on the grip, the car hooks on, begins to move, is carried up, up, to the top. Such a strand is running here, silently, powerfully. I feel its presence, close, somewhere in this darkness. She and I are but momentary thickenings on this endless strand. Our grip is failing, we are falling away, the cable slips by us, through us, faster, faster. Straining into her I seek the silken strand, want to seize it, be carried up out of this valley of death.

“I feel used,” she says.
.
.
.
.
“YOU’RE IN A trance,” Ilse says. “Are you looking for those hidden threads. . . still?” I smile, nod. “Well, don’t! Come, sit down. Pay attention to me. It’s bad enough you leave me alone all week. Don’t leave me while you’re still here. The weekend isn’t over yet.”
I sit on the bed, the dusk of the room thickening and flickering. She takes my hand. Her fingers are feverish. “Tell me,” she says, “what could be more important than our being together?” “I have to work.” “But what? What is it? What real­ly do you do?” The fingers of her hand are unsatisfied, wait, continue to ask. “You’re a psychoanalyst,” she says. “You know already a great deal. Why isn’t that enough?” I make a depre­cating gesture. “I want to find the pattern that. . . falls away in the night.”

The air seems to become milky. Fog stands at the window. The sounds from the street are muffled. The faint reflections of red have disappeared.

“You HAVE A terrible mind,” she says. “It takes everything apart. So what can you find? There’s nothing there. Of course! Because you’ve taken it apart! Life is in the configuration of things, the relatedness. You can take a watch apart and put it back together and maybe it will still tick, but you can’t do that with a flower or a kitten-or with me. That’s the trouble with you. You’re a mechanic, but life is not a machine.

“I’m different. I try to make people Set. A face, a flower, a dog. Particularly a face in the moment of a changing mood, a flower turning toward the sun, a dog hearing a strange sound. I say to people, ‘Look! This is life. Isn’t it marvelous! Isn’t it wonderful!’ But you don’t do that. You look at the world and you see what I see, but you pay no attention to it. You’re not interested in the surface of life, only in its depth. You ignore the face and surmise about the bloody psychodynamics.

“And as for the flower, that’s just a nuisance for you, some­thing to be watered. If it weren’t for me, there’d not be a sin­gle plant in this house-or around the house-because they require attention and so keep you from your precious work. And the same for the dog; if it weren’t for Joan twisting your arm, there’d never be a dog in this house. You’re not interest­ed in faces and flowers and dogs. That’s life, but you’re not interested in life itself, only in understanding life. So you hard­ly glance at life, you’re in such a terrible hurry to understand it, to master its causality, the theory, the principle, how it works.

Life threatens you, so you want to control it. But it can’t be controlled. That’s its nature. Once you can control it, it’s gone. And if ever you finish your theory, get everything worked out, you’ll find yourself king of the dead. Nothing will stir in your realm. Not a breath of air.”

ALL MARRIAGES ARE quarrelsome and difficult, all except those good marriages that are good because one of the pair is passive, allowing the other to dominate, and, since rights are respected only to the degree one is prepared to defend them, eventually to demean and to exploit, whereupon over time the compliant one accumulates submerged rancor so massive, expressed in the modes of that same passivity that once expressed the love, that the marriage fills to the rooftop with coldness, until finally beneath the facade of harmony there is nothing but a block of ice.

Do not dwell on the shortcomings of your marriage, or on the unfortunate personality traits of your wife. Dwell rather on what is right about it, what is fortunate, what is blessed. Do not feel deprived because of what you have not, but fortunate because of the great deal you have. When things become abra­sive, try to focus on how you (I’m talking to myself) can make things better by being more adroit, more empathic, more sen­sitive.

For all marriages are unhappy. None of my friends and none of my patients has a happy marriage. An unhappy mar­riage is the normal state, not a deviation. The unfortunate reac­tion, therefore, is to feel bitter about it, to nurture a grievance, to imagine that married to someone else one would be happy; for this reaction leads one into actions and attitudes that make an unhappy marriage more unhappy, rather than into those responses which would tend to make an unhappy marriage less unhappy.

The main reason for misery in your marriage (I’m still talk­ing to myself) is your tendency to think that you’re entitled to a happy marriage, that with a little luck you would have had it. You must accept the given unhappiness as normal, and pro­ceed immediately to do whatever you can to diminish that unhappiness. What you have is the human lot.

But don’t expect much. And remember: there is no occasion for grievance.

That rare, rare thing, a happy marriage, is a mutual capitu­lation, an agreed-upon diminishment of life. The once lovers agree to be blind to what they have lost. They live in a cloned closeness to escape an anguished separateness, do not permit themselves, even in the privacy of their own minds, to harbor views or values unacceptable to the other.

THE OPPORTUNITY TO love is ever present. No one, in his loneliness, need ever say, “I wish I had someone to love.” That someone is right there. The trouble is she has become real, while only the still imaginary inspire us to love.

ILSE LOVES TO travel, to walk about in strange cities, breathe a foreign air, hear another tongue. Swimming delights her; the presumptuous intimacy of the unresisting medium makes her laugh. She likes to talk with friends, always wants to know what they are doing, to hear about their children. She loves to walk, to feel the sun on her face, to browse in new stores, to visit museums and look reverently upon the past.

All these things, so desirable to her, I find tedious. She does not, however, like to do them alone; so I go along, and while apparently participating, actually am waiting for whatever it is we are doing to be done with. And as I go on like this, tolerat­ing in benign martyrdom a way of life created from her initia­tive, it comes somehow to seem that, on my own, I could arrange things better, that I know how to live, but am con­strained by her needs to banal diversions.

One day something goes wrong with my knee. I’m not so crippled as I portray, but enough to be excused from obliga­tions. My wife is all sympathy, tells me it will get better. “What do you want to do?” she says. “Come! Get in the car. I’ll drive. It’s a marvelous day. We’ll go anywhere you want, do anything you like. It’s Sunday, it’s springtime, the sun is shining. You mustn’t be sad. Where do you want to go?”

I have no idea. Anywhere. Nowhere. My mind is not blank, but neutral. Places parade before imagination and all are equal. She drives us to the beach, thousands of people swim­ming, oiling themselves on bright towels, playing in the sand; along a golf course where we pause to watch a man take three practice swings, then hit a perfect drive, the ball sailing straight away, up, up, and out of sight; by a museum with a show of French Impressionists, throngs of people entering and leaving. In the park we drive by picnickers, teenagers throwing Frisbees, barefoot girls playing volleyball, young cou­ples pushing baby carriages, smells of cooking, of charcoal fires, sounds of baseball, of guitars, and of laughter. My wife, delighted with this panorama, drives slowly, glances at me eagerly, ready to stop wherever my inclination may suggest, do anything I want, go on to any place I wish, while I,looking out on this unhesitating life process, fall into a well.

Every one of these people knows what to do, how to enjoy it. It looks terribly simple, yet I have not the knack. I can do these things, go through the motions, simulate the responses-to an observer it might seem that I, too, know how to enjoy a holi­day-but in the manner of a brain-damaged patient who, thinking intently what each leg must do, can somehow get there, yet not with a natural walk. I lack a kind of native know­ing which is the legacy of everything that lives. Now, sudden­ly, without the obligation to do those many things which, as it seemed, I have been bound to do, I have nothing better to put in their place, indeed, nothing whatever to put in their place. Free, I cannot improvise. Relieved of my burden, I am bereft.

How strange! I have worked hard all week, now along comes a day of utter leisure. Must there not be something I want, something that would give me pleasure? I must observe these people more closely. There must be a secret, some sim­ple solution.

Always and forever the student and still I don’t know how. Are there no classes in living? Would someone take me on as an apprentice?

NOT KNOWING HOW to live is separateness, the division of the world into self and others. I sit inside my skull and look out as a frightened man from a moated castle. Me in here and the world out there. We negotiate, we make deals, exchanges, but we are not one. I am an entity, complete. Never do I lose sight of where I stop and the world begins. With sleepless vigilance I patrol the edges of selfhood, warn visitors away. I am inde­pendent within this domain, but am dying. It is my wholeness that destroys me. I long for partness in a greater whole.

Knowing how to live is oneness with the world. I die of the hunger of oneness. I find it never. I read about it, and the words are ghosts. Dharma is not for me, nor “the way” of Lao Tzu. I feel it in the patience of trees, the wind in their branch­es sighs about it. I hear it in the rote of the surf and the song of the lark. I see it in animals and in children. I touch it but cannot make it mine. Mine! I’m trying to grab it, I suppose, ravage it back into this moated castle, and that’s the trouble­this division of everything into self and others which I can’t escape because it’s not something that limits me, it is me. I stand on a ledge.

WE ARE HELD in life by commitments, as broken bone by a plaster cast. “The man who desisted from committing suicide because he heard the factory whistle blow,” writes C. E. Ayres, “was thereby recognizing a profound truth, namely, that his existence is so intertwined with those of other people that his death must inevitably send forth waves of disturbance and interruption, affecting most those who are closest to him but also prejudicing, to however tiny an extent, the whole effort of mankind.”

I have severed relations with the factory, the whistle blows but not for me. I cling to nonattachment even as I suffer from it. For so long has it been my way that, however wrong in prin­ciple, it has become for me right. I owe it loyalty. It has come to be the source of all that I can do. Desperate unrest is my workshop.

“None but the truths which have been extracted under men­tal torture appeal to us,” writes Cyril Connolly.

ILSE HUNGERS FOR intimacy as cut flowers for water, cannot make peace with my sense of mission. Suddenly, as we walk, her hand pushes its way into mine like a tiny frightened ani­mal seeking shelter. “I’ve been thinking,” she says, “over and over-it’s such a trite thought-we’ve lived together so long . . . then one day one of us will die, and. . . will never see the other any more.” She lives in others, ascribes nothing worthy of immortality to the isolated self even if that self be her own.

How brief and fitful our time.

I DO NOT use myself up in living. A part of myself I save, like a miser, hoping to transmute it into something that will go on living for me in the future. With the quick I have little to do; the eminent dead are my models, the yet unborn my legatees. I am a time-binder, obsessed with mortality, spend my life cre­ating an effigy to outlast me. In the graveyard, ceaselessly I carve at my epitaph, trying to make of it something so beauti­ful, so compact of meaning. that people will come from afar to read.

It need not be in vain, this elaboration of self-great treasures have been so fashioned. What gets served up to the future may be a tasty dish indeed, but what shall we say of the chef, oblivious of the hungry ones around him, garnishing himself for the gourmets of the future? Rather than miss a day of painting, Cezanne did not attend his mother’s funeral. Rilke could not spare from his poetry the time for his daughter’s wedding. The world cannot do without such people, but pity those whose lot it is to live with them.

I think rather more of those who use themselves up, die with nothing left over, disappear without a trace. My wife holds nothing back, spends her life on the living, gives herself to the hungry, who feed on her, consume her substance. I see her getting smaller, becoming transparent, beginning to dis­appear. But look at her face! It grows finer, more beautiful! She has time: Come and be fed. She prepares no delicacies for the future, but soup today for everyone, even for those hungry chefs who think only of posthumous banquets. Better get to know her now, for she will soon be gone, and you’ll not then recover her from the history of our time. But without the likes of her, there would be no future for which the present could be a history.

I FIND MYSELF wanting to fall in love again. With her of the volatile spirit, the open and generous heart. I have been hold­ing myself aloof for years, invulnerable, to protect the search. But love can’t live on the shelf, must be fed with those confi­dences which create vulnerability. Without risk of hurt, there is no love. Not, anyway, of the kind we used to have, she and I-the soaring, the despair, the exaltation.

Now I have no search to protect, have lost direction, find nothing, create nothing, want back the deep, deep joy. I must open myself to pain, must see it as minor beside the passion it makes possible.

“WHY DON’T YOU talk to me?” Ilse says. “What are you pre­occupied with?”
“My work.”
“Why can’t you be preoccupied with me?”
“With you I’m more than preoccupied. I adore you.”
“I don’t believe it. What are you writing?”
“I can’t say.”
“Why not?”
“It’ll go away.”
“Is it fiction or nonfiction?”
“I can’t talk about it.”
“Is it about me?”
“Listen, Use, I’ll tell you a story.” “It’s about time!”

“A few days ago I was walking in a dark wood. A heavy mist, like a white sea, lay about me. From it rose the black glistening trunks of tall cypress. There was not a sound; my footfalls were noiseless in the soft turf Overhead the green canopy was lost in white. I walked slowly, the heavy damp­ness suspended around me, began to feel a mystery in the whiteness. Then a strange thing happened. I saw a bird. It was sitting on a low branch. I could not see it clearly because of the mist, but well enough to realize it was of great beauty, of such brilliant plumage as never before had been seen. A deep happiness came over me. Never had I encountered such a lovely thing. I felt a great longing to show it to others, to everybody. . . “

“Everybody but me!”

“No, you first of all, and most of all. Then to everybody. But I couldn’t move. I hardly dared even breathe. I locked my gaze on the eyes of this shy, wonderful. creature, knowing that at the slightest move or sound it would flyaway, and that then nei­ther I nor you nor anyone would ever see it again.

“But I knew-no, rather, I hoped, I believed, and still believe!-that if only I observe it steadily enough, with enough devotion, and in purity of heart, eventually it will come closer . . . and then closer. . . and closer. . . and as it approaches, I will see it more and more clearly, and finally it will alight on my hand, and this wild, wonderful thing will have become tame. And then, you know what I’ll do?”

“I can hardly bear the suspense.” “Use! What will I do?”

“You’ll call your publisher.”

“No. I’ll call, ‘Ilse! Ilse! Come see what I’ve found!’ And you’ll come. You’ll be enthralled. And then I’ll want everyone else to come, too.”

Her eyes are wet. She is weeping, through her anger, for all the lost years.
.
.
.
.
The Little Boy
Chapter IX

.
.
.
.
SHE LOOKS AT her hands. Ancient, withered, discolored, gnarled with arthritis, leaping veins and tendons. A plain wed­ding band on her fourth finger, a large amethyst in gold set­ting on her middle finger. She touches the rings, hesitates, moves them back and forth, finally takes them off. “Look at them,” she says. Her manner is portentous. Inside the wed­ding band: OMT and MBW, June 19, 1908. “I want you to take them with you . . . to keep them safe.” I protest: She enjoys them, she should keep them. “No. I’ll lose them. You take care of them for me. Keep them safe. I want Joan to have them. . . someday.” I drop them into my pocket. Her eyes follow their disappearance, linger on the pocket.

On my next visit, as we sit talking, she seems to be waiting for something. “Where are my rings?” she says. “In San Francisco, Mother. Don’t you remember? You wanted me to look after them for you. . . so they wouldn’t get lost.” “Yes, but I could wear them while you’re here. They’d be safe as long as you’re with me.” “Well, that’s true,” I say, “and I’m sorry I did­n’t think of it myself. Next time I’ll bring them.”

A few months later I’m back, and give her the rings. She receives them eagerly, hungrily; with something like a sigh, a visible relaxation, she slips them on her fingers, she is whole again. During the next two days, I watch her affirm herself in these rings. They contain the past that is lost to her. When it is time for me to go, she again, reluctantly, sur­renders them. “No, Mother, I’m not going to take them. They would simply lie in my desk. Useless. But you really enjoy them. I want you to have them. I want you to wear them all the time.”

THE VISIT IS over. “Good-bye, Mama.”

She fixes me with a look of solemn entreaty. “Son”- she takes my hand, presses it between both her own-”son, why don’t you take me back with you? I wouldn’t be much trouble and I could help with the chores.”

I look at the sagging eyelids, the clouded, unseeing eyes. Incontinent, unable to feed herself, strapped in a wheelchair that she not pitch forward. “I’d like to, Mama. . . but you’re too weak to make the trip. You have to get back some strength first. Then I’ll take you.”

She looks at me dubiously, takes a grain of hope, but not more. It flickers briefly and fades. She stares at the wall, then turns to me in desperate resolve. “Well, I can tell you one thing,” she says emphatically, “if you ever get down bad sick and have to be hospitalized, then I’m gonna come out there and look after you. I’m gonna come. . . even if I have to walk every step of the way. I’m gonna see to it that you get the proper medical care, and the proper food to help you get strong. . . and then I’m gonna stay a while.”

ONE DAY, HAVING neglected her for a while, I call the nurse to get my mother on the line. There comes the thin, vacant voice, changing to warm as she recognizes me. She wants to talk but has nothing to say. I chat, I tell her news of my chil­dren. She doesn’t remember them. I describe them to her, relate her experiences with them, try to make them come back. Nothing. She does not remember that I live in California or she in Texas, does not know what month it is, what year. She reproaches herself for having neglected her parents recently: I tell her they have been dead for fifty years, and that she was a great comfort to them in their last illnesses. She is reassured. And when am I coming to see her? She thinks I am just around the comer, cannot imagine me two thousand miles away.

“And how is the little boy?” I ask. “Oh, he’s all right. . . I reckon.” “Do you talk to him?” “Oh yes, I talk to him.” “And does he answer you?” “He shies away. Don’t seem to want much to do with me.” “What’s his name?” I have never asked this before. “Why, his name is . . . Allen”-slow wonderment spreads out in her voice-”Wheelis. . . .” A slight startle of breath, a double take. “Funny.” She hesitates. “He has the same name as you.”

Silence. I wait. Will she discover significance here or only coincidence? The moment drags, passes. Nothing. My child­hood is lost to her. “Sometimes I won’t see him for quite a spell,” she says, “but then one day I’ll hear a blood-curdling yell.” She chuckles. “And then I’ll know he’s around.” .

That cry leaps from a deep well, without context or connec­tion. She has no idea what it means, nor why she feels comfort rather than alarm. But I know. I remember that cry and the fantastic power it claimed.

AT TWELVE I discovered Tarzan and fashioned an identity on the life of this dauntless and unvanquishable savage. I would live in the jungle as he did, would survive on but my own strength and ingenuity, would be protector of all the friendly animals and the terror of the evil ones. I took Tarzan as my middle name. The trees roundabout were carved with the let­ters ATW. I wanted to depart civilization at once but knew I was too young. I had to wait. . . to prepare myself. But how long? Until sixteen, I decided. Then I would be ready. But would my mother let me go? I must get her promise.

I held close the details, said only that I wanted to live in Africa. “But at sixteen? No. You have to go to college.” “Please, Mama.” “We don’t have to decide now,” she suggested. “You’re only twelve.” “Please, Mama. It’s terribly important to me. Promise.” “I can’t promise such a thing, son. It might not be right for you. Let’s wait.” “I can’t wait, Mama. I have to know now. Please!” She is silent, troubled. “A lot can happen between now and then,” I add deviously, encouraging her to believe that I will change my mind about wanting to do such a thing, that therefore she will never have to deliver on this promise; while knowing that I will hold her to it even though I, in bad faith, seduced her into making it. “Just say yes. Please, Mama!” She sighs. “All right, hon.”

The way is clear, the fantasy unrolls. At sixteen, I will hitch. hike to Galveston, get a job on a freighter. Eventually this freighter will touch at Casablanca, where I will jump ship, find work on a coastal steamer going south. At the mouth of the Congo I’ll pick up a riverboat, go upstream, deep into the inte­rior. The river narrows. One night I will silently let myself over the side into the dark water, swim to the shore, disappear into the trackless jungle.

I viewed the next four years as preparation. I must become strong, must acquire the basic skills of survival. I raced down the veranda, leapt to the mesquite tree, swung about on the branches. I practiced climbing with ropes, threw spears, made flint knives. And frequently, after mortal combat, I rehearsed that celebrated moment of epiphany: Placing my right foot on the body of vanquished foe, I threw back my head, beat upon my chest, and uttered the victory cry of the bull ape. I had never heard such a cry, nor was I, in Texas, likely to. Knowing only that on hearing it all the “denizens of the jungle” trem­bled, I improvised the loudest, most prolonged and alarming cry I could imagine, then practiced to make it uniform, dis­tinctive, and terrifying.

And one afternoon, lost in my reverie, forgetting that my mother was entertaining the ladies of the Bible Society, I placed my foot on the body of Numa the lion and uttered my cry. And the ladies leapt to their feet, teacups flying, faces blanched at the murder evidently taking place in the next room. But my mother was tranquil and reassuring. “Oh, that’s all right,” she said. “Pay it no mind. That’s just Allen. . . prac­ticing. “

My SISTER DEVELOPS Alzheimer’s disease. Gradually her memory slips away. After a few years she knows nothing, can no longer feed herself. Francis puts her in the nursing home alongside my mother. Neither recognizes the other. My sister wanders the hallways, smiles benignly, but does not speak. Francis dies of cancer; she knows nothing. She comes upon her mother, stops and stares at her with fIxed and uncompre­hending smile. My mother glares. “What is that woman doing here?” she cries angrily. “What does she want? Why is she star­ing at me? I don’t like that! Something ought to be done about a situation like this. Where is the management? I’m going to report her!”

A TELEPHONE CALL from the nursing home. “Your mother is crawling around on the floor. We can’t think what’s got into her. Never been like this before. We pick her up, tie her in her chair, but first chance she gets she’ll slip right out, sorta slide down, and then there she’ll be, crawling around again.”

I ask the nurse to put her on the phone. After a while 1 hear the struggle, the labored breathing. “Hello, Mother. How are you?” Pause, then the thin, infinitely tired voice. “I guess I’m all right, son.” I ask about the crawling. She begins to cry. “I’ve lost my rings.”

The world is lost to her. Those rings were its vanishing point. When next I see her, she still slides down out of her chair, gropes about on the floor, but no longer knows what she seeks. Everything is slipping away. She still has a grasp of me, though at times she stares blankly as if I too were fading.
.
.
.
.
The Flying Dutchman
Chapter XI
.
.
.
.
THESE ARE THE last hours of my mother’s life. And she knows nothing. Only I observe her blind, stumbling arrival at the end of a century-long journey. I hope it may be different as I lie dying. I hope that I will be able to take myself as the object of reflection, see my life in extension, the whole course-tak­ing off like a ballistic missile, soaring, leveling off, falling­and, just before the end, achieve, like the computer in a war­head at impact, a view of the whole trajectory.

I doubt my mother has ever done this, or would want to. For years now, she has had no awareness of death. Death got lost as memory failed and reality slipped away. The last time she grappled with it was six years ago. She was ninety-four, frail and failing. She took my hand, solemnly, between both of her own, her voice dropped, her manner became portentous. “Son, I want you to know. . . you know. . . I don’t want to live for­ever. . . you know that. . . son, some folks nowadays . . . they just hang on and on, no use to themselves or anybody else, tak. ing up space and costing money. I don’t want anything like that. I don’t want you to take any special measures . . . you know what I mean?”

“Yes, Mama, I know.”
“I’ve lived a long time, and when my time comes. . . when it’s right for me to go. . . well, I’m ready. I leave that all to you. . It’s up to you.”
“I understand.”
“I don’t want to just hang on when my mind is gone and I’m no use to people.”
“You’re still in good health, Mama. You have a lot of life before you. I want you to keep living as long as you can enjoy things. “
We sit in silence. She strokes my hand absently, brooding, troubled. Her breathing becomes irregular, she wants to speak. Can’t find the right words. She sighs. “Son,” she says after a bit, “son, tell me . . . how long do you think I will live?”
I realize she is afraid. “You have a lot of vitality, Mother. You’ve always been very strong. . . “
“That’s true.”
“You’ve pulled through bad sicknesses that would’ve been too much for most people.”
“That’s true.”
“So I think you might. . . live to” -I canvass her anxious face, extend my estimate-”you’ll probably live to be one hun­dred!” Wildly extravagant. But maybe she will buy it. Perhaps it will make her happy.
Her expression doesn’t change. She fixes her eyes on mine, judiciously weighs, examines, my estimate: “That’s not very long, you know.”

IN ATTENDING MY mother’s death I preview my own, try to get the feel of it, take its measure. But cannot, can never get this matter settled. I accept what’s coming only in the sense of acknowledging its inevitability, not in affirming its propriety or rightness.

An uneasy truce, the terms are not clear. Something more should be possible. One should not be stuck forever with this nagging problem as unfinished business. How is it handled by the wise, by the really mature?

An interview on television with Erik Erikson. “And have you achieved wisdom, Mr. Erikson?” The question is loaded, for Erik has staked his reputation on the depiction of life as pha­sic; and the task of the last phase, in which his shaky infirmity unmistakably places him, presents the alternatives of wis­dom and despair. “Have you achieved wisdom, Mr. Erikson?” He hesitates, then stands behind his product: “I’m afraid I have.”

Mazeltov. I have not. I’m as old as he, almost. Anyway, like him slogging along through the last phase, if it is a phase, any­way the last years oflife. But not with wisdom. Rather, with the vanity, awkwardness, longing, and sham that have character­ized my passage through all the other phases.

I distrust the wisdom of old men. I listen to them and am not convinced. I suspect a coverup. They don’t have things really straight either. They’re headed, mapless, into the same dark that awaits us all.

We know what it is, we see it lying in wait up ahead: Consciousness is going to end. That vast net which, nearing the end of a long life, has acquired such enormous reach into time and space, such variety of experience, inward and outward, backward and forward, that knows so much, and, beyond what it knows, can imagine anything-consciousness, that ringing glass, is going to shatter, its shards plunge back into nothing­ness. Like the fading fragments of a burst of fireworks.

THE LIGHT SNAPS on. The nurse enters, opens the diaper. No feces now, just bright red blood. The nurse stares at me with a mute question: She wants to call an ambulance, wants my mother rushed to the hospital, to have a blood transfusion. I shake my head. She points to the hands and feet, which are turning blue.  Again I shake my head. Her expression closes over with disap­proval. She cleans my mother’s wasted bottom, puts on a fresh diaper. Together, one on each side of the bed, we feel the pulse. It is weak and fast and thready. The nurse leaves.
.
.
.
.
Rackety-Rackety-Rackety
Chapter XII

IN BED, ALONE, in darkness, waiting for sleep, falling away in the rustle of time, I dream: I am a prisoner in a concentration camp. My back has been broken. A guard offers me a pillow. I decline. Presently he offers again. Moved by his kindness, I accept, and immediately feel a blessed relief. All of the prisoners sit or lie along the ramparts of the castle, all of us in an extremity of exhaus­tion from torture. I look down a sheer stone wall, several hundred feet. A man is looking up at us, calling, chanting, waving his arms. He wears a white shirt, blue jeans, sneakers. And a black cap. Has long hair. A young man. Several guards in brown shirts stand about watching him, occasionally looking up at us. The man sways and beckons, utters long singing calls: “Come to me! Jump! It’s so easy. So-o-o easy. You will float through the air. Like a leaf. Like a feather. No more pain. Never again will you suffer.

I feel my own pain, also the wonderful softness of the pillow still at my back. I think of jumping, am tempted. I want to jump. Presently one of the prisoners does jump, plummets to his death on the rocks below. The one who beckons, encouraged now, renews and intensifies his ca”. His seductiveness becomes more insistent, ecsta­tic. Others jump. One by one they are crushed, like eggs, on the rocks. I want to follow, but hesitate-feel the softness at my back.

Then, in quick succession, still dreaming, I have three insights. First: In giving me the pillow, the guard was doing me no kindness. Affording me some relief, he was suggesting a final relief, was tempting me to jump. What I had taken as mercy was malice. Second: The young man below in the black cap who beckons is a collaborationist, a prisoner like the rest of us, trying to save his own life by leading us to death. And it won’t work: in the end they will kill him too. Third: Although I now have the strength to hold fast to the parapet and not jump, and so have won an extension of life, a sort of victory, this means that I will presently be subjected to even more monstrous and ingenious tortures, and that a time will come when I too can stand no more and will jump.

I flail about in bed, clutch at the sheets, cry out.

TH E OLDER I get, the less I know, the darker the well of time. r have a sense of waste, of a terrible, ineluctable waste, a profli­gacy of waste. Everything I know, all of the accumulated strate­gies of life, of creation, all is being swept away.

And rendered meaningless?

I don’t know. There is nothing else. All of life is a trying to make something in the face of knowing that one can make nothing that stays. As I get older, the roar of the cataract, of everything being swept away, grows louder, while the making of something becomes more and more fragile and illusory. The universe is a chamelhouse. A cataract of soul pours unendingly over the brink. We all swim upstream against the overpowering current, trying at the last moment to throw something ashore, some little thing that will remain, bear wit­ness that we were here.

And of course some things do remain. Collectively they comprise the culture we inherit from the past. And if we ignore the millions of lives, each with its unique vastness of spirit spilling over the brink, that culture looks quite grand. But is of no comfort. We don’t contribute to it. What we try to throw ashore falls short, is lost. All is lost of our flimsy and flickering lives. “We are a phantom flare of grieved desire, the ghostling and phosphoric flicker of immortal time.” So Thomas Wolfe thought, and so, still, do I.

Wolfe was one of the more fortunate ones. He threw a lot ashore, and it’s still with us, still alive. But of no comfort to him, I might add; he’s gone. It could only have mattered to him in prospect, in attitudes of hope for the future, while he still lived.

As a matter of fact I, too, should be called fortunate; for I, too, have twisted over in the white water, in the swirling cur­rent, and lofted a bit to shore. Most of my books fall out of print, but a few seem to stay. Is that of any importance? I think not. I think it doesn’t matter at all. Am I kidding myself? Can I imagine a thought experiment that might test this out? Well . . . perhaps.

Suppose the consciousness that is I, that now thinks these thoughts, to be a ghost, my corporeal life having been lived say in the sixteenth century. Would it now matter to this ghost whether that actual life of four hundred years ago had been grand or nameless? Would I care whether I could, or could not, now, as a ghost, go to an encyclopedia and with my invis­ible hands look myself up? Hm . . . I’m not sure. I would like to know that my life had been colorful, adventurous, gallant, rather than drab, but beyond that I don’t think I would care. I’m a writer; would I want to have been a famous writer? Fame I would have wanted then; I wouldn’t now care. It wouldn’t matter. Looking back over the now immutable past, I’d just as soon have been John Skelton as William Shakespeare. For who besides this forlorn ghost could know? And why should that ghost now care? Why even should he think back? Why, indeed, since he does not and cannot exist?

VALUE IS CERTAIN in sex and play. Of nothing else can one be sure. Laughter, dancing, sensuality-this is life. Guilt, anx­iety, depression-this is death. When children race through the house laughing and screaming, chasing each other, grab­bing, tearing each other’s clothes, tickling and groping, jump­ing on sofas, throwing pillows, overturning chairs, ignoring authority, defying rules, violating boundaries, we recognize that this is life being fully lived moment by moment, that death has no part in this scene, does not exist, that this is life in its purest form, the most enviable state of being. We recog­nize it, but we are afraid of it, so what we experience usually is a furious disapproval, not recognizing our envy.

For we adults have become adults by virtue of designating, at the prompting of anxiety and insecurity, the more exuberant aspects of sex and playas evil, of formulating rules that forbid them, of becoming ourselves the rulekeepers and rule enforcers and infraction punishers, of spending our lives in redemptive efforts, in guilt and penance, trying to cleanse ourselves, to renounce our sin, and so achieving a measure of order, thereby gaining-what?-a clear view of the final emptiness.
.
.
.
.
WE ANALYSTS ARE very defensive about our theory. As well we might be. Conjectural excess has always been our method. “It may be surmised that. . . ” “We may assume that. . . ” “It seems possible that . . . ” These phrases thread their way through our literature, in and out, modest little bridges between clinical finding and some new proposition designed to explain that finding, the proposition always advanced as a “hypothesis,” thereby claiming scientific status, yet always nonverifiable and nonfalsifiable. It comes about finally that simply the showing of clinical data as consonant with a hypoth­esis is taken as proof of the hypothesis.

As conjectures acquire credibility by such use, and become venerable also with age, with mere survival, insidiously they cease to be hypotheses and come to be facts-upon which new conjectures may then be built. And every one of us wants to do a little building. We get out our little hammers-master builders every one of us!-and tack on some new bit of gingerbread to an already overloaded, already dangerously over­hanging, already too baroque, balcony. Our theory is now a Winchester House, that mystery house of a thousand rooms, secret doors and passageways, different levels, always chang­ing, crazy angles, one room connecting obscurely with the next, the whole thing the product of its owner’s belief (Winchester’s widow, I think) that so long as the house was unfinished, she would not die-that hypothesis having been advanced by her palmist. That’s what our theory is like, and it’s quite understandable we might be defensive about it.

But there’s something else we assume, more basic, more important, about which we’re not defensive at all. Indeed, we seem unaware of it, take it so for granted, like the air we breathe, so self-evidently true that its truth need no longer be remarked. That assumption is simply that it is possible for a human being to be well adjusted, to have a good life, that how­ever rare it may be in fact, it is in principle possible. There are a few psychoanalytic asides, always jocose, which stand as dis­claimers. “Analysis enables you to cope with the misery of real life,” or “to adjust to the poverty in which it leaves you.” But this is window-dressing, a specious cynicism to ward off the embarrassment of a real utopianism.

The assumption is basic and ubiquitous. Without it, we’d have to pack up our couch and ottoman and fade away. Our so­called science is married to a genuine faith: That serious and sustained misery is not inherent to human life, that it is imposed by neurotic conflict or by reality hardship; that, there­fore, if neurotic conflict is analyzed and resolved, and if reality hardship is absent, one will love and will work, will live out one’s span with contentment, with real gratifications, and when the end comes will pronounce it all to have been worth while.

Of course, we say, there is always reality hardship, and that’s true. But no, not always. For it’s also true-rather blatantly, even embarrassingly, true-that many of us in America, most particularly those of us who can afford psychoanalysis, are often free of reality hardship, are. in good health, have money, are well married, have suffered no loss. Are we well adjusted? Are analysts well adjusted? As a group, we are spectacularly free of reality hardship, and are very well analyzed. What would I say of my own life? Of the lives of my colleagues?

We are deceived and we have deceived others. The good life is possible when awareness is limited, but it is not possible for us. We know too much. Were we to know only the world, we’d be all right But knowledge spills over. We know also ourselves, our fear, our destructiveness, our hunger for immortality, our oncoming death. Our knowledge subverts adjustment at the root. The misery inheres in what we are. The ideal is incoherent.
.
.
.
.
FIVE YEARS OLD, too young for school. Skinny arms and legs sticking out from skimpy pants and short-sleeve shirt. When the older boys got back from school, I went to Jimmy’s house to play. Five boys had arranged themselves in a circle, were throw­ing a ball one to another in sequence. I put myself in the circle, but when my turn came, the ball sailed over my head to the nextin line. An oversight, perhaps; I waited for the next round. When passed over again, I complained. They did not seem to hear.

My complaint grew louder, became pleading. Again and again the ball flew over my head. I jumped but could not reach it, wailed, went to my friend who usually was willing to play with me, tugged on his sleeve, “Let me play, Jimmy! Throw it to me too! Please, Jimmy!” Jimmy shrugged, threw the ball over my head. I began to cry. “It’s not fair!”

I was enraged, wanted to retaliate, to walk away. But could not reject them so long as they would not see me, would not hear. And because they were denying my existence, I could not give up trying to enter their circle. I began to run after the ball, tried to intercept throws, but when I managed to position myself before the next receiver, the order would change, the ball going instead to someone else. I ran back and forth, in and out, never finding a way to become a part. It was a magic cir­cle, it joined them, excluded me. I was a nonperson.

Eventually I gave up, sat down at some distance, exhausted, disheartened, watched the ball fly around, one to another, in sequences of infinite desirability. It was too painful to watch, I lowered my head, scratched in the dirt. When my crying stopped, the boys, tired of the game, stood about idly, bored, wondered what to do next. “Here, Allen,” Jimmy said, as if to a dog, and tossed me the now unwanted ball. The boys huddled, came to a decision, set off together. “Where are we going?” I asked, following after. But again could not make myself heard. I ran to keep up, but they ran faster, and came presently to a thicket which with their long pants they could push through, whereas I, with bare legs, was turned back bleeding. The boys disappeared, their laughter grew fainter, died away. I extricated myself from the brush, walked back toward Jimmy’s house. It was getting dark. There was a strong and cold wind. I was whimpering. Maybe crying.

Then there was my mother standing before me in her longbrown coat. “A norther has come up,” she said, taking my hand. “All of a sudden. That’s why it’s so dark and cold.” I looked up. Black clouds were rushing across the sky. She wiped my nose. “We must go home.” The pebbles hurt my bare feet; I hopped and lurched, holding her hand, trying to avoid the sharper stones. My teeth were chattering, the skin of my arms and legs became goose flesh.

My mother stopped, opened her coat “Come inside,” she said. She folded me into the coat, buttoned it in front of me. We pro­ceeded awkwardly, my shoulder against her thigh, my head along­side her hip, enveloped in darkness, in wannth, in the smell of her body. She was wearing an apron, and there was a smell also of food-onions and something fried. She must have been cooking supper when the norther hit And stopped to come get me.

It was difficult to walk; we went slowly. I couldn’t see any­thing ahead, but looking down could see the ground where I was putting my feet. I was getting warm in that germinal dark­ness. My teeth stopped chattering, my knees stopped shaking. I was aware of the powerful movement of her hip against my cheek, the sense of a large bone moving under strong muscles. Aware also that it was difficult for her to walk with me but­toned in. Occasionally she stumbled. And just then, for the first time, I became aware of goodness. Of goodness as a spe­cial quality, like evil, which a person mayor may not possess. She doesn’t have to do this, I thought. It’s not necessary. I’m cold, but I could make it home all right.

What she gave me could not have been demanded, I would never have thought to ask. All afternoon I had been demand­ing something to which it seemed I had a right, and had been denied; yet here was a good to which I had no right, freely offered. No trade. Nothing asked in return.

THE MEANING OF life is in that coat: it is the home to which one belonged as a child. If you’re lucky, you never lose it; it simply evolves, smoothly and continuously, into that larger, more abstract home of religion, or perhaps, in a secular vein, into clan or community or ideology. Meaninglessness means homelessness. When home is lost and the nightmares begin, that’s when one goes in quest of meaning.

And one has the impression then of reaching outward and forward, of delving into something out there, of grappling with the world, trying to penetrate a mystery; and it seems that one has only just come to recognize the existence of this most fun­damental problem, a problem that has been there all along, but that only now, just possibly, has one arrived at the capaci­ty to solve, or at least to try. But this is retrospective falsifica­tion. The problem has not been there all along; it came into being only with the loss of home, and the attempt to solve it is not an effort to create something new but to recreate some­thing old. It is a quest backward. One is trying to refashion, in a form acceptable to an intellectualizing adult, the home of one’s childhood.

How to live? Who knows the question knows not how. Who knows not the question cannot tell.

In those days, everything seemed different. It seemed pos­sible to organize one’s life, to resist’ the tide of entropy, to impose form. In some fundamental sense, life seemed under­standable if one went at it with enough will and intelligence. Now everything seems different. Life is not to be managed­or shaped or directed, it is not even to be understood. Life is to be lost. And the only question is whether with grievance or with generosity and grace.

JOAN THROWS A ball for Monty. Out of the trees, suddenly, comes a large yellow dog, attacks, is tearing at her dog. She weeps desperately. The violence and the tears are every­where-behind a tree, beneath a leaf, in the smiles of a sum­mer day. Escape, forget for a while, but not for long.

I separate the dogs and her sobs diminish, but one day it will be me, or someone else dear to her, and she’ll be sobbing again in just such helplessness. Our safe world may be lost in the spite, the vanity, the self-indulgent fit of anyone of our tyrants, and the sobbing children of Vietnam, the screaming mothers, will be all around us. The crazy violence that is every­where, promiscuous, flares up in an instant, with no more warning, no more meaning, no more reason than a dogfight. How little time for laughter, how brief our innocence of what lies in wait.

What can I do with what I know? What is my task?

Canetti: “Oh priest of signs, disquieted creature, caught in the temple of all alphabets, your life will soon be over. What have you seen? What have you feared? What have you accom­plished?”

My WIFE HAS built for me a new study. Blue ceiling, birch walls, wonderful smell of new lumber. I feel a deepening intol­erance of apathy, of not making anything, of sliding downhill on an old life that is really over.

He who has a message, who deals in salvation, writes a book of structured argument, of hierarchic order, of reasons in sequence. Not I. My life is all searching, never finding. I bear witness to what I have seen-a maze of roads, conflicting signs, freeways that end on nowhere, angelic maidens who fall under a spell and turn drab, far-reaching insights that become inert and explain nothing, blueprints of reason that twist out of shape and vanish with a twang in a minor key.

I have always been too guilty to be happy. Guilt such as mine threatens life itself. The first task, therefore-and never has there been time for a second-is to fend off an inner accusation that threatens to annihilate. This I have done, by work, day after day after day, and so life has passed, and look­ing back I can see I’ve fought my demons to a draw, or a little better, but where, lost to me, was the music, the laughing in the night?

BEHOLD THE MAN of reason. Regard him in his work. He has struggled with this problem all his life. Solve it here in one guise and it appears there in another, as if a different problem. He is getting very old when he understands finally its true and single nature: not knowing how to live.

Such an insight, you might think, would cast him down, but he feels hope, exhilaration. It’s better, he thinks, to have one big problem than a bagful of small ones. You can concentrate your efforts, create a single strategy. How, then, does one learn how to live? One must search, see what can be seen, analyze, make connections, relate things to each other in casual sequences. For a rational man, there is no other way than the way of intelligence to learn anything. But in learning how to live, intellect is treacherous, for life is a matter of rhythms, while intellect reduces rhythms to law.

He goes back to Hegel, to Nietzsche, to the pragmatists, the positivists, the dialectical materialists, ransacks the old closet of philosophy, fumbles around there in the dark as he has so often in the past, but now with a clearer sense of what he is looking for. He goes back to the poets, to the Elegies and the letters of Rilke, the effete but ruthlessly honest meditations of Eliot; returns to the searchers after God: Pascal, Kierkegaard, Teilhard de Chardin.

He has learned nothing, is still the student, a doomed centipede unable to correlate all those legs, falling down, getting up, trying again, always signing up for another course: “The Anatomy of Legs,” “Legs, Their Physiology and Biochemistry,” “Advanced Leg Dynamics,” and now, still hoping, a yet more advanced course-”How to Walk.” All these courses have in common the method of intelligence: they take the problem apart, carefully, piece by piece, seeking hidden relationships. He hopes to find the rhythm by dismantling the melody, examining each beat separately.

Look at him, age sixteen, at a high school dance, already a master of this methodology. With great yearning he watches the dancers, remains aloof . Cautiously he moves along the wall, simulates nonchalance, as if at home in such gatherings. He smiles, nods, leans against a door, and, having been shown in a thousand advertisements the connection between poise and smoking, lights a cigarette. He feels dizzy, coughs, moves on, chats with a teacher, makes it appear he is taking but a brief break from the dancing.

In fact, he is watching the dancing feet. How is it done? What is the formula? He is diagramming the movement. What is the excursion of each foot? How far? In what direc­tion? What sequence? Now he looks at the faces of the girls. How do you tell which one, on being asked, will say yes? What is the formula for that?

Suddenly before him is a girl with dark flowing hair and smiling eyes, and with every beat of the music her body regis­ters a slight response, a resonance, which wants to become a full participation. Along his sides the trickle of sweat, the smell off ear. “Hello, Jan,” he says. His mouth is paper-dry, he swal­lows, waves a hand casually toward the dancers. “Reminds me of that scene in Gatsby, the summer night, couples swaying under the paper lanterns, and that marvelous line, ‘old men pushing young girls backward in eternal graceless circles.’ ” He nods, moves on; and Jan, who sailed into his life like a comet, trailing glittering promise, is swept away, lost.

My WHOLE LIFE has been given overto this search and I have found nothing. I’m growing old and still know not how to live. It’s already too late to do much with the answer, which, in any event, seems still remote.

One day, though, I shall have it. An intimation of final justice tells me this quest shall not have been in vain. Like the tourist who, avid to buy, receives his letter of credit only as he is departing the country of bargains, I shall be unable to use it, but will count it a victory in principle.

WE ARE PLUNGING down a cataract, and what’s important is to call out. Not for help, there is no help. Not in despair-what can anyone do but shrug, look away? But to give a signal. A gesture of love and humor to acknowledge drowning so others who drown will know they are not alone. We are all drowning; deny it with blindness, transcend it with laughter. The laughter I seek is that which looks straight in the eye of despair and laughs. The proper subjects for comedy are fear, loneliness, and death.

Maybe there is no meaning but only life; and in art, no meaning but only the illusion of life. Maybe that’s the whole thing: To observe life so closely, to search it out so carefully, with so much love, that it comes alive, that it is.

A HOLIDAY IN summer. I go in the afternoon in bright sun­shine to sit in a dark and nearly empty theater. As I wait for the film to begin, the sour loneliness of the place settles on my spirit. Yesterday’s cigarette smoke in the air, balls of hardened gum under the armrests, popcorn and candy wrappers on the floor. I and a few other bleak souls wait dumbly like oxen in the rain for deliverance, each of us isolated in the drizzle of his own everyday misery.

The house darkens, the music begins, the screen is illumi­nated, deliverance is at hand. The Bicycle Thief. The few of us sitting there, dispersed, walled off from each other by pain and distrust, by a kind of stubborn uncaring, become a communi­ty as we watch. We are shown a poor man trying to find work. We see his wife, his son, we feel their fear, the loom of hunger. Gradually de Sica’s love of this man makes him come alive, makes him human. The thief who steals his bicycle is faceless, beyond notice, one of the ignominious and detestable of the earth. All our sympathy goes to his victim who. without the bicycle, will lose his job. We follow him in his desperate search, feel with him, suffer his frustration, enter his despair, finally become him-then he steals a bicycle! And suddenly we have stolen a bicycle, are one with all men, high and low, good and bad, and weep for all that is faceless and voiceless and moves with heavy heart over the dark earth.

What a grand thing de Sica does, what a great and disinter­ested love to take as its object this limited, thwarted, and weak man, and. by going out to him with such caring, such patient observing, to make him not only live-though that’s miracle enough-but our brother! I most deeply salute a man with the soul to do that. And if ever I find myself seeking out the privi­leged, the interesting, the beautiful, I hope I will remember the bicycle thief and that I am he.

THE ONCE TOUGH rubbery skin hangs over vanished mus­cles as a film, a terrifying drapery. Everything slips away: memory, vision, hearing, teeth, unable finally to tie your shoes, to hoist a suitcase to an overhead bin. Should one not be ashamed of hanging on so long?

Gogol died at forty-three; Kleist made a quick exit at thirty­four. taking his girlfriend with him. Schubert had sung his last song at thirty-one. Keats at twenty-six. Shelley at thirty, Byron (“So we’ll go no more a’roving . . . “) at thirty-six, et cetera. (What am I doing? Claiming status by shared mortali­ty?)

While I am a long time dying. When do we begin to die? And when are we done with it? Perhaps I am dead already. Would I know? When does life end? Not the last heartbeat­ that doesn’t matter so much-but the loss of meaning. And what is meaning?

What we are drifting toward, that dread thing, is the loss of the capacity to be loved. It happens silently; we don’t notice. They notice, they know, but they don’t tell us, they pretend. (Perhaps an animal might tell you: Freud knew only when the stench of his cancer was such that, though his family behaved as always, his dog would no longer come near him.) They deny, they affirm love, they declare love, but it’s not love they then offer but compassion, duty, respect, sometimes fear ­because we light the ugly way that they too will pass. So we never know when it happens. We die in the palsied spilling of soup, the dripping nose, the colostomy, the incontinence, we die over a cup of tea, a quiver of lip.

What is there to love when flesh has gone? Is there anything else? All noble qualities of mind may remain, but are they, without flesh, enough? Can the wasted one still love another? Is that enough?

“What do you suppose an embrace of mine would be worth now?” asks the AIDS-ravaged Harold Brodkey, recalling the myth of his sexual irresistibility.

WE LIVE BY attachment, not by reason. That’s why love is pri­mary: there is no value without caring, and caring is loving. If, looking about at the world, one finds no one and no thing to love, no bird, no tree, no flower worth caring about, the world is without value; and then, in fatal consequence, one’s own life is without value.

But if, looking about at the world, one finds someone to love, or perhaps not a person but a dog, or maybe only a plant that wants water and needs sunshine, or maybe not even any­thing living but a thing-an old house that has sheltered us, that has creaked and moaned in the storms of winter-then one has something to live for, and in consequence, one’s own life is worth preserving. That’s the point: one’s own life has value only because one cares for others. And one cares without a reason! Without reflection, without the weighing of profit and loss. The caring that justifies everything else is itself with­out justification. It is a leap.

Attachments grow in the dark, like roots. Silently, invisibly, they extend themselves in heart-soil, anchoring us in the world. To go on living then is not elective; we cannot depart this life, we are held by invincible tendrils.

I SMELL MY death on the wind, want to see something of beauty and nobility in the time that is left, to enlarge con­sciousness. I adjure myself: Stay with the main show, do not be drawn off into sideshows, diversions, entertainments. Do only what you are most solemnly charged to do. Whatever is elective is a turning away. There in the big top a man is hang­ing by his teeth, twisting, spinning, spotlights playing over him, the drums beginning to roll. He’s going to fall and noth­ing can be done, no net, but in the moments remaining he may yet achieve something remarkable, a glittering gesture, a movement perhaps of breathtaking beauty.

The main show is the search. It mounts on despair, spins there above you. Any turning away to watch the dancing bears is a betrayal of the dangling man. Hold fast, stay with him, watch the twists and turns of his brief agony, study his condi­tion. What in this fateful moment can he still do?

Is IT NOT time? Whom do I address? Time to take up again the seeking out of those faint footprints in the night, to try again, perhaps to hope again, and, beyond the trying, to seek the means to keep on seeking when nothing is found.

SOMETIMES I-EVEN I!-feel a wild and deep joyousness, the exaltation of cold wind on one’s face when one is young.

IN THE DEPARTMENT store. Overcoat collar turned up, scarf over my left shoulder, black hat low over my eyes, I wait. My wife is in the ladies’ room. Christmas crowds flow around me. Swirl, eddy. I stand motionless against a pillar. Minutes pass.

I turn my head, catch a woman in the moment of her jaw going slack, her lips parting. Astonishment sweeps over her face. She veers toward me, ann outstretched, beginning to smile. She has a child in tow. “Oh, my God! I didn’t think you were real! Then you moved!” She laughs slightly, a dark, rich laugh, touches my ann. Through my jacket I feel her fingers. Again that slight laugh, relief and wondennent. Her large gray eyes make friendly contact: Though unexpected, I, refugee mannequin, am being welcomed to the realm of flesh. She nods, passes on.

Where is she? Where has she gone? I want to grab her, find her flesh under my fingers, feel it give, secure my reality in her yielding.

A FAST-MOVING TRAIN, teeming with people. A great din. All speak together, all struggle to be heard. The rocking motion throws us side to side. Rumble and clatter of wheels, groan and creak of metal. In some of the cars people are fighting, hurl each other back and forth, out the doors, out the windows. More crowded now, more difficult to move. I am pushed back­ward, forced to the outside, am clinging with fingertips. Cinders, the assaulting wind, the driving rain. Vision blurs, the landscape is featureless and dark. No lights, no homes, no roads. Fingers loosen. Music from within. A waltz. Ah . . . they’re dancing.

I will leave this sweet monster soon. Rounding a curve, it will fling me away. Without slowing, it will hurtle on, rackety­rackety-rackety, clackety-clackety-clackety, without me, through the night.

The Equation of Donkeys and Humans

Equation 1

Human = eat + sleep + work + enjoy
Donkey = eat + sleep

Therefore,
Human = Donkey + work + enjoy

Therefore,
Human – enjoy = Donkey + work

In other words,

Human that don’t know how to enjoy = Donkey that work

========= ========= ========= ========= ===

Equation 2

Men = eat + sleep + earn money
Donkeys = eat + sleep

Therefore,
Men = Donkeys + earn money

Therefore,
Men – earn money = Donkeys

In other words,

Men that don’t earn money = Donkeys

============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Equation 3

Women = eat + sleep + spend
Donkeys = eat + sleep

Therefore,
Women = Donkeys + spend

Therefore,
Women – spend = Donkeys

In other words,

Women that don’t spend = Donkeys
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= =====

To Conclude:

>From Equation 2 and Equation 3

Men that don’t earn money = Women that don’t spend. (COROLLARY !)

HENCE, Men earn money not to let women become Donkeys! (Postulate 1)

And, Women spend not to let men become Donkeys!
(Postulate 2)

So, we have?

Men + Women = Donkeys + earn money + Donkeys + spend money (COROLLARY 2)

Therefore from Postulates 1 and 2, we can conclude,

* Man + Woman = 2 Donkeys that live happily together! ;

– One earning money and other draining it in equal proportion.

COROLLARY 3 :

If both men and women are earning, you can safely assume 4 donkeys offsetting each other’s earning yet saving 2 earnings : so encourage women to work!!

Q.E.D

Setting Expectations

A father passing by his son’s bedroom was astonished to see the bed was nicely made and everything was picked up. Then he saw an envelope propped up prominently on the center of the bed. It was addressed, “Dad”.  With the worst  premonition, he opened the envelope and read the letter with trembling hands:

Dear Dad,

It is with great regret and sorrow that I’m writing you. I had to elope with my new girlfriend because I wanted to avoid a scene with Mom and you.

I’ve been finding real passion with Joan and she is so nice-even with all her piercing, tattoos, and her tight Motorcycle clothes. But it’s not only the passion dad, she’s pregnant and Joan said that we will be very happy.

Even though you won’t care for her as she is so much older than I, she already owns a trailer in the woods and has a stack of firewood for the whole winter. She wants to have many more children with me and that’s now one of my dreams too.

Joan taught me that marijuana doesn’t really hurt anyone and we’ll be growing it for us and trading it with her friends for all the cocaine and ecstasy we want. In the meantime, we’ll pray that science will find a cure for AIDS so Joan can get better; she sure deserves it!

Don’t worry Dad, I’m 15 years old now and I know how to take care of myself. Someday I’m sure we’ll be back to visit, so you can get to know your grandchildren.

Your loving son,
John

PS: Dad, none of the above is true. I’m over at the neighbor’s house. I just wanted to remind you that there are worse things in life than my report card that’s in the center drawer of my desk. I love you!

How People Change – Allen Wheelis

Chapter III
Freedom and Necessity

.
.
.
.
The realm of necessity, therefore, must comprise two categories: the subjective or arbitrary, and the objective or mandatory. Mandatory necessity-like natural law which cannot be disobeyed-is that which cannot be suspended. It derives from forces, conditions, events which lie beyond the self, not subject to choice, unyielding to will and effort. “I wish I had blue eyes,” “…wish I were twenty again,” ” … wish I could fly,” “…wish I lived in the court of the Sun King.” Such wishes are futile, choice is inoperative; the necessity impartially constrains. And since it cannot be put aside there’s not much arguing about it. “If you jump you will fall-whether or not you choose to Fly.” There is consensus, we don’t dwell on it, we accept.

Arbitrary necessity derives from forces within the personality, but construed to be outside. The force may be either impulse or prohibition: “I didn’t want to drink, but couldn’t help it.” That is to say, the impulse to drink does not lie within the “I.” The “I,” which is of course the locus of choice, does not “want” to drink, would choose otherwise, but is overwhelmed by alien force. “I want to marry you,” a woman says to her lover, “want it more than anything in the world. But I can’t divorce my husband. He couldn’t take it . . . would break down. He depends on me. It would kill him.” Here it is loyalty, caring for another’s welfare, which is alleged to lie outside the deciding “I,” which therefore cannot choose, cannot do what it “wants,” but is held to an alien course. As though she were saying, “I do not here preside over internal conflict, do not listen to contending claims within myself to arrive finally at an anguished, fallible decision, but am coerced by a mandate beyond my jurisdiction. I yield to necessity.” The issue is not one of conscious versus unconscious. The contending forces are both conscious. The issue is the boundary of the self, the limits of the “I.”

Arbitrary necessity, therefore-like man-made law is that which may be suspended, disobeyed. When dealing with ourselves the constraining force seems inviolable, a solid wall before us, as though we really “can’t,” have no choice; and if we say so often enough, long enough, and mean it, we may make it so. But when we then look about and observe others doing what we “can’t” do we must conclude that the constraining force is not an attribute of the environing world, not the way things are, but a mandate from within ourselves which we, strangely, exclude from the “I.”

The lady who “wants” to marry her lover but “can’t” divorce her husband might here object. “When I said ‘can’t,”’ she might say, “it was just a way of speaking, a metaphor. It meant that staying with my husband represents duty, not desire, that’s all. In’ a theoretical way I could choose … I know that. But it’s just theoretical. Because … you see, the conflict is so terribly unequal, the considerations that make me stay, that absolutely demand I stay with my husband … they’re so overwhelmingly strong, there’s really no choice. That’s all I mean.”

We make serious record of her objection. In passing we note with surprise that the inequality of the conflict leads her to conclude there is “really no choice,” whereas this same circumstance would have led us to say rather that the choice is easy, one she might arrive at promptly, with the conviction of being right.

It’s only a metaphor, she says. In some theoretical way, she says, she is aware of choice. Perhaps. But we have doubt. In any event we must point out that she specifically denies this choice for which she now claims oblique awareness, that she locates the determining duty outside the “I” . and its “wants.” And we might add that if she continues such metaphorical speech long enough she will eventually convince even herself; her “theoretical” choice will become more and more theoretical until, with no remaining consciousness of option, it will disappear in thin air. She then will have made actual something that may once have been but a metaphor. Nothing guarantees our freedom. Deny it often enough and one day it will be gone, and we’ll not know how or when.

Objective necessity is not arguable. My lover dies, I weep, beat my fists on the coffin. Everyone knows what I want; everyone knows that nothing will avail, no prayer, no curse, no desperate effort, nothing, that I shall never get her back. When there is argument about necessity, the alleged constraint is arbitrary, subjective. A house in flames, a trapped child, a restraining neighbor: “You can’t go in! It’s hopeless.” I see it differently: I can go in-if I have the nerve. There may be a chance. It’s not clear whether the situation permits or proscribes; the difference of opinion indicates that the necessity at issue is arbitrary. My neighbor’s statement is more plea than observation; he asks me to perceive that the contemplated action is precluded, to “see” that there is no choice. By so deciding I can make it so. If I agree it is impossible, then-even if mistaken-my having arrived at that judgment will, in a matter of moments, make it true. Our judgments fall within the field of events being judged, so themselves become events, and so alter the field. We survey the course of history and conclude, “Wars are inevitable.” The judgment seems detached, as if we observed from a distant galaxy; in fact it comes from within and, like all judgments, it may be mistaken. It is not inert, :it has consequences, shapes action, moves interest and behavior from, for example, the politics of dissent to the connoisseurship of wine; and so chips off one more fragment of the obstacle to war, thereby makes more likely the war which, when it comes, will vindicate our original judgment and the behavior which issued from it. So we create the necessity which then constrains us, constrains ever more tightly day after day, so vindicating ever more certainly our wisdom in having perceived from the outset we were not free. Finally we are bound hand and foot and may exclaim triumphantly, how right we were!

The areas of necessity and of freedom vary in proportion to each other and in absolute measure. They vary, also, from person to person, and, within the same person, from time to time. Together they comprise the total extent of available experience the range of which is a function of awareness and concern.

Adolescence, traditionally, is the time of greatest freedom, the major choices thereafter being progressively made, settled, and buried, one after another, never to be reopened. These days, however, an exhumation of such issues in later life has become quite common, with a corresponding increase in freedom which makes life again as hazardous as in youth.

Throughout our lives the proportion of necessity to freedom depends upon our tolerance of conflict: the greater our tolerance the more freedom we retain, the less our tolerance the more we jettison; for high among the uses of necessity is relief from tension. What we can’t alter we don’t have to worry about; so the enlargement of necessity is a measure of economy in psychic housekeeping. The more issues we have closed the fewer we have to fret about. For many of us, for example, the issues of stealing and of homosexuality are so completely buried that we no longer have consciousness of option, and so no longer in these matters have freedom: We may then walk through Tiffany’s or go to the ballet without temptation or conflict, whereas for one to whom these are still live issues, the choice depending upon a constantly shifting balance of fallibly estimated rewards of gain or pleasure as against risks of capture or shame, such jaunts may entail great tension.

Tranquillity, however, has risks of its own. As we expand necessity and so relieve ourselves of conflict and responsibility, we are relieved, also, in the same measure, of authority and significance. When there arises then a crisis which does not fall within our limited routine we are frightened, without resources, insignificant.

For some people necessity expands cancerously, every possibility of invention and variation being transformed into inflexible routine until all of freedom is eaten away. The extreme in psychic economy is an existence in which everything occurs by law. Since life means conflict, such a state is living death. When, in the other direction, the area of necessity is too much diminished we become confused, anxious, may be paralyzed by conflict, may reach eventually the extreme of panic.

The more we are threatened, fragile, vulnerable, the more we renounce freedom in favor of an expanding necessity, Observing others then who laugh at risk, who venture on paths from which we have turned back, we feel envy; they are courageous where we are timid. We come close to despising ourselves, but recover quickly, can always take refuge in a hidden determinism. “It’s all an illusion,” we say; “it looks like their will and daring as against my inhibition and weakness, but that must be illusion. Because life is lawful. Nothing happens by chance. Not a single atom veers off course at random. My inhibition is not a failure of nerve. We can’t see the forces that mold us, but they are there. The genetic and experiential dice are loaded with factors unknown, unknowable, not of our intending, are thrown in circumstances over which we have no vision or control; we are stuck with the numbers that turn up. Beware the man who claims to be captain ofhis soul, he’s first mate at the very best.”

The more we are strong and daring the more we will diminish necessity in favor of an expanding freedom. “We are responsible,” we say, “for what we are. We create ourselves. We have done as we have chosen to do, and by so doing have become what we are. If we don’t like it, tomorrow is another day, and we may do differently.”

Each speaks truly for himself, the one is just so determined, the other is just so free; but each overstates his truth in ascribing his constraint or his liberty to life at large. These truths are partial, do not contend with each other. Each expresses a quality of experience. Which view one chooses to express, to the exclusion of the other, better describes the speaker than the human condition.

In every situation, for every person, there is a realm of freedom and a realm of constraint. One may live in either realm. One must recognize the irresistible forces, the iron fist, the stone wall-must know them for what they are in order not to fall into the sea like Icarus-but, knowing them, one may turn away and live in the realm of one’s freedom. A farmer must know the fence which bounds his land but need not spend his life standing there, looking out, beating his fists on the rails; better he till his soil, think of what to grow, where to plant the fruit trees. However small the area of freedom, attention and devotion may expand it to occupy the whole of life.

Look at the wretched people huddled in line for the gas chambers at Auschwitz. If they do anything other than move on quietly, they will be clubbed down. Where is freedom? … But wait. Go back in time, enter the actual event, the very moment: they are thin and weak, and they smell; hear the weary shuffling steps, the anguished catch of breath, the clutch of hand. Enter now the mind of one hunched and limping man. The line moves slowly; a few yards ahead begin the steps down. He sees the sign, someone whispers “showers,” but he knows-what happens here. He is struggling with a choice: to shout “Comrades! They will kill you! Run!” or to say nothing. This option, in the few moments remaining, is his whole life. If he shouts he dies now, painfully; if he moves on silently he dies but minutes later. Looking back on him in time and memory, we find the moment poignant but the freedom negligible. It makes no difference, we think, in that situation, his election of daring or of inhibition. Both are futile, without consequence. History sees no freedom for him, notes only constraint, labels him victim. But in the consciousness of that one man it makes great difference whether or not he experience the choice. For if he knows the constraint and nothing else, if he thinks “Nothing is possible,” then he is living his necessity; but if, perceiving the constraint, he turns from it to a choice between two possible courses of action, then-however he choose-he is living his freedom. This commitment to freedom may extend to the last breath.
.
.
.
.
Chapter VII
The Upward Spiral

.
.
.
.
In a condition of struggle and of failure we must be able to say “I must try harder” or “I must try differently.” Both views are essential; neither must-take precedence by principle. They are analogous to the view of man as free and the view of man as determined. The two do not contend, but reflect the interaction between man and his environment. A change in either makes for a change in outcome. When we say “I must try harder” we mean that the most relevant variable is something within us-intention, will, determination, “meaning it”-and that if this changes, the outcome, even if everything else remain unchanged, will be different. When we say “I must try differently” we mean that the most relevant variable lies in the situation within which intention is being exerted, that we should look to the environment, to the ways it pushes and pulls at us, and in this study find the means to alter that interaction.

We try to stop smoking, try and fail, try again and fail again, and when we pause to reflect, to ask how we should understand the recurrent failure, we must regard it from both views. If we believe we cannot try harder, then we must examine the field in which the effort is being made, look for ways to diminish the obstacles against which will is pitted. If we conclude there is nothing to be altered in the field, we must go back to the possibility of augmenting intention. We cannot know the outcome in advance. If we give up, we can never know but that further trying either harder or differently-might have succeeded. If we succeed, the last move is likely to take all the credit. “I tried will power for years,” one man will say, “and I can tell you it doesn’t work. But when I left my desk in that travel agency and took a job on a ranch-right away I stopped. No sweat.” “I tried all kinds of tricks,” another man will say, “smoking substitutes, pills, poisoned cigarettes, not going to cocktail parties … all delaying tactics. Finally I got sick of it and asked myself straight out, ‘Listen, you jerk! Do you mean it or not?’ Then I meant it, and then I stopped.”

There is a fundamental difference between such questions as “What is the nature of electricity?” and “What is the nature of man?” In the former a high degree of objectivity, though never absolute, may be maintained; a scientist who likes electricity may concur with one who is afraid of it. No such objectivity is possible concerning the nature of man; for the inquirer is part of the object of inquiry, and his purposes affect what is found. If, therefore, we are to have rational discourse about man we must know the context in which our questions arise, whether they refer to individuals or to societies, and the purposes and assumptions of the questioner.

A black youth, gun in hand, cowers in the darkened doorway of a locked store. The police officer, gun in holster, comes toward him. “Stay away from me, pig!” “Drop that gun, punk.” “Stop! Pig!” “Drop that. … ” The shot kills the officer, and four months later the black youth stands in court. He has no gun now, is wearing a jacket and tie, is being judged. Judge on the bench, jury in the box, bailiffs, clerks, security officers, the public in attendance all the procedures of hearing evidence, of establishing facts, of recording testimony, of taking an appeal. Testimony is heard. Witnesses establish that the defendant fired the fatal shot. Psychiatrists state that he is and was sane, that is, knew the nature and consequences of his act.

Before a verdict is rendered, the defendant speaks in his own defense. Let us ascribe to him unlimited verbal and logical ability in order that we may imagine all possible modes of defense.

“The cause of crime,” he might say, “is poverty. ‘Inescapably, the poor commit crimes,’ writes Richard Harris, ‘sometimes out of resentment, sometimes out of laziness, or sometimes out of need, but most of all because they live in a society where they find little besides poverty, sickness, and violence and are rarely exposed to any traditional moral standards. Today, most of those who commit the crimes that are most feared-assault, rape, murder-are black. . . . If a third of all young black men cannot get work and cannot earn enough money, say, to buy a suit of clothes or even enough to take a girl out for a movie and a glass of beer, they are likely to steal. And if they have little hope of ever getting a decent job, they will likely turn to drugs to ease their frustration and bitterness. Then, of course, they will have to steal more. Since very little is being done to provide training or work for them the results seem inevitable,” I, Your Honor, am a victim of this neglect. I have been unable to obtain work. I have lived for years in an overcrowded and rat-infested tenement. I am unmarried because I have never had enough money to take a girl to the movies or out for a beer, and I see little prospect of my ever being able to support a family. These circumstances so embittered me that my action was inevitable.”

The judge, if we ascribe to him not only a sense of fairness but an equal ability in logic, might reply as follows:
“There is merit in what you say, and I am in sympathy with the tenor of your remarks. I must point out, however, that you are calling upon this court to make a judgment upon society and, in consequence of that judgment, to find you innocent. Although the judgment on society which you propose may be just, this court is not empowered to make it. Your remarks, therefore, in this context are irrelevant.”

The defendant is silent, then with a devious expression speaks as follows: “Many eminent thinkers take a rather different view of the problem of crime,” he says. “The solution, they say-again I quote Richard Harris-’lies in enacting stricter new laws, applying unused old laws, imposing longer sentences, and making prisons so disagreeable, despite all the current talk about prison reform, that their occupants won’t want to be sent back to them once they get out. For some years, Richard Nixon has been the leading proponent of this view. In the 1968 presidential campaign, he repeatedly called for a crackdown on lawbreakers, and offered his solution: “If the conviction rate were doubled in this country, it would do more to eliminate crime in the future than a quadrupling of the funds for any governmental war on poverty.” ‘ As Your Honor, more than anyone else, is aware, such recommendations have not been followed. Capital punishment has virtually disappeared, and a reasonably intelligent young black man such as I, particularly one gifted with my verbal ability, can be certain of a light sentence, can know that soon he will be out on parole. Realizing this, I lacked sufficient counter motivation to oppose my motive to steal and to kill. Society is at fault, having failed to generate effective inhibitions.”

“I am somewhat less in sympathy with this view,” the judge replies. “Its merit, however, or lack of merit, need not detain us; for, like the former view, it is an indictment of society. I must remind you again, with diminishing patience, that this court is not empowered to judge society and that any judgment you might make upon it, however accurate and, in other circumstances, appropriate, is in this context irrelevant.”

The defendant becomes more serious as his jeopardy deepens. “Virtually every philosopher of the Modern Age,” he says, “has concluded that free will is but the name we give to a subjective sense of choice which has no objective reality, that the measure of freedom we ascribe to man measures only our ignorance of the forces that move us. ‘An intelligence,’ writes Laplace, ‘knowing, at a given instant of time, all forces acting in nature, as well as the momentary positions of all things of which the universe consists, would be able to comprehend the motions of the largest bodies of the world and those of the smallest atoms in one single formula, provided it were sufficiently powerful to subject the data to analysis. To it, nothing would be uncertain, both future and past would be present before its eyes.’ I am what I am, Your Honor, by virtue of all those forces which shaped me, and every transient thought and every slightest act, even that twitch of trigger finger, is the inexorable outcome of preexisting forces and so, however alterable it may appear to have been, was in fact predetermined and inalterable. I am innocent because, according to the deepest convictions of our scientific age, I could not have acted otherwise.”

“This defense,” the judge replies, “unlike your two previous efforts, is relevant. Were the court to accept your argument it would find you innocent. Or, more accurately, would rule against itself, concluding that verdicts of guilty or innocent have themselves lost meaning.

“Your defense is disallowed, however, because the court does not accept this view of man. The mechanistic model as extended to the entire universe, including ourselves, has never been accepted by anybody in his actual daily life, not even by the mechanistic philosophers of whom you speak, and no court of law certainly has ever accepted that view. We hold that you were free to pull the trigger as you did, or to drop the gun as you did not, that such freedom is at the very heart of what we believe man to be, and that no conceivable examination of forces acting upon you at that moment or at any other moment in your life, even if in fineness and precision this examination could be extended to include the coordinates and excursions of every atom in your brain, or indeed of the entire universe, could reveal evidence proving that you were compelled to do one rather than the other. We hold therefore that you were a free agent, that you could have done either, that you are the author of what you did do and so must be responsible for your act. We find you guilty.”

After a term in prison, let us assume, the black youth is determined to change-an unlikely attitude in view of the degree to which prisons are not “correctional facilities,” as they are called, but factories of crime, and assumed here only to examine the logic of attitudes toward change-and to this end has undertaken psychotherapy. He calls upon the judge, says, “In order that I shall never again commit a crime I am undertaking to find out why I did commit that one. I’m going to examine, and hope eventually to understand, not only why I pulled that trigger, but also why I was breaking into that store, in a larger sense why I became a person who steals. For although my circumstances were deprived, not everybody from such circumstances turns to crime. Why did I? What were the forces that pushed me? These things I must learn to the end that it not happen again.” The judge, without the slightest inconsistency, may endorse this view and applaud this decision.

We cannot hope to find a view of man that will be independent of the context in which we find ourselves, the purposes we follow, the assumptions we make. Sometimes it will be necessary to see behavior, individual or social, as the product of preexisting conditions, for we are indeed pushed and pulled, and if we are to increase our authority in reference to these forces we must examine them as causes. Sometimes, likewise, it will be necessary to see behavior, individual or social, as the product of unconstrained will, for we are truly free, even in situations of extreme coercion.

It should not be, therefore, that some of us such as judges and parole officers always see behavior as a product of free will, while others such as social scientists and behavioral psychologists always see it as controlled by environment, but that each of us is capable of both views, realizing that in some contexts one view is indicated, in other contexts the other, that we need never, therefore, and must not ever, assert the truth of one view to the exclusion of the truth of the other.

The Network of Thought – J Krishnamurti

.
.
.
.
Thought, being limited, creates problems: national, economic, and religious divisions; then thought says, ‘I must solve them.’ So thought is always functioning in the solution of problems. And the computer, a mechanism which has been programmed, can outstrip all of us because has no problems; it evolves, learns, moves.

Our consciousness has been programmed as an individual consciousness. We are questioning whether that consciousness, which we have accepted as individual, is actually individual at all. Do not say, ‘What will happen if I am not an individual?’ Something totally different may happen. You may have an individual training in a particular trade, in a particular profession, you may be a surgeon, a doctor, an engineer, but that does not make you an individual. You may have a different name, a different form. That does not make individuality; nor the acceptance that the brain through time has affirmed: ‘I am an individual, it is my desire to fulfil, to become, through struggle.’ That so-called individual consciousness, which is yours, is the consciousness of all humanity.

If your consciousness, which you have accepted as separate, is not separate, then what is the nature of your consciousness? Part of it is the sensory responses. Those sensory responses are naturally, necessarily, programmed to defend yourself, through hunger to seek food, to breathe, unconsciously. Biologically you are programmed. Then the content of your consciousness includes the many hurts and wounds that you have received from childhood, the many forms of guilt. It includes the various ideas, imaginary certainties, the many experiences, both sensory and psychological; there is always the basis, the root, of fear in its many forms. With fear naturally goes hatred. Where there is fear, there must be violence, aggression, the tremendous urge to succeed, both in the physical and the psychological world. In the content of consciousness there is the constant pursuit of pleasure: the pleasure of possession, of domination, the pleasure of money which gives power, the pleasure of a philosopher with his immense knowledge, the guru with his circus. Pleasure again has innumerable forms. There is also pain, anxiety; the deep sense of abiding loneliness and sorrow, not only the so called personal sorrow but also the enormous sorrow brought about through wars, through neglect, through this endless conquering of one group of people by another. In that consciousness there is the racial and group content. Ultimately there is death.

This is our consciousness: beliefs, certainties and uncertainties, anxiety, loneliness, and endless misery. These are facts. And we say this consciousness is mine! Is that so? Go to the Far East or the Near East, America, Europe, anywhere where human beings are; they suffer, they are anxious, lonely, depressed, melancholic, struggling, and in conflict. They are just the same as you. So, is your consciousness different from that of another? I know it is very difficult for people to accept. You may logically accept it, intellectually you may say, ‘Yes, that is so, maybe.’ But to feel this total human sense that you are the rest of mankind requires a great deal of sensitivity. It is not a problem to be solved. It is not that you must accept that are not an individual, that you must endeavour to feel this global human entity. If you do, you have made it into a problem which the brain is only too ready to try to solve! if you really look at it with your mind, your heart, your whole being totally aware of this fact, then you have broken
programme. It is naturally broken. But if you say, ‘I will break it’, then you are again back into the same pattern.

To the speaker this is utter reality, not something bally accepted because it is pleasant; it is something t is actual. You may have logically, reasonably, and sanely mined and found that it is so. But the brain which has been programmed to the sense of individuality is going to revolt against it (which you are doing now). The brain is unwilling to learn. Whereas the computer will learn cause it has nothing to lose. But here you are frightened of losing something.

Can the brain learn? That is the whole point. So now have to go into this question of what learning is. Learning for most of us is a process of acquiring knowledge. I do not know the Russian language, but I will learn it. I will learn day after day, memorizing, holding on to certain words, phrases, and the meanings, syntax and grammar. If apply myself, I can learn almost any language within a certain time. To us, learning is essentially the accumulation of knowledge or skill. Our brains are conditioned to this pattern. Accumulate knowledge and from that act. When I learn a language, there knowledge is necessary. But if I am learning psychologically about the content of my mind, of my consciousness, does learning there simply examining each layer of it and accumulating knowledge about it and from that knowledge acting-following the same pattern as learning a language? If the brain repeats that pattern when I am learning about the content of my consciousness, it means that I need time to accumulate knowledge about myself, my consciousness. Then I determine what the problems are, and the brain is ready to solve them-it has been trained to solve problems. It is repeating this endless pattern, and that is what I call learning. Is there a learning which is not this? Is there a different action of learning which is not the accumulation of knowledge? You understand the difference?

Let me put it differently. From experience we acquire knowledge, from knowledge memory. The response of memory is thought, then from thought action, from that action you learn more, so the cycle is repeated. That is the pattern of our life. That form of learning will never solve our problems because it is repetition. We acquire more knowledge which may lead to better action, but that action is limited, and this we keep repeating. The activity from that knowledge will not solve our human problems at all. We have not solved them; it is so obvious. After millions of years we have not solved our problems: we are cutting each other’s throats, we are competing with each other, we hate each other, we want to be successful. The whole pattern is repeated from the time man began, and we are still at it. Do what you will along this pattern, and no human problem will be solved, whether it be political, religious, or economic, because it is thought that is operating.

Now, is there another form of learning, learning not in context of knowledge, but a different form, a non-accumulative perception-action? To find out we have to inquire whether it is possible to observe the content of our conciousness and to observe the world without a single prejudice. Is that possible? Do not say it is not possible; just ask the question. See whether, when you have a prejudice, you can observe clearly. You cannot, obviously. If you have a certain conclusion, a certain set of beliefs, concepts, ideals, and you want to see clearly what the world is, all those conclusions, ideals, prejudices, and so on will wally prevent it. It is not a question of how to get rid of your prejudices but of seeing clearly, intelligently, that any form of prejudice, however noble or ignoble, will actually prevent perception. When you see that, prejudices go. What is important is not the prejudice but the demand to see clearly,

If I want to be a good surgeon, I cannot do so with ideals or prejudices about surgeons; I must actually perform surgery. Can you see that a new form of action, a new form of non-accumulative knowledge is possible which will break the pattern, break the programme, so that you are acting totally differently?

The way we have lived, over millions of years, has been he repetition of the same process of acquiring knowledge and acting from that knowledge. That knowledge and action is limited. That limitation creates problems and the brain has become accustomed to solving the problems which knowledge has repeatedly created. The brain is caught in that pattern, and we are saying that that pattern will never, in any circumstance, solve our human problems. Obviously we have not solved them up till now. There must be a different, a totally different, movement, which is a non accumulative perception-action. To have non-accumulative perception is to have no prejudice. It is to have absolutely no ideals, no concepts, no faith because all those have destroyed man; they have not solved his problems.

So, have you a prejudice? Have you a prejudice which has something in common with an ideal? Of course. Ideals are to be accomplished in the future, and knowledge becomes tremendously important in the realizing of ideals. So, can you observe without accumulation, without the destructive nature of prejudice, ideals, faith, belief, and your own conclusions and experiences? There is group consciousness, national consciousness, linguistic consciousness, professional consciousness, racial consciousness, and there is fear, anxiety, sorrow, loneliness, the pursuit of pleasure, love, and finally death. If you keep acting in that circle, you maintain the human consciousness of the world. Just see the truth of this. You are part of that consciousness, and you sustain it by saying, ‘I am an individual. My prejudices are important. My ideals are essential’-repeating the same thing over and over again. Now, the maintenance, the sustenance, and the nourishment of that consciousness takes place when you are repeating that pattern. But when you break away from that consciousness, you are introducing a totally new factor in the whole of that consciousness.

Now, if we understand the nature of our own conciousness, if we see how it is operating in this endless cycle of knowledge, action, and division-a consciousness which has been sustained for millennia-if we see the truth that all this is a form of prejudice and break away from it, we introduce a new factor into the old. It means that you, as a human being who is of the consciousness of the rest of mankind, can move away from the old pattern of obedience and acceptance. That is the real turning point in your life. Man cannot go on repeating the old pattern; it has lost its meaning-in the psychological world it has totally lost its meaning. If you fulfil yourself, who cares? If you become a saint, what does it matter?

Whereas if you totally move away from that, you affect the whole consciousness of mankind.
.
.
.
.
Many of you, fortunately or unfortunately, have heard the speaker for many years, and one sees that this breaking of the ‘programme’ of the brain has not come about. You repeatedly listen to that statement year after year, and it has not come about. Is it because you want to attain, to become, to have that state in which the pattern of the brain has been broken? You have listened, and it has not come about, and you are hoping that it will come about-which is another form of striving to become. So you are still in conflict. So you brush it all aside and say you will not come here any more because you have not got what you want: ‘I want that but have not got it.’ That wanting is the desire to be something and is a cause of conflict. That desire comes from the ‘programmed’ brain. We are saying: to break that programme, that pattern, observe without the movement of thought. It sounds very simple, but see the logic of it, the reason, the sanity of it, not because the speaker says so but because it is sane. Obviously, one must exercise the capacity to be logical, rational and yet know its limitation because rational, logical thinking is still part of thought. Knowing that thought is limited, be aware of that limitation and do not push it further, because it will still be limited however far you go, whereas if you observe a rose, a flower, without the word, without naming the colour, but just look at it, then that look brings about great sensitivity, breaks down this sense of heaviness of the brain and gives extraordinary vitality. There is a totally different kind of energy when there is pure perception, which is not related to thought and time.
.
.
.
.
So we should inquire together, deeply, into what meditation is and whether there is anything sacred, holy. Not the thing that thought has invented as being holy; that is not holy. What thought creates is not holy, is not sacred, because it is based on knowledge, and how can anything that thought invents, being incomplete, be sacred? But all over the world we worship that which thought has invented.

There is no system, no practice, but the clarity of perception of a mind that is free to observe, a mind which has no direction, no choice. Most systems of meditations have the problem of controlling thought. Most meditation, whether the Zen, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Christian, or that of the latest guru, tries to control thought. Through control you centralize, you bring all your energy to a particular point. That is concentration, which means that there is a controller different from the controlled. The controller is thought, memory, and that which he is controlling is still thought which is wandering off, so there is conflict. You are sitting quietly, and thought goes off. You are like a schoolboy looking out of the window and the teacher says, ‘Don’t look out of the window, concentrate on your book.’ We have to learn the fact that the controller is the controlled. The controller, the thinker, the experiencer, are, we think, different from the controlled, from the movement of thought, from the experience. But if we observe closely, the thinker is the thought. Thought has made the thinker separate from thought, who then says, ‘I must control.’

So when you see that the controller is the controlled, you totally remove conflict. Conflict exists only when there is the division. Where there is the division between the observer, the one who witnesses, the one who experiences and that which he observes and experiences, there must be conflict. Our life is in conflict because we live with this division. But this division is fallacious, it is not real; it has become our habit, our culture, to control. We never see that the controller is the controlled.

So when one realizes that fact-not verbally, not idealistically, not as a utopian state for which you have to struggle-actually in one’s life that the controller is the controlled, the thinker is the thought, then the whole pattern of one’s thinking undergoes a radical change, and there is no conflict. That change is absolutely necessary if one is meditating because meditation demands a mind that is highly compassionate, and therefore highly intelligent, with an intelligence which is born out of love, not out of cunning thought.

Meditation means the establishment of order in one’s daily life so that there is no contradiction. It means having rejected totally all the systems of meditation so that one’s mind is completely free, without direction, so that one’s mind is completely silent. Is that possible? Because one is chattering endlessly; the moment one leaves this place one will start chattering. One’s mind will continue everlastingly occupied, chattering, thinking, struggling, and so there is no space. Space is necessary to have silence, for a mind that is practising, struggling to be silent is never silent. But when it sees that silence is absolutely necessary-not the silence projected by thought, not the silence between two notes, between two noises, between two wars, but the silence of order-then in that silence, truth, which has no path to it, exists. Truth that is timeless, sacred, incorruptible. That is meditation, that is a religious mind.

20 September 1981

Vital Lies, Simple Truths: The Psychology of Self-Deception – Daniel Goleman

Awareness Is Not a Necessary Stop

If critical information-processing goes on beyond awareness, then much of what we think and do is under the spell of influences we cannot perceive. Freud’s sense that this was so led him to posit that there were three zones of consciousness: the unconscious (by far the largest), preconscious, and conscious. George Mandler, a cognitive psychologist, suggests that Freud’s model fits well with how schemas act to guide attention.P The preconscious is a stage midway between the unconscious and awareness, a sort of backstage area to mental life. Here, says Mandler, there is a pool of schemas at various levels of activation. Which ones are activated varies from moment to moment. The most highly activated schema is the one that reaches consciousness.

An activated schema dominates awareness; it glides from the pool available and guides attention. As you walk down a street, you may not notice a dog approaching, but the relevant schema for dogs would float toward preconsciousness. At the moment you hear a growl, though, the “dog”-or perhaps the “dog bite”-schema becomes most highly activated, and the dog looms into awareness. But while a schema is quiescent in long-term memory, waiting for its moment to come, it is in something very like the unconscious.

For many years, psychologists (other than those with psychoanalytic leanings) doubted that zones beyond awareness existed, or said that if the unconscious existed, its impact on behavior was trivial. This debate broke into public scrutiny when, in the early 1960s, an enterprising advertising man claimed to have boosted sales of Coke and popcorn by flashing subliminal messages during a movie. The psychological community, by and large, hooted.

Subliminal material-that is, stimuli presented so quickly that, no matter how alert and focused you are, you cannot consciously see them-was thought to go entirely unperceived. But evidence for unconscious perception was mounting. By 1971, a comprehensive review of research. literature concluded that subliminal perception is, indeed, possible. At the same time, a theoretical framework evolved that explains how such perception might be possible. By 1977, although some holdouts remained, many cognitive scientists took unconscious perception for granted. For example, as psychologists discussing the issues noted:

The basic question of whether people can respond to a stimulus in the absence of the ability to report verbally on its existence would today be answered in the affirmative by many more investigators than would have been the case a decade ago … largely because of better experimental methods and convincing theoretical argument that subliminal perception … [results] from … selective attention and filtering.

In the ensuing years, the weight of evidence for unconscious processing of information has become overwhelming. The case no longer rests on the weight of theoretical arguments, but on strong. experimental evidence. For example, in 1980, psychologists published in Science data showing that people formed preferences for geometric shapes (a variety of oddly shaped octagons) that they had been exposed to without being consciously aware that they had seen them.” The familiar, the data showed, becomes the preferred -even when familiarity is unconscious.

A great deal of other research has made the same point, that information which never reaches awareness nevertheless has a strong influence on how we perceive and act. For example, Howard Shevrin at the University of Michigan measured brain waves while showing student volunteers a series of words and pictures.” The presentations were made at a few thousandths of a second, presumably too brief for the volunteers to be consciously aware of their meaning. Meanwhile, the volunteers free-associated aloud.

The flashed messages made an impact on free association. For example, when the volunteers saw a picture of a bee, their free associations strayed to connected words like “bug,” “sting,” and “honey”. Although they had no idea what the word or picture might have been, there was clear evidence that they got the message at a level out of awareness, and their schemas were activated accordingly.

Shevrin’s explanation fits well with the working model of the mind we have described:

At anyone time we are aware of only a small percentage of the total stimulation reaching our senses. We actively select what we attend to mainly on the basis of need, interest and perceptual prominence. The selection process itself, however, is unconscious. We experience something “popping” into consciousness but a complex and unconscious process prepares that “pop.” … Taken together, subliminal and attention studies show that our brains are humming with cognitive and emotional activity prior to consciousness.

The model of mind we have generated here easily accommodates this version of the mind’s operations. Schemas work backstage, in the vicinity we have labeled “long-term memory” (another, more general term might be better-like “the unconscious”). The mind is aware of the meaning of an event before that event and its significance enter awareness. In schema terms, this preawareness means that schemas which are activated but are out of awareness organize experience and filter it before it gets into awareness. Once the most relevant schemas are activated, they “pop into consciousness.”

But, as the research results suggest, schemas can guide awareness while remaining out of awareness. We observe only their effects, not their identity. As Freud put it, “We learn from observing neurosis that a latent, or unconscious, idea is not necessarily a weak one.”

This model can accommodate several diverse phenomena that have long puzzled students of the mind. For instance, Ernest Hilgard, a noted hypnosis researcher at Stanford, tells of a classroom demonstration of hypnosis during which a volunteer was hypnotized and told he would be temporarily deaf. While “deaf,” the volunteer did not flinch at loud sounds like a gunshot and blocks being banged together.

One student asked whether “some part” of the subject might be aware of sounds, since his ears were presumably functioning. The instructor then whispered softly to the hypnotized student:

As you know, there are parts of our nervous system that carry on activities that occur out of awareness, [like] circulation of the blood …. There may be intellectual processes also of which we are unaware, such as those that find expression in … dreams. Although you are hypnotically deaf, perhaps there is some part of you that is hearing my voice and processing the information. If there is, I should like the index finger of your right hand to rise as a sign that this is the case.

To the instructor’s dismay, the finger rose. Immediately afterward, the hypnotized student spontaneously said that he felt his index finger rise, but had no idea why it had done so. He wanted to know why.

The instructor then released the volunteer from hypnotic deafness and asked what he thought had happened. “I remember,” said the volunteer, “your telling me that I would be deaf at the count of three, and would have my hearing restored when you placed your hand on my shoulder. Then everything was quiet for a while. It was a little boring just sitting here, so I busied myself with a statistical problem I was working on. I was still doing that when suddenly I felt my finger lift; that is what I want you to explain.”

Hilgard’s explanation (assuming the volunteer is to be believed) is that there is a capacity of mind that can register and store information outside a person’s awareness. Under certain circumstances, that unconscious awareness can be contacted and can communicate, still outside the person’s main awareness. That special capacity Hilgard calls the “hidden observer.”

Hilgard, since the surprise discovery of this capacity, has performed numerous experiments which confirm the robustness of the hidden observer. For example, in a study of hypnotic analgesia, Hilgard hypnotized a young woman who was able to immerse her hand in a bucket of icy water, but reported’ she felt no pain. When Hilgard asked one hand to report out of the woman’s awareness what was going on, the hand filled out” a pain rating scale showing an increasing level of distress, essentially normal pain. Meanwhile, when asked, the young woman was calmly reporting she felt no pain at all.
.
.
.
.

Harry Markopolos – From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harry M. Markopolos or Harry Markopoulos (born October 22, 1956 in Erie, Pennsylvania) is a former securities industry executive turned independent financial fraud investigator for institutional investors and others seeking forensic accounting expertise. He has risen to prominence as an early and unheeded whistleblower of suspected securities fraud by Bernard Madoff, tipping off the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) repeatedly both verbally and in writing starting in 1999, when he argued that it was not legally possible for Madoff to deliver the returns he’d claimed to deliver.

Education and career

Markopolos graduated from Cathedral Preparatory School in 1974. He received an undergraduate degree from Loyola College in Maryland in 1981 and an M.S. in finance from Boston College in 1997.He worked at Boston-based Rampart Investment Management Co. from 1991 through 2004, ultimately becoming its chief investment officer, and is a past president of Boston Security Analysts Society Inc. For the past 17 years, he has been an Army Reserve Officer, and a Special Operations Officer for the past 7 years. He is a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) and a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE). He presently works, with a certain degree of anonymity, as a forensic accounting analyst for attorneys who sue companies under the False Claims Act and other statutes, focusing on tips which lead to continuing investigations into medical billing, Internal Revenue Service, and United States Department of Defense frauds, where a whistleblower would be compensated.

Involvement with Madoff scandal

Boston-based Rampart Investment Management Co. is a firm that specializes in the trading of options (contracts that let investors buy or sell stocks and other financial instruments at set prices). In 2000, Markopolos’ bosses wanted to learn how they could match Madoff’s double-digit returns. A math whiz, he was assigned to deconstruct Madoff’s strategy to see if he could replicate it. Again and again, he could not simulate Madoff’s returns, using information he had gathered about Madoff’s trades in stocks and options. Markopolos eventually decided Madoff was either running a Ponzi scheme – using money from new clients to pay off old ones – or he was engaging in illegal “front running” – stocks, improperly trading in investors’ private accounts ahead of orders the firm received from outside clients. Even after leaving Rampart, he persevered by the pure intellectual challenge of cracking a Wall Street legend, and the ongoing encouragement from a Boston SEC staffer, Ed Manion.

The culmination of his analysis was a 21-page memo Markopolos sent in November 2005, to SEC regulators, “The World’s Largest Hedge Fund is a Fraud.” It outlined his suspicions in more detail and invited officials to check his theories. In the document Markopolos states:

Bernie Madoff is running the world’s largest unregistered hedge fund. He’s organized this business as [a] “hedge fund of funds privately labeling their own hedge funds which Bernie Madoff secretly runs for them using a split-strike conversion strategy getting paid only trading commissions which are not disclosed.” If this isn’t a regulatory dodge, I don’t know what is.

Congressional testimony

On February 4, 2009, he testified before the United States Congress’ House Financial Services Committee’s capital markets panel and shortly thereafter appeared on CBS’s 60 Minutes. “Nothing was done. There was an abject failure by the regulatory agencies we entrust as our watchdog,” he explained in 65 pages of prepared testimony. Describing Madoff as “one of the most powerful men on Wall Street,” Markopolos stated that there was “great danger” in raising questions about him: “My team and I surmised that if Mr. Madoff gained knowledge of our activities, he may feel threatened enough to seek to stifle us.” He testified that he feared for his, as well as his family’s safety, until after Madoff’s arrest, when the SEC finally acknowledged that it had received “credible evidence” of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme years before. He explained that Madoff’s “math never made sense,” that his “return stream never resembled any known financial instrument or strategy,” and that Madoff wasn’t making the volumes of trades he claimed.

Markopolos had originally concealed his identity from SEC regulators in May 1999, although he did meet face-to-face with SEC officials in Boston in 2000 and 2001. After the SEC did not respond, Markopolos was fearful of taking his complaints to the industry’s self-regulatory authority, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), because of the power Bernie Madoff’s brother, Peter, had in that organization (he is a former Vice Chairman).Markopolos believed the Federal Bureau of Investigation would reject his allegations without the SEC staff’s endorsement.He believed only one SEC staff member, Ed Manion, understood Madoff’s scheme and “the threat it posed to the public.” “My experiences with other SEC officials proved to be a systemic disappointment and lead me to conclude that the SEC securities’ lawyers, if only through their investigative ineptitude and financial illiteracy, colluded to maintain large frauds such as the one to which Madoff later confessed.”

He also added that in 2005 it was Meaghan Cheung, a branch chief in the SEC’s New York office, to whom he gave his 21-page report alleging that Madoff was paying off old investors with money from fresh recruits. “Ms. Cheung never expressed even the slightest interest in asking me questions,” Markopolos said. Cheung approved an internal memo in November, 2007 to close an SEC investigation of Madoff without bringing any claim. Subsequently, she left the agency. Markopolos also testified he gave details about the case in 2005 to John Wilke, a Wall Street Journal investigative reporter, but that it was never pursued. Markopolos testified he (anonymously) sent a package of documents concerning Madoff to former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who had successfully prosecuted a number of securities fraud cases, but that Spitzer took no apparent action, either. Spitzer’s family trust had invested in Madoff.

“Government has coddled, accepted, and ignored white collar crime for too long,” he testified. “It is time the nation woke up and realized that it’s not the armed robbers or drug dealers who cause the most economic harm, it’s the white collar criminals living in the most expensive homes who have the most impressive resumes who harm us the most. They steal our pensions, bankrupt our companies, and destroy thousands of jobs, ruining countless lives.”He testified to Rep. Gary Ackerman-D-NY that he has never been compensated for his efforts. “I did it for our (American) flag, for patriotism.”Markopolos presented recommendations to improve the SEC’s operations, which included mandatory department standards: Good ethics, full transparency, full disclosure, and fair dealing for all. The SEC must establish a unit to accept whistleblower tips, and move its activity closer to financial centers away from Washington.

His testimony included a reference to another $1 billion Ponzi fraud, which he shared the following day with SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz, who gave the tips to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro. He also disclosed information regarding a dozen as-yet-unknown foreign Madoff feeder funds, “hiding in the weeds” in Europe, whose silent victims likely included Russian mobsters and Latin American drug cartels, “dirty money” investors. Markopolos remarked that European royal families had also lost assets.

As a result of the Madoff scandal, the SEC’s chairman Christopher Cox stated that an investigation will delve into “all staff contact and relationships with the Madoff family and firm, and their impact, if any, on decisions by staff regarding the firm.” A former SEC compliance officer, Eric Swanson, married Madoff’s niece Shana, a Madoff firm compliance attorney.

Politics

In an April 2009, interview, Markopolos expressed no interest in a political career. He Said

“I’m definitely not in the running for any public office. I know I have been approached already, and have said no and will continue to say no. It is not in my future. I’m apolitical. I support all third party candidates. I think they have a voice that needs to be heard, I wish America would listen to voices outside the two major parties. I think it is time for change. We’ve had Democratic and Republican parties in existence for well over a century each and maybe its time for something new, something different. It is time to embody a party that really reflects America’s core values.”

Capitalideasonline.com – 12 Feb 2009

In a classic “The Demon-Haunted World”, the author, Carl Sagan, writes on ‘fine art of baloney detection’.

“Any good baloney detection kit must also teach us what not to do. It Kelps us recognize the most common and perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Many good examples can be found in religion and politics, because their practitioners are so, often obliged to justify two contradictory propositions. Among these fallacies are:

Ø ad hominem-Latin for “to the man,” attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g., The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical funda­mentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously)

Ø argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia-but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him be­cause he was President: a mistake, as it turned out);

Ø argument from adverse consequences (e.g., A God meting out pun­ishment and reward must exist, because if He didn’t, society would be much more lawless and dangerous-perhaps even ungovernable. Or: The defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives);

Ø appeal to ignorance – the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist-and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advance­ment of the Earth, so we’re still central to the Universe.) This impa­tience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Ø special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don’t understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don’t understand the Di­vine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam-each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compassion – to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You don’t understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.)

Ø begging the question, also called assuming the answer (e.g., We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. But does the violent crime rate in fact fall when the death penalty is imposed? Or: The stock market fell yesterday because of a technical adjustment and profit-taking by investors-but is there any independent evidence for the causal role of “adjustment” and profit-taking; have we learned anything at all from this purported explanation?);

Ø observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses (e.g., A state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers);

Ø statistics of small numbers-a close relative of observational selec­tion (e.g., “They say lout of every 5 people is Chinese: How is this possi­ble? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese. Yours truly.” Or: “I’ve thrown three sevens in a row. Tonight I can’t lose.”);

Ø misunderstanding of the nature of statistics (e.g., President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence);

Ø inconsistency (e.g., Prudently plan for the worst of which a poten­tial military adversary is capable, but thriftily ignore scientific projec­tions on environmental dangers because they’re not “proved.” Or: Attribute the declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union to the failures of communism many years ago, but never attribute the high in­fant mortality rate in the United States (now highest of the major indus­trial nations) to the failures of capitalism. Or: Consider it reasonable for the Universe to continue to exist forever into the future, but judge absurd the possibility that it has infinite duration into the past);

Ø non sequitur-Latin for “It doesn’t follow” (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great. But nearly every nation pretends this to be true; the German formulation was “Gott mit uns”). Often those falling into the non sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize al­ternative possibilities;

Ø post hoc, ergo propter hoc-Latin for “It happened after, so it was caused by” (e.g., Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila: “I know of . . . a 26-year-old who looks 60 because she takes (contraceptive) pills.” Or: Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons);

Ø meaningless question (e.g., What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? But if there is such a thing as an irre­sistible force there can be no immovable objects, and vice versa);

Ø excluded middle, or false dichotomy-considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities (e.g., “Sure, take his side; my husband’s perfect; I’m always wrong.” Or: “Either you love your country or you hate it.” Or: “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”);

Ø short-term vs. long-term-a subset of the excluded middle, but so important I’ve pulled it out for special attention (e.g., We can’t afford programs to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets. Or: Why explore space or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?); ­

Ø slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abor­tion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits abor­tion even in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our bodies around the time of conception);

Ø confusion of correlation and causation (e.g., A survey shows that more college graduates are homosexual than those with lesser education; therefore education makes people gay. Or: Andean earthquakes are cor­related with closest approaches of the planet Uranus; therefore-despite the absence of any such correlation for the nearer, more massive planet Jupiter-the latter causes the former);

Ø straw man-caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack (e.g., Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance-a formulation that willfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn’t. Or-this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy-environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people);

Ø suppressed evidence, or half-truths (e.g., An amazingly accurate and widely quoted “prophecy” of the assassination attempt on President Reagan is shown on television; but-an important detail-was it recorded before or after the event? Or: These government abuses de­mand revolution, even if you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Yes, but is this likely to be a revolution in which far more people are killed than under the previous regime? What does the ex­perience of other revolutions suggest? Are all revolutions against op­pressive regimes desirable and in the interests of the people?);

Ø weasel words (e.g., The separation of powers of the U.S. Constitu­tion specifies that the United States may not conduct a war without a declaration by Congress. On the other hand, Presidents are given con­trol of foreign policy and the conduct of wars, which are potentially powerful tools for getting themselves re-elected. Presidents of either political party may therefore be tempted to arrange wars while waving the flag and calling the wars something else- “police actions,” “armed incursions,” “protective reaction strikes,” “pacification,” “safeguarding American interests,” and a wide variety of “operations,” such as “Oper­ation Just Cause.” Euphemisms for war are one of a broad class of rein­ventions of language for political purposes. Talleyrand said, “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public”).

Knowing the existence of such logical and rhetorical fallacies rounds out our toolkit. Like all tools, the baloney detection kit can be misused, applied out of context, or even employed as a rote alternative to thinking. But applied judiciously, it can make all the difference in the world-not least in-evaluating our own arguments before we pre­sent them to others.”

Free markets and morality – AV Rajwade – Business Standard – 09 Feb 2009

A guiding principle, for even Adam Smith, was that of taking pleasure in the happiness of others

A couple of developments in the last week or two manifest how political the issue of compensation in financial services has become in the West. President Obama described the $18 billion bonuses paid by the Wall Street for 2008 as ‘shameful’ and as ‘the height of irresponsibility’, when the industry was being bailed out with billions of dollars of tax payer money; and its excesses are throwing millions out of work all over the world. (He has since proposed a ceiling of $500,000 for top executive compensation in banks getting government money.) A particularly embarrassing disclosure was the fact that John Thain, chairman of Merrill Lynch, now a unit of Bank of America, recently spent more than a million dollars to do up his office, including $1,400 for a waste paper basket, and $35,000 for a commode: It must be smelling out of this world! (Merrill also rushed through bonuses of $4 billion before declaring a loss of $15 billion in Q4). The sad part is that there does not seem to be any sense of contriteness or humility on the part of these “Masters of the Universe”. They seem to take it for granted that bankers have a (God-given?) right to be much better off than the rest of the world — irrespective of what contribution they make to societal welfare. One top executive of a financial services firm which has received a huge bailout, said in a panel discussion in Davos, that the money was pumped not to save his firm, but to mitigate the possibility of a systemic failure. Is it that an extended period of huge, sometimes obscene, level of compensations has altogether removed finance professionals from ground realities? John Gapper ( Financial Times )recently criticised them for “behaving like the 18th century (pre-Bastille) French aristocracy”. Even The Economist ,that most consistent propagator of free markets, was constrained to ask last week: “What will it take for bankers to show a little remorse?” A few more billions — or lynching mobs? The issue has the potential to damage irrevocably society’s trust in bankers.

The John Templeton Foundation has recently come out with a compilation of a series of essays, titled “Does the free market corrode moral character?” The answers range from a straight negative (Jagdish Bhagawati) to “maybe” or “it depends” (John Gray, John C Bogle) to “yes”. The last answer was best articulated by Michael Walzer of the Institute of Advanced Studies, Princeton, who said, “Competition in the market puts people under greater pressure to break the ordinary rules of decent conduct and then to produce good reasons for doing so. It is these rationalisations — the endless self-deception necessary to meet the bottom line and still feel okay about it — that corrode moral character.” Restraints on economic power are very weak; the countervailing power of labour unions has been greatly reduced; the tax system is increasingly regressive; the regulation of banking, investment, pricing policies, and pension funds is virtually non-existent. The arrogance of the economic elite these last few decades has been astonishing. And it stems from a clear-eyed view that they can do just about anything they want to do. That kind of power, as Lord Acton wrote years ago, is deeply corrupting. Bernard Henri Levy, the French philosopher, agrees (“The mad rule of money, and materialism as the measure of all things — in short, the free market, released from all rules and governed only by the greed of the most powerful — fatally corrodes our souls.”), but also argues that “The communist or the fascist corruption through the negation of the market is significantly deeper, deadlier, and more irreparable than the first.” George Orwell would certainly agree! The issue is also acquiring a religious dimension. The Bishop of Munich, Reinhard Marx, has recently come out with his version of the other Marx’s Das Capital , which endorses markets but calls for return to a socially responsible model of capitalism (To my mind, Sweden is in many ways the best example of this). Even the Pope recently described the financial crisis as the “triumph of greed”, warning humanity against ignoring the vastness of gaps between rich and poor, individuals and countries.

In fact, Christianity and Islam have frowned upon making money from money: Islam proscribed interest and Christianity bans usury: Not just extortionate interest rates but also buying an asset “in order that he may gain by selling it again unchanged (i.e. without any value addition)”, i.e. speculation. Jesus Christ is probably far closer to the so-called “liberation theologists” than the “Christian right” in America.

To quote from Adam Smith, (The Theory of Moral Sentiments , incidentally a book the Chinese Premier carries everywhere) “How(soever) selfish ….man may be supposed, there are certainly some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing except the pleasure of seeing it….The chief part of human happiness arises from the consciousness of being loved.” Clearly, the pioneering market economist had another side to him!

I vs RI – Based on Intuitive Algorithm

For Eckhart Tolle, “I cannot live with myself any longer.” was the thought that kept repeating itself in his mind. Suddenly he became aware that if he could not live with himself, there had to be two – he and the “self” he could not live with. He was stunned by the realization.

Something simliar is expressed in the conversation of Paul Brunton with Raman Maharshi, where the Maharshi says “If you meditate on this question, Who am I? – if you begin to perceive that neither the body nor the brain nor the desires are really you, then the very attitude of enquiry will eventually draw the answer to you out of the depths of your own being; it will come to you out of its own accord as a deep realization.”.. When Paul Brunton asks “What exactly is this self of which you speak? If what you say is true, then there must be another self in man.”, the reply of the Maharshi is “Can a man be possessed of two identifies, two selves?” he makes answer. “To understand this matter it is first necessary for a man to analyse himself. Because it has long been his habit to think as others think, he has never faced his ‘I’ in the true manner. He has not a correct picture of himself; he has too long identified himself with the body and the brain. Therefore, I tell you to pursue this enquiry. Who am I?”

When the Maharshi speaks of discovering the real “you,” we face a difficulty in understanding how there could be a difference between “I” (I) and the real “I,” (RI). The mind has an administrative system, which developed over millions of years. Early reptilian and mammalian administrative offices (E), managed the system. E used smell and emotions such as anger, or fear to interpret and manage the system. Subsequent human development brought RI, a powerful analytical intelligence, which generates common sense views, in the prefrontal regions.

I is only a pure awareness. Occupying the mail room of RI, I is aware of only the daily mail, the real time perception of the system. Intuition shifts the awareness of I between the anger or despair of E and the common sense views of RI. But, RI recognizes inputs and does not interpret it with emotions. It is not very difficult to identify RI, if you watch you mind in silent darkness. When you discount any physical sensation, you will realize that there is an entity, which merely watches and recognizes. That is RI. It can identify a tension in your forehead as a physical sensation. The systems, which process that information further to trigger sadness, or a motor drive to shift your head can gradually be seen to be different.

RI is a pure and powerful recognition machine, which knows that you exist and identifies the difference between right and wrong. RI exists independent of the subsystems, which process information further to generate fear, or sadness. RI is a machine, which merely recognizes. You can destroy a computer, but you cannot terrify it. So, RI, that essential “you” is unconquerable. But, unlike a computer, RI can choose to feel pain and sorrow, or joy and happiness.

RI processes information and “I” merely perceives

The difference between processing and perceiving has to be clarified. Whatever you do, or experience, implies the firing of a nerve cell somewhere. Each functional group of those cells processes data as a “banyan tree.” Typically, the banyan tree of the olfactory intelligence collects information through the receptors in the branches of the tree and sends patterns indicating the recognition of a smell through its roots (Nobel Prize awarded for that discovery). Learned or inherited combinatorial codes in each tree convert the data received by the branches into recognition messages dispatched through the roots. Each emotion triggered by an organ in the limbic system comes from an independent tree, which is a functionally separate and (Kezwer) recognizable intelligence.

RI is the tallest tree in the network, in the prefrontal regions and is logically the fabled “deep wisdom within.” RI branches are known to receive relayed sensory, recognition and emotional images – perception, interpretation and emotions. RI processes that data to deliver will from the roots – the patterns which control attention and movements. RI delivers the will of the spirit. E delivers the fears and desires of the flesh, produced by the organs of the limbic system. The will of RI competes with E in the ring of the limbic system. Like the combinatorial codes, which deliver decisions to contract or relax muscle groups in the spinal cord, codes of the limbic system permit a single group of linked emotions, or RI’s will to control the system. Will, or an emotion then controls attention, conscious thoughts and movements. Consciousness is the awareness of “I.” The presence of RI is best indicated by your conscience.

Benjamin Libet’s experiments are clear evidence that the awareness of “I” comes after a 350 millisecond processing delay. Awareness “I” is merely the current perception, and not a process. So, “I” is not a banyan tree, but only perceives the processed information. “I” can independently perceive E, when RI chooses to look inside. “I” can not be an output at the roots of RI, because those output patterns are motor instructions, directing attention, or movements, quite different from the miraculous awareness of “I.” So, “I” existed at the barrels in the branches of RI, which medical text books suggested received relayed sensory, recognition and emotional data. The information known to be currently received at those barrels alone coincide with real “I” awareness. If the anger of E dominated, “I” then felt anger to the exclusion of other emotions.

Obviously, if “I” perceived only the current emotion, RI could also have access only to the current emotion. With the ability to express its will, RI is an independent intelligence. Since conscience is one of the highest intellectual activities of the system, RI processes it. If you asked yourself if something is right, RI would send a true or false message into your working memory. But, E would also send a pleading message “But, I need it!” The judgment of RI could also trigger guilt – an E output.

In the book “Siddhartha,” Hess says the process of enlightenment can never be taught by a teacher. The real problem is that it is not easy for RI to take charge. It is essentially a limbic system problem. RI is merely one among many intelligences seeking to take control of the system. A ringing phone can take control more easily than RI. The decision to permit RI to look inwards has to be permitted by the limbic system as the most worth while among a host of possibilities.

All the great teachers recommend various practices, which can enable RI to take control. RI can silence the rise of emotions by observing them. When emotions were stilled, the perception of “I” becomes the neutral perception achieved by Matthieu Ricard. Since emotions are stilled when observed, RI can enable “I” to feel joy, or love only by not restricting the rise of those emotions. Those emotions would freely rise, only when negative emotions were stilled by RI. The Buddhists practiced the achievement of a feeling of compassion by focusing on patterns, which triggered compassion. Advait philosophy talks of practicing chanting of “Neti, Neti” meaning “This is not me, this is not me”.

It is a mystery that while nerve impulses course through the whole system, only a particular group of those impulses generate awareness. Could those RI barrels have a “quantum link” to a spiritual world? Since all information culminates in the barrels of RI, it could logically be the point of reception for any transcendental messages – the mysterious interface between the nervous system and consciousness.