Digging in the Zen Garden

Statue of Buddha in Laos - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

I recently splurged $8 on a bargain book at Barnes and Noble.,  “The Essentials of Philosophy” by James Mannion.  It gives the reader a whirlwind tour of world philosophy – across all of the ages and all parts of the world.  It gives a condensed version of everything from Plato’s Forms to Bertrand Russell’s mathematical Empiricism.  Turns out that various thinkers have been misunderstood or mistranslated through the ages – Epicurus was characterized posthumously as a Hedonistic bon vivante.   In fact, he was more about quality of life and savoring things at a slow, reasoned pace.  In some ways he was the very opposite of his “sensual man” image.

Virtually every person and philosophy has some merit or reasonableness when seen in a particular context, a singular glint in the prism of “deep thought”.   Some of these, when taken out of context can turn into Frankenstein monsters that need to be dispatched with a pitchfork, quickly. Friedrich Nietzsche proposed the idea of a “Super Human” who acted from confident knowledge, and not groupthink.  It’s ironic that his idea, which had academic merit per se, was twisted into a pretzel of death camp rationalizations by none other than Adolph Hitler.   Frequently such bastardizations happen long after a philosopher is dead and he can no longer set the record straight on what he actually thought or said.

Possibly more interesting in “Essentials” than anything were the ideas of Siddhartha Gautama, aka Buddha.  Buddha was a liberal, Hindu, Indian prince who disavowed some of the violence and illogic he saw in Hinduism.  The contrasting religious background reminds me of how Jesus was a Jewish rabbi – who also became the foundation of a whole new religion.   Buddha originated many aphorisms, principles and ideas (The Four Noble Truths) which I won’t detain you with here.   Many of these ideas overlap with similar wisdom that Westerners might glean from the 10 commandments, the beatitudes or the Book of Psalms.    But Buddha suggested something else altogether unsettling … Buddha says that we chose our parents, our current life situations and our gender in a past life.  

Thus, this life with all its problems and nastiness is something for which we voluntarily checked a box!   We asked for it, as if scanning a special Sears Catalog of perverse conditions.    Put me down for “lower middle class, speech impediment and lackluster career.   A big nose, high forehead should certainly round it all out”. Have to say, I'm pretty sure I never asked for my slings and arrows explicitly. Buddha sees these features as the work of a compensating God, not really a lesser God.  

I’m just not sure where to draw the lines.  Did I live before, and my previous life has some spirit-connection here in this life?   Or is that total nonsense …  Are rewards and punishments something that come in a promised afterlife and not realized already?   Even Exodus in the Bible speaks of the father’s sins visited upon his offspring.   I can’t imagine what sins were done by my forbears; I can only hope that bygones will be bygones.  There are so many ideas to mull over in “The Essentials of Philosophy”...    No one particular idea has an iron grip yet (on me anyhow).   I may need to delve deeper than an $8 bargain bin foray to see what actually exists over the rainbow of this spiritual quest.

© 2012 blogSpotter

L'Enfant Terrible

L'Enfant Plan of 1792 - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

When I visited Washington D.C. in the summer of 2008, I found the cityscape to be impressive. In the government district, the streets are wide boulevards with substantial, Federal-style buildings gracing every other block. The National Mall is an awe-inspiring space with treasures like the Lincoln Memorial and the National Monument adding historical dimension to a visually sweeping, stunning view. It reminds me somewhat of Europe. It might call to mind Paris’ L’Arche de Triomphe or London’s Saint Paul Cathedral (and surrounding blocks). This wouldn’t be at all a coincidence – Washington D. C. was designed by a French engineer and city planner by the name of Peter L’Enfant.

Now who is this Peter L’Enfant? He was a French expatriate who loved the “American Experiment” so much that he fought in our Revolution and became a permanent American resident. He was also an extremely gifted Renaissance man who excelled in the visual arts. He could build furniture, paint portraits, design houses and better still, design cities. His plan for our nation’s capital was inspired by no less than Paris, Milan and Amsterdam. L’Enfant was a brave man – he served in our Army and rose to the rank of captain even while surviving a battle injury. He was also a likable man, and became fast friends with none other than George Washington. He painted Washington’s portrait, and endeared himself enough that he was Washington’s first choice for designing a Federal capital city on the Potomac in 1790.

L’Enfant conceived of a city with broad avenues and palatial buildings. His Utopian principality was punctuated with fountains, gardens, circular intersections and noble statuary. The view was well-received by Washington and Jefferson -- work commenced right away. Unfortunately, L’Enfant’s “Frenchness” emerged in the ensuing months – an almost manic, egotistical control freak took over the operation. This French “Mr. Hyde” undertook to design the entire city, including private residences and areas beyond the original scope. At length, there was a predictable butting of heads with others, particularly Commissioner Andrew Endicott. L’Enfant’s overreach would have depleted funds needed for the basic city infrastructure. Washington had no choice but to let go of L’Enfant. The remaining tasks were turned over to Endicott. To Endicott’s credit, the basic L’Enfant plan was left intact.

After this unfortunate episode, L’Enfant had a distinguished career as professor and architect in other venues. He did manage to run up very large bills some of which were partly paid by a settlement he reached with the Federal government. (L’Enfant had sued for back pay after being dismissed). His big-spending ways still left him to die as a pauper with $46 worth of maps and survey tools to his name. His hypomanic behavior apparently was as evident in personal finance as it was in city design.

Roll the calendar forward to 1901, at which time Washington D.C. had experienced a bit of “urban drift” before that was even much of a current topic. Slums and ugly buildings had appeared on the main government streets; a train station intruded right on the National Mall. L’Enfant’s vision had been compromised and men with the advantage of a century’s distance could see that was the case. They were able to separate the brilliant city planner from his personal foibles. The McMillan Plan was enacted to beautify Washington, tear down the eye sores and restore L’Enfant’s good name.

L’Enfant’s body was exhumed from a pauper’s grave site and he was buried in Arlington National cemetery with an appropriately respectful ceremony.  His gift to America was finally recognized  for the national legacy that it was and very much is. L’Enfant’s ideas were bigger than anyone’s scope, but maybe in retrospect,  he envisioned an America that was beyond anyone’s scope.
© 2012 blogSpotter

Reconciling Venus and Mars

Did Mars need to moisturize? - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
It’s the third day of June, and already a sweltering 100 degrees with heat factor. Am hoping that this ice coffee helps to cool me down and wake me up all at the same time.

I came back from Krogers yesterday and as I put away the groceries I noticed a seldom discussed cultural bias in the items I was putting away. As a diet-aware 54 year old male, I buy a lot of low-calorie foods. I noticed that with almost no exception, these items are marketed to women. Most men would shy from buying “Lean Cuisine” -- the name rhymes and it uses a French word. Might be a little too cute for self-conscious males. Low-fat Yoplait has a pink ribbon for breast cancer awareness on the box. Virtually all of the low-cal cereals like Special K feature women slimming down in their box illustrations.

At the other extreme are commercials for Whataburger and Jack-in-the-Box. These ads are hawking double-meat cheese monstrosities that might clog your arteries in one meal. Invariably young men are shown chowing down, with grease dribbling down their chins. Beer commercials are much the same -- an adult beverage which might have equal appeal to both sexes is instead shown as a libation best-suited for frat-boy keg orgies. Women are featured as an after-effect, not sought as a customer base.

Entire categories of health care products are sold to women and men are somewhat excluded. Let me emphasize that men’s own sexist phobias play a major part in this situation. Moisturizer is a God-send for the skin -- it minimizes wrinkles and can even protect against skin cancer. Scientifically, what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander (and vice versa)... BUT … men and society at large seem to think that moisturizer is a girl thing. A Texas man would sooner buy L’eggs pantyhose than any kind of aloe moisturizer.

Thus we have it -- a grease dribbling lunkhead who eats Sugar Smacks at breakfast, chows on Quarter Pounders at lunch and then chugs Budweiser in the evening (possibly crushing the empty can against his head to impress his bro's). His wrinkles and skin tags are a manly badge of honor because “Real Men Don’t Moisturize”. In almost all things diet- or health-related -- it seems MEN R STOOPID.

Maybe the slanted expectations creep in because men are already more predisposed to danger in general -- wars, brawls, hunting, boxing and other forms of fisticuffs. Navy seals, first responders and bomb squad people are usually men. Maybe the “Fearless” approach applies with equal tenacity to food and medicine as it does to violent evil-doers at large. I would like to help dispel these stoopid notions with some new rules for Mars (and Venus can read along):

NEW RULES

1) Men should be as concerned with weight, cholesterol and carbs as women. Bad food is bad for both sexes.

2) Men should moisturize. Buy the off brand -- buy it late at night at the self-checkout if you must to maintain masculine credibility.

3) Extreme alcohol and substance abuse is bad for both sexes.  Mad Men loves to show Don Draper guzzling martinis -- don’t be fooled. All things in moderation.

4) In general, a man should not have to do anything that will cause 3^rd degree burns, concussions, blood poisoning or death to impress a friend. If your woman requires that, you’ve got the wrong woman. If your guy friends require it, find some new friends.

Don’t sacrifice common sense on the altar of machismo. Be a smart guy and do what’s right for you... be a man who is sensible and balanced. Live well and live to see tomorrow.  

© 2012 blogSpotter