Are We Blind to What is Right in Front of Us?

A man named Herman came to see me about a treatment.  Over the last twenty years his disposition had grown deeper and darker.  Things had lost the luster he knew as a youth.  Through our interview I discovered many things, not the least of which I gained from talking to his wife of forty years.  What we discovered was that everything had started to appear dreary to him. 

Before tackling the core issues, we did some simple work to calm his immediate discomfort.  We used frequencies on energy meridians that encouraged connection and soothing.  Once he exhaled and relaxed his spine, we delved deeper.  It seems that he was extremely unhappy with his surroundings.  I asked him about what specifically bothered him.

Herman stated that everything in his home and life seemed out of balance and imperfect.  A world he once saw as beautiful and balanced was now flawed.  As an example, he mentioned a picture that his wife had hung in the foyer.  It had cracked canvas, faded colors, and crooked lines.  She drove him crazy.  I repeated, “Your wife drives you crazy?” 

“No,” he answered, “The woman in the picture.”   

I thought to myself, that is odd.  “Let’s go take a look.” 

When I got to their home, I immediately gazed at an old worked canvas in the foyer.  I was stunned. 

Yet rather than interrupt him with my shock, I decided to listen and watch.  It was as if he did not notice the portrait when I did.  In fact, he walked right up to it where his nose almost hit the canvas.  And then he began the diatribe. 

“You see Gouthum this canvas is incredibly cracked and uneven.” 

I asked him if he would back up a bit to see the picture.  He responded, “No G, you don’t understand, this thing is just horrendous.” 

Then it dawned on me, “Do you have glasses Herman?” 

“Yeah I do, but I am trying to show you the taste that this poor woman has!”  His agitation had grown quite intense. 

At this point his wife drifted in, “Yes Herman, here are your glasses.” 

“Dammit woman!  You know I hate those things.” 

Now I watched a well worn path descend into thorn and thistle. 

“Honey, please just put them on.” 

“I am trying to show the healer the problems around here, would you stop badgering me.” 

“You see what I mean, Mr. Karadi, I cannot do anything that I want.” 

To this I interjected, “Herman, in the interests of time and expediency, how about you just put them on and we can continue your analysis.” 

“Good idea Doc.  HERE.”  He thrust his hand out to accept the glasses. 

“So what I was saying…”  He started to look confused and was about to remove brand new spectacles from the bridge of his nose. 

I gracefully redirected, “Yes Herman, as you were saying?”  While I touched his shoulder so that he would forget the reflexive move to remove the eyeglasses. 

Naturally he started to back up, for he couldn’t see the portrait that close.  “I…I.  Hey, this canvas is not so cracked, it’s the colors you see, all faded.” 

“I see what you mean, how about we back up some more so that you can give me your real assessment.” 

“Good idea Gouthum, thank you.  You see it isn’t even the colors so much as this woman’s face and smile are crooked.  What kind of painter would destroy what is such a finely colored piece?” 

“You are so right.  Let’s continue to pan outward so that you can really give me your summary.” 

At this point he stumbled and gasped.  “Oh My God!  Oh My God!  This is a reproduction of the Mona Lisa,” he cried.  I caught and steadied him. 

He sat down and cried. 

“All the imperfections, all the so called flaws, they came from my lack of perspective.  I was just standing too close to see the proportions, the magic.” 

Smiling, I soothed, “Life is always beautiful from the right perspective.”

The Bridge: Graduate Spirituality

A fellow professor and I meet once a week to discuss the world.  It usually ascends to the topic of man, god, and the universe at some point.  We essentially agree in the basic premise that we are ice cubes floating down the river.  For him, that is all, he eventually melts.  I, on the other hand, join his perspective with my own: “We are all ice cubes descending down the river to the sea. 

In the above analogy, God is water and the ocean.  Like all water on planet Earth, we all join the sea.  Some of us go through glaciers, other rain.  This joins with the metaphor of fate being the river, and agency being your choice whether to swim upward or downward, or to stay steady.  Nonetheless, this week our conversation branched out into the philosophies included in this simple perspective. 

We talked about contemporary authors Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.  The former writes “God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.” (Hitchens, 2007)  While the latter pens “The God Delusion.”  (Dawkins, 2006).  They each publish powerful critiques of religion and god respectively.  Ironically, they are criticizing all art through examining finger painting. 

What I mean by this, is that they take the definitions of god which come from the basic religions rather than detailing the deeper concept of the nature of reality.  Put simply, God does not come from religion.  These codifications and commodifications of God come from humanity as a way of organizing themselves.  The Professor asked if I would eliminate all religion.  I laughed and said of course not.  These are two equally balanced and opposing forces, science and religion.   

Ultimately science leads to utilitarianism, or the idea that justice is the most good for the most people.  Religion leads to wars and slavery as well.  Both are wrong at the extremes, just as heat is healthy but supernovae are unhealthy.  True power comes from the balance, the sweet spot where the two poles balance and resist, where two magnets of the same pole resist each other. 

Nonetheless, what is the core of what we are saying here?  What we state is that God is the infinite and everlasting which is present in all places at all times.  Some call this the energy of the universe, others the laws which govern it.  Neither is entirely right.  The Absolute infinite is where the concept of deity descended from.  Intellectuals with the capabilities of Dawkins and Hitchens contrast the basic tenets of elementary spirituality with secondary school science. 

A more powerful comparison comes from examining graduate science and graduate spirituality.  When a thinker does make this level of investigation, he or she finds that the two fields intersect quite nicely.  The gift of great minds is to find the bridge and the unity even if they must travel through division.  It is easy to divide, difficult to unite.  I was born and raised by avowed atheists and I deeply examine both perspectives.  Once I found the bridge I found peace. 

One thing Hitchens and Dawkins clearly show is that division is becoming too expensive on planet earth.  It lies upon leaders to bring people together rather than to divide them.  I hope to share my journey to peace.  Although it is no milquetoast path, no worthwhile ones are. 

Reference: 

 

Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Miffin

 

 

Hitchens, Christoper (2007). God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Newy York: Hachette Book Group

The How and the Why Revisited: The Grand Canyon, Glacial Melt, and History Repeating Itself

A common theme addressed herein is the divide between scientists of the subject and the object, or the spiritual and the material.  One side usually claims that its understanding supersedes the other’s. Ironically, the two are really trying to answer the same question from a different angle.  In “the How and the Why,” we discuss the object as a “how” the universe was formed, and the subject as the “why.”  Naturally there are many “how’s and why’s” depending upon what your goal is.  

Yet rather than ascend into a maze of withering logic, we will use a simple physical example to help us to see a bridge between many sides of humanity, for unite we must.  To use a popular quote, “United we stand, divided we fall.”  Humanity is a social animal that performs as unit.  We are becoming the union between individual and group in this Aquarian Age.  Let us descend into a physical example. 

The grand canyon historically has been described as the result of Gradualism, or long steady erosion.  Although this is undisputed in its accuracy, recent phenomenon suggests that it has been formed by both Gradualism and Catastrophism, or, rapid dramatic change in relatively short geologic time.  It was not in six days mind you, but a combination thereof.  In fact, recent data shows that glacial melt caused huge changes within the original model.  The data is not definitive, but promising nonetheless. 

Our business here is not to jump into some melee, it is to show how both processes continue to affect us today.  If during a melt, the Grand Canyon can make huge changes, what is the significance for us in modern times?  Does this reflect our current state at all?  As we discuss in Global Warming pieces, this natural process is exacerbated by our actions, but natural nonetheless.  Imagine though how the prophecies of the Spiritual Community match this data. 

The world is a dynamic process rather than a static destination.  Internal and External sciences serve us best as models for looking at the world.  Where the two converge we can often extract value.  We know that the system continually adjusts in gradual changes, we also know that dramatic leaps historically pepper the landscape.  Imagine that the Earth is about to experience one of those jumps.  Imagine that is why many of us have moved from the coasts inland. 

During the Tsunami in Sumatra December 2005, almost no animals were killed.  Something in their awareness told them to leave.  An elephant may have felt like running to the top of a hill to survey its territories.  In turn, the animals in front of it may have fled its bulk.  Those who survive from its debris may have followed it to feed on its leavings.  Regardless the system adjusted.   

Which of us are the elephant and its entourage, and which are the people who drowned? 

References: 

 

Cox, Stephen (2003). The University of Arizon Alunni Associatiion:“Grand and Young.” Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://www.uagrad.org/Alumnus/Winter03/canyon.html

 

National Geographic (2007). “How the Earth Was Made: Grand Canyon.” Retrieved August 27, 2007 from http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=8aca3c67-e750-4613-8d11-5b424b03969f&f=&fg=rss

 

Steiger, Frank (20xx).  “Creationist Grand Canyon Argument.” Retrieved August 28, 2007 from http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/grandcyn.htm

 

Herms, Henry (2007). Geology of the Grand Canyon. Retrieved August 27, 2007 from http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/hherms/herms/cal/grand_canyon.htm

   

Just a Couple of -Isms

Evolutionism and Creationism often butt heads in the same way that religion and science do.  Ironically the disciplines themselves are lifeless.  Only dogmatic humans breathe conflict into the dry words of gospels.  Even worse, they each do it for their own unclear purposes.  Very simply, one must ask “why” one discipline or the other wishes to crush the other so strongly. 

Ironically both extremes hold a shocking similarity at their cores.  Scientists claim that the entire universe is a collection of random events governed by physical laws.  While Creationists on the other hand posit that the universe is a series of random physical events constrained by spiritual laws.  On the face of these statements the two sides seem impossibly contradictory.  Yet upon examination, another truth emerges. 

Each side claims to have no responsibility as it is all the will of some outside larger force. 

The Scientist:“It is all Random.” 

The Creationist“It is all God’s will.” 

They wish to surrender any responsibility for their lives whatsoever.  In reality, some kind of bridge must be built between the two perspectives.  As I say elsewhere, science explains a form of “how,” while spirituality offers a type of “why.”  Hence why there are so many confusing accounts of creation.  Each needs to satisfy a different query. 

Yet science is the same way.  Ask how something occurred to a chemist and you get a completely different answer than from a physicist.  Is one more right than the other?  That depends.  As in all meaningful discussion, “that depends,” is the only answer one can definitively give.  Or, more fully, “that depends upon what your goal is.” 

If you are trying to manage the lime growth rate in your pipes, the chemist’s answer may be more appropriate.  When you are managing the outflow of waste water and sewage from your home, you better ask the physicist, unless you want the you-know-what piling up! 

COMING NEXT, THE GRAND CANYON GLACIAL MELT AND HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF.

Harvest Time for Perfect Paradox-Eyetalk and Our Future President

Back by popular demand: The Perfect Paradox Blog.  After an exciting summer of hands-on research at the school of hard knocks, we have returned.  Exciting things happened in the founder’s life.  He spent a six uninterrupted weeks showing his six-year-old son how to swim, read better, use a dictionary, and most importantly, have a good time.  He also completed his MBA in Finance with high honors achieving a GPA of 3.875.  

Even though a hearty congratulations and vacation may be in order, Gouthum Karadi never rests on his laurels, or his buttocks for that matter.  He begins teaching as a part time instructor at UNM September 2007 in addition to collaborating with well known author John Meluso, CSP as chronicler of a cutting edge marriage between politics, personality and science.  

On October 12, 2007 the candidates for the presidency of the USA are invited to Truth or Consequences, NM to have their character and communications styles evaluated using Meluso’s own Eyetalk™ method.  This technique involves using Rayid Irridology and Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) to examine a person’s innate personality with respect to communication.  Some candidates have already accepted and even a publisher has agreed to print the book.

Gouthum traveled to an event in Albuquerque, NM August 19, 2007 to watch this pioneer in action.  At this networking event he witnessed Mr. Meluso using his dynamic personality and methodology to offer incredibly swift and accurate assessments of each prospect who approached him.  Most were amazed at how quickly he could discern their inherent tendencies and challenges in communicating.  John offered each, strategies to move from communication to connection.  

Please feel free to read more about Meluso’s work at http://www.meluso.com/.  What makes this method so interesting is that the eyes never change throughout a person’s life; hence, their use in electronic bioidentification.  Add to this scientific fact, the well known adage that eyes present “windows to the soul,” and one can easily see the value in surveying a leader’s sincerity and delivery with respect to the innate hand nature dealt him or her.  We look forward to presenting alternative ways of evaluating candidates for leadership.