war: what is it good for? absolutely nothing.

Are we as a nation becoming desensitized to war? Desensitized to the physical and emotional damage, both immediate and delayed, that is  being sustained by our children, siblings and parents? Desensitized to what we are asking these men and women to do? To what we are asking them to endure day after day, month after month and year after year? Desensitized to the consequences of our actions as a nation as well as the consequences of our individual actions or inaction with regard to the events which are unfolding around us?

When will war become obsolete? When the thought of waging war becomes too horrendous to for nations, NGOs and individuals to contemplate. When the true effects of war are universally recognized and understood, both intellectually and emotionally. When we collectively and individually decide to look across the table, across the street, across town, across our country and across our borders and see people as people. As sons and daughters. As mothers and fathers. As husbands and wives. As people that love and are loved. As people without added labels, descriptions, qualifiers or other words tacked on that are designed to separate them from ourselves.

Unachievable? Utopian nonsense? Impossible? Perhaps today but who knows about tomorrow or the day after that. Someone has to be the first one. Perhaps that someone will be you?

I have a problem with God.

I have a problem with God. Or more precisely, I have a problem with the word God. I believe it is a product of convenience: a word created by humans to describe the indescribable. An artificial semantic construct that subtly shifts the inconceivable into the realm of the near tangible. It is a word that allows us to apply convention to something that is not just far beyond our physical capability for understanding but something that is seemingly beyond our abilities of abstraction and imagination.

By assigning a linguistic, etymological or symbolic value to that which can not be described, we simultaneously limit its scope and define it in our own terms, dragging it into the world of matter and energy in which we reside. And I believe that is both supremely arrogant and more importantly, a disservice to ourselves as it inhibits our ability to connect with something that is paradoxical and life altering.

As previously mentioned, the universe that we all know, the universe in which we exist, the universe described by Newton, Einstein, Bohr and Hawking comprises less than 4% of what astrophysicists can currently measure. Physically, we have no choice but take up space and conform to the limitations of this tangible universe. However we are not just physical. Thoughts are not physical. Insights are not physical and love is certainly not physical. We just choose to define and relate to them exclusively in physical terms. And by doing that, we limit ourselves from truly being who we are and experiencing that which can not be described.

One perspective on time.

Most people share a common perspective and understanding of time. Whether that common perspective is immutable or transient, right or wrong is not immediately relevant. What is relevant is that they share a common perspective.  The true essence of time is not as a unit of measure to distinguish but as a means of synchronization to lead toward unification.

Being late to a meeting is a useless concept. Being in the meeting is important. Framing a worldview in terms of synchronization is significantly more productive than defining everything as a comparison.

What values go into your friendships?

My closest friendships all have one thing in common; all of these individuals bring out my best qualities. My standards are raised in their company. They challenge me, they push me emotionally, intellectually and/or physically. They force me to move outside my comfort zone and they elevate me to higher levels. And I doubt they are even conscious that they are doing any of this. That is just their nature.