Authenticity

What does it mean to be authentic? To be an authentic person. Are we all authentic just by the simple fact of being alive human beings? Or are there degrees of authenticity? Are there things we can do or ways we can be to become more authentic, thereby experiencing a higher quality of life? I think there are ways to be that move us more toward authenticity. These include:

• Having a high degree of passion about the things we do which come from the choices we make vs. sleepwalking through our choices and showing lukewarm commitment
• Acting from a master mentality vs. a slave mentality (proactive vs. reactive).
• Coming from a place of cause vs. a place of effect
• Accepting control (and the associated responsibility and accountability with no excuses) of our lives vs. making excuses and blaming or crediting others for our failures or successes
• Knowing ourselves at a deep level to fuel authentically individualistic choices and expressions that are true to our nature
• Seeking a deep understanding of a few things vs. idle curiosity about a plethora of superficial trivia and distractions
• Engaging in critical, rich thinking vs. rearranging the furniture in our minds
• Saying something when we speak vs. idle chatter or chit-chat
• Treating people as ends in themselves vs. means to an end
• Making choices as if they would become law for everyone vs. choosing haphazardly

I'm sure there are more and the ones listed deserve much more exploration. But, I need to go to the Jazz Festival, so I will leave it as an exercise for the reader.

New Thought and the Will to Power

One of the first things I noticed when I began investigating New Thought spiritual communities was the connection with a full spectrum of philosophy and religion. One teacher expressed it as incorporating the common thread through the history of theology and philosophy across all major World Religions. I have encountered this connection time and time again as I consume ideas from different philosophers and theologians ranging from Plato to Buber. There always seems to be that common essence of truth no matter what the style or perspective of the writer.

Some recent study in Existentialism has given me more exposure to Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche. I did not expect to find a connection there, as I was just curious about Existentialism, but as usual profound ideas seem to connect back to some representation in New Thought.

Nietzsche's Will to Power is something I misunderstood until looking closer. I was a typical human in that I heard bits and snatches of the idea and formed a superficial opinion. I thought it had to do with a misguided theory about how the ultimate goal of humanity or at least the most laudable goal was to rule the world.

Actually it goes something like this. The Will to Power is really a Will to Self Esteem or Self Expression. It is a positive earlier expression of self actualization, which was developed more fully in the 20th century by psychologists such as Maslow. It corresponds to Nietzsche's concept of Master Morality vs. Slave Morality.

Master Morality is the positive expression of who we are that is expansive, confident, magnanimous and teleological. Slave Morality is a shrinking, limited, negative self concept that runs on reactions to "they" who are in power. Master Morality, or the Will to Power, is the spontaneous, natural expression of who we are meant to be as a self-actualizing individual human being.

This expression is a secular expression of similar New Thought concepts that encourage us to connect with the inner Christ (or Buddha, or Brahman, or pick your favorite language) to guide the true expression of individuality in a prosperous, altruistic and self-actualizing manner.

Second Thoughts on the Kindle

I gave my first impressions of the Kindle a while back. Now that I have been using the Kindle for a couple of months or so a few more observations come to mind.

First, there was a minor inconvenience in taking on my first airline flight. At one airport, it was in my carry-on case. After walking through the security check, the bag did not come through. Shortly one of the security folks asked who owned that bag. Something had set off a red flag. They had detected that an electronic device was inside my bag. So, the Kindle had to be resent through the X-ray machine alone just like a laptop. However, after getting on the plane, it was very convenient to read from it: no pages to turn, no book to keep open, no bookmark to reset.

I'm now on my second purchased book. I started with "Intellectuals and Society" by Thomas Sowell and am now reading a Winston Churchill biography. The Sowell book was formatted very well for the Kindle. Every paragraph or two was separated by a couple of lines of whitespace. This made it fit very well onto the relatively small Kindle screen. The Churchill biography has a more traditional formatting. Sometimes this leads to paragraphs extending over more than one screen full.

Now that the iPad will be out soon, I am wondering if that might be a better experience. For just reading books, the Kindle I have is adequate. I'd like a bigger screen. Color would be nice but is not necessarily a practical concern. 99.9% of all the books I have ever read are pretty much black and white and mostly text. Maybe color capabilities would offer more subtle contrast potential, making it even easier on the eyes.

Dave Winer, who was very enthusiastic about the Kindle when it was first released has some interesting current thoughts in the context of the iPad release.

Regarding Marriage

Now that I am 54 and approaching the "autumn" years, I think of the venerable institution from 3 perspectives, coming roughly in this order.

1. Sacred
2. Practical
3. Civil

The Sacred part encompasses initial romantic love and more profound spiritual connection. It's the part that leads you to believe that the other person is your "cosmic" match in heart, soul and mind. With them you share the same or similar goals, aspirations, morals, beliefs, inspirations and vision. This is the core of an intimate relationship. If these and other important spiritual qualities are not in sync, the relationship is on rocky ground or will eventually crumble.

A story in the Bible expresses it as "equally yoked". There needs to be some level of intellectual, emotional, intuitive equality in place to create and sustain a firm foundation. Another Biblical reference "building on the rock and not the sand". The Spiritual connection is the holistic combination of the intellect, emotional and intuitive qualities of human beings. The Sacred part can be experienced without any piece of paper from the State or from acceptance by other friends or family members.

The Practical part is more about "we can date. can we live together". This has a lot to do with just the day to day experiences and annoyances that are part of living with someone else. It is very possible to love someone very deeply from a Sacred perspective, but not be able to live with them on a long term basis. Could be that their background is so different that a thousand little minor behaviors add up to create one big "elephant in the room" that becomes pervasive in almost every situation.

In the Practical realm, acceptance from family and friends does matter, although may not be a deal killer, it can add support or tension that affect the core relationship indirectly. More acceptance from friends and family can add support that might fill in gaps that are missing in the Sacred perspective. Less support might chip away at the Sacred relationship.

Of course the biggest Practical concern is financial. Not being equally yoked financially can create underlying tensions and resentments that damage otherwise decent relationships. Not only equally yoked, but having enough of a financial foundation is important. Two people should be able to "stand on their own two feet". In other words, the question should be asked: "If we were all of a sudden not together, would we each be able to take care of ourselves individually, both financially and emotionally". If the answer is No to either of those questions, some serious thought should be given to the level of readiness for marriage.

Not being able to stand separate financially means one will be a drain on the other who can take care of themselves. If neither can stand alone, the marriage will have a very rocky foundation with dependencies on parents, friends and family continuing, creating tension and stress for extended family. There is a certain level of maturity that is gained by knowing that everything I do in my life depends on me. I am responsible and accountable. I do not expect anyone else to bail me out or "fix" things in my financial life. If this level of maturity is not attained before marriage, storm clouds are brewing.

Not being able to stand separate emotionally means the relationship is fundamentally co-dependent. It is not a coming together of two independent strong people. It is one or more needy people coming together and that does not bode well for long term sustainability.

Both the Sacred and the Practical can be experienced without the Civil perspective. Traditionally, the Civil and the Sacred have been fused into one unit. In order for a couple to live together and fully experience the Sacred and Practical, they had to contract with the State to get a marriage license. The act of creating a Civil Union in the eyes of the State creates a single financial unit, where before there were 2 independent financial units, now there is one. Some advantages and disadvantages may accrue. Couples who do not follow the traditional pattern of fusing the Sacred with the Civil need to ask themselves "What are we gaining and losing by entering into this civil contract with the State?"

One advantage of becoming married in the eyes of the State is that tax situations might be simpler or more financially rewarding. Having one name means that having children is both more socially acceptable and feels more like a family. However, bringing children into a situation where the Sacred and Practical concerns are not healthy is dangerous. Also, having children usually means the loss of one income for some length of time. If the couple cannot live on one income, this can be serious. Harking back to the financial concerns mentioned earlier, it is a good idea to be able to live on either income as that provides a good insurance policy for the expense of having young children or unexpected financial challenges.

A possible disadvantage of the Civil part of a marriage is the fact that the two are financially fused from that point on. So, any debts incurred, bad judgements or loss of employment by one affects both. This is another reason for the need to know that the other person is so fundamentally sound they will be able to minimize bad decisions and overcome any unexpected adversity in their lives. In other words, they are a "Rock", unshakable in their vision, commitment, perseverance and stability toward realizing the highest Good for themselves, their relationships, their family and All humanity.