The Spirit is Willing but the Flesh is Weak

Life is not simple.  There are many aspects of day to day living that confound us, where clear answers to the questions confronting us are not discernible, and may not even exist.  The world is full of contradictions.

For example, we are encouraged to resist the temptations of the flesh by our religious teachings.  In many western religious texts, our ‘natural’ urges are presented as diabolical ploys of the evil one. There seems always to be a dichotomy between the call of the spirit and the pull of the flesh.  Earthly pleasure is perceived to be of secondary importance and at best a distraction for a seriously spiritual person.  Some pleasures are seen as outright sinful, while others are judged to be permissible as long as they do not dominate one’s life or thinking.  But higher commitments to the spiritual life seem to involve a negation of worldly pleasures and cravings.

In eastern religions, the concept of suffering brought on by worldly desires is central.  These desires are not necessarily viewed as evil in any moral sense, but they are the source of pain, discomfort, longing – all of the things that make life so difficult for many people – and are therefore to be mastered or eliminated.

For the non-religious, this dichotomy of flesh and spirit seems antiquated and puritanical.  And the repression of desire is perceived as a recipe for psychological disaster in the form of various neuroses and mental illness.  Worldly desires are understood as natural phenomenon that have evolved in humans and other animals for very good reasons.

All of us struggle with balancing our desires and our discipline.  Only the most decadent libertine will argue that every desire can be indulged without harmful consequence.  And only the most ascetic monastic will proclaim that all desire should be purged from life.

In this struggle to find a middle way between succumbing to all desire and imposing an iron rule over our natural impulses an interesting question arises.  Is there a path that is morally prescribed?  Is there a higher calling to tune our natural selves to be in harmony with a universal morality or ‘right way’?

Human sexuality is a good example of the challenges we face in life.  Clearly, sexual desire is a natural, biological urge.  Repression of this desire has been proven to be a harmful thing in most cases.  Yet it is also clear that unbridled sexual behavior can also be dangerous in many ways.  Is there a ‘morality’ that could guide our sexual behavior that does not vilify it but also does not encourage acts with negative consequences?  If we are doing things that have a significant probability of hurting ourselves or other people, then is this not the definition of an immoral act?

This kind of definition of morality is loose and does not lend itself to well-defined laws or codes, but it provides a basis for decision-making and it also avoids the often arbitrary nature of culturally or religiously prescribed moral statutes.

But it also acknowledges that there is a need for us to rein in our natural impulses to some degree, to apply discipline to those biological and natural urges.  Just because something is ‘natural’ doesn’t mean that it is necessarily ‘good’ or desirable.  We can celebrate nature and evolution for their profound beauty and complexity, but we are still sentient beings with the opportunity to temper and mold ourselves to create a more just and harmonious world.

A second example of the option for refinement and discipline over our natural impulses is our penchant for violence.  Earlier cultures celebrated warlike behavior and prowess and encouraged their development.  Conquest and even annihilation of other groups were greeted with rapturous enthusiasm. Our present sensibilities no longer find this type of full-throated embrace of war and conquest acceptable.  We couch our violence in terms of ‘defending the homeland’ or ‘spreading democracy’, but we still secretly admire and envy the courageous deeds of the special forces and the covert operators, or watch with fascination the brutal encounters between UFC and MMA fighters.

Is there a higher calling for us to evolve psychologically beyond this addiction to violence?  Aggressive, violent behavior is to some extent natural.  Nature is filled with stalking and killing; indeed, it depends on it.  Is our conflict and killing just another aspect of this natural world – a way to control population and weed out the weak and undesirable?  Or are we ‘called’ to leave all of this behind and forge a new path, however frustrating and ‘unnatural’?

There are no easy rules for living.  Some will choose to pursue a more ascetic path, eschewing pleasures of the flesh and finding their joy in the undiluted pursuit of spiritual connection.  Others will revel in hedonistic delights, riding the fine line of self-destruction or broken relationships.  Most will try to find a balance somewhere in the middle.  Morality, whether secular or religious, is an elusive concept that defies any sort of absolute interpretation.  We will continue to fumble in our efforts to define the best path, but perhaps our religious and materialistic perceptions are slowly converging to a unified sense of what a righteous and just life should be.

Thoughts on the Future of Labor and Wages

One of the pivotal issues in the presidential election was the decay of the middle class.  Manufacturing jobs have fled to other countries and automation has taken its toll.  Significant numbers of desperate voters turned to Trump as a possible savior, believing that his promises to punish corporations who were shipping jobs overseas and negotiate new trade agreements with low-wage economies like China and Mexico would restore American economic prowess and herald a renaissance of middle class wages and jobs.

Much has been written about how complex trading relationships are and how an aggressive stance on trade may backfire.  At a minimum it seems likely that forcing a turnaround in our trade deficit would end up making products more expensive in the U.S.  The simple fact is that labor is cheaper in other nations and if products are made here then they will ultimately be more expensive. 

This in itself would not be a bad thing from my perspective, but more expensive products would probably reduce overall demand for products and the net effect might actually be worse than the status quo for the general population.

But I do not believe that the future holds any real hope for a return of manufacturing jobs.  The true culprit is not outsourcing but rather automation.  Outsourcing accelerated the disappearance of those jobs, but they are destined to decline because of relentless automation. A fix for trade deficits and outsourcing is a short-sighted band-aid for the larger problem.

When automation hit agriculture during the industrial revolution the impact was dramatic, but agricultural workers flocked to the cities and found manufacturing or service jobs to replace their work on the farms.  A long, painful process was necessary to find a new equilibrium (child labor laws, unions, safety regulations, etc.), and world revolution was narrowly avoided, but eventually a relatively happy state was achieved.

An optimist might say that the current evolution away from industrial jobs will also find a new, happy equilibrium.  But there are reasons to doubt that such a pain-free future will unfold.

Automation eliminates jobs. The only way to replace those jobs with similar manufacturing jobs is to create more products.  But at some point there is a saturation effect.  Human beings can only make use of so many products.  We are already seeing that most of the new jobs in our economy are ‘service’ jobs.  Service jobs are generally lower wage jobs than those in manufacturing.

There is a second factor at work here – the impact of women working.  Since the second world war, women have joined the workforce in ever greater numbers.  Indeed, having two wage earners in a household is seen as an unavoidable fact of life by most people.  The double income family has more earning power and provides a woman with the possibility of a fulfilling career.  But it also puts tremendous pressure on the family in terms of focus, free time and flexibility.  As I pointed out in a previous post, the double income family also plays a role in increasing the income disparity between the classes.

One possible solution to increasing automation and a dearth of higher wage jobs would be to decrease the number of days/hours that are worked by the average worker.  In essence this would be a form of job sharing and would increase the number of available jobs.  The work week decreased from six days to five in the early years of the twentieth century.  Is there any reason it can’t decrease further?

The argument against this change is that it would result in lower incomes for families and start a recessionary cycle of decreasing spending/demand and further loss of jobs.  However, in theory the cost of products should also decrease with increasing automation, as the labor required to manufacture and even to distribute products would be lower.

There is a type of optimism that argues that new forms of labor will replace the industrial labor in this coming post-industrial society.  We have already seen that the computer revolution has produced many new jobs in the so-called ‘knowledge’ industry.  It is tempting to imagine an endless array of ‘on-line’ jobs that will become available for displaced industrial workers.

However, there are obstacles to this type of job growth.  Knowledge jobs require much higher intellects and job skills than industrial jobs.  Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the number of knowledge jobs created could ever compensate for the jobs lost in manufacturing, textiles and other industries affected by automation.

That leaves service jobs as the only real alternative for job growth if we cannot accept job sharing or a shorter work week.  The move from industrial jobs to service jobs is a phenomenon that we have already begun to experience.  But service jobs generally have low salaries and the income disparity that results is very corrosive in a society.  Market forces have generally kept service job salaries very low, but that may have to change if we are to avoid all of the unpleasant and potentially dramatic ramifications of our increasingly class riven society.

I am not a pessimist at heart, but I do not see an easy solution to our current economic travails.  The revered ‘marketplace’ may eventually sort it out, but a little social engineering may be necessary to preclude a further deterioration of our civil harmony.

Empathy

One of the most important human attributes is empathy.  The dictionary definition is ‘the ability to understand and share the feelings of others’.  Empathy is the primary means for people to make progress in resolving their differences.  If you cannot understand what another person is feeling, then it is almost impossible to reach out to them in a way that will bridge the gap.  If you have no empathy, then your only means of interaction is to attempt to dominate or overwhelm your adversary and make them subject to your way of thinking.

Unfortunately, showing empathy is not an accepted attribute of leadership.  Empathy requires an admission of the ambiguity and nuance of human affairs.  Most people are not comfortable with ambiguity.  They crave certainty.  That is why demagogues are so successful.

One of the reasons I have found Obama such an incredibly appealing President and person is that he has a very strong inclination toward empathy.  He does not outright condemn other cultures or countries or even political views, and he tries to put other opinions into perspective and give them respect.  Many people see this as weakness.  They accuse him of going on apology tours and weakening the status of the U.S. in the world.

When people think of a strong leader, they equate strength with absolute conviction and dramatic declarations.  To be sure, when a country is facing a desperate situation and at the brink of destruction, strong leadership of this nature with no hint of doubt or hesitation is necessary.  The belief that any show of softness or empathy would demonstrate weakness and invite more aggression is reasonable and must be considered in such situations.

But leadership in this era of globalization and rapid change is no longer simply a matter of standing strong against an implacable foe. The world is integrated as never before and we can no longer afford to lead by posturing as the world’s only moral nation, as a people who are never wrong and have no weaknesses or failings.  We must acknowledge and comprehend the diversity in this world by empathizing with others, understanding their point of view, even when we do not necessarily agree with it.

We accept and celebrate empathy when it is in a religious leader like the Pope or the Dalai Lama.  But would it not be just as appropriate for a political leader who is engaging with other nations and peoples?  Isn’t it time for these leaders to project a moral and ethical message that is honest and thoughtful? 

Within our own land we see so many missed opportunities for empathy and it is at the core of our fractious political life.  Can I as a progressive not empathize with those who are frightened by the changing fabric of our society, who see their old world disappearing?  Is it so hard to empathize with the plight of those whose jobs have fled overseas and feel anger at the smug attitudes of the so-called liberal elite?  Conversely, can those on the right not empathize with African-Americans who are stymied by intractable poverty and hopelessness, and outraged by the parade of videos clearly showing tragic, unnecessary shootings of unarmed young men?  And can African-Americans not empathize with the incredibly challenging situations that police in urban settings face on a daily basis, whether black or white? 

If people could start with empathy, acknowledging the fears, concerns and hopes of their adversaries, avoiding the simplistic labeling that constructs a deep chasm – racist, elitist, xenophobe, socialist, sexist, radical – and carefully analyze problems with data and an open mind, then perhaps we could get past the entrenched ideological stalemate that seems to have gripped our country.

Reflection on the Election

Like many of my friends, and indeed perhaps half of the nation, I was in shock and depression after the Trump victory.  I felt a bit of apprehension before it occurred, but I discounted the close polling as somehow reflective only of the normal liberal conservative divide, and believed that many of the conservatives would in the end find it impossible to vote for a man such as Donald Trump, even if they could not vote for Clinton.  I was wrong.

So what does it all mean and how will things go on from here?  Much has been written about how Trump managed to win over so many white voters.  Upon reflection it seems fairly simple to me.  One portion of the Trump supporters embraced him as an unapologetic voice against progressive values.  They want immigration trends reversed and illegal immigrants deported; they believe African-Americans must take responsibility for their own problems; they believe climate change is a left wing conspiracy; they think Obama has weakened the US in international affairs; they want to roll back entitlements; and they want to eliminate Obamacare.

These are the people that would have voted for any republican nominee, even an axe-murderer.  They would not be deterred by major character flaws in their candidate, no matter how egregious they might be.  Indeed, the flamboyant and bellicose character of Trump excited them and whipped them into a frenzy of giving the middle finger to the ‘system’ and voicing a newfound joy of political incorrectness!

The other large group of Trump supporters crossed over from the labor union side of the democratic party.  They were seduced by Trump’s claim to know how to ‘fix’ the economy.  Out of desperation, they were ready to be true believers.  And sadly, they too found the racist, xenophobic, and even the misogynistic rantings of Trump somewhat appealing.  They had previously embraced liberal leaders only because the democrats had established themselves as the friend of labor.  The sad state of the middle class in the current economy severed those bonds and left them adrift where they were easy prey for a demagogue.  Disruption is inevitable in times of transition.

The last group, smaller but decisive, was the independents who held their noses and voted for Trump because they had become convinced that Hillary Clinton was not to be trusted and they believed the false (in my opinion) equivalencies drawn between Trump and Clintons’ flaws, transgressions and character.  The Hillary hate campaign was incredibly effective in this regard.

Combine all of this with a heavy dose of apathy in the African American community – almost a sense of fatalism – and voila, Trump wins!

There are many potential ramifications of this result.  With a republican congress generally supporting him, Trump can impact a lot of things fairly quickly – immigration, energy and environmental policy, financial regulations and some foreign policy decisions (Iran, Syria, Cuba).  We can only hope that the damage is temporary and not cataclysmic.

But ironically, the most important issue for his supporters, and the one that really powered Trump into the White House – the economy – will likely be much more resistant to change.  Even if he is able to enact tariffs on certain trading partners – and this is not something that the congress will necessarily greet with enthusiasm, free trade being a long-held Republican ideal – their impact could very possibly be negative rather than positive, i.e. make consumer goods more expensive without bringing back jobs.

People are generally clueless about the economy.  It is simply too complex for the average citizen to understand in any deep way.  Even the most respected economists differ greatly on how to address macroeconomic issues.  A country is VERY different from a business.  The belief that Trump’s success as a businessman, which is certainly not a universally-accepted fact in itself, will translate into success for the national economy is simplistic almost to the point of self-delusion.  The last much-heralded titan of business who entered the White House was Herbert Hoover, and his commercial genius ushered in the Great Depression!

Trump’s best hope for economic success is probably deficit spending in the form of vastly overdue infrastructure improvements.  Obama has been trying to promote such improvements throughout his tenure as President with little success because of the gridlock in congress and the fear of the growing national debt.  But now that it is a conservative idea, it may get some traction . . . .

The sad truth is that middle class manufacturing jobs are unlikely ever to return in great numbers.  The automation and globalization genies are out of the bottle and no amount of demagoguery will put them back.  We face a brave new post-industrial world in the labor market, and we will probably have to go through a lot more pain before we evolve into a sensible new order that will not leave millions out in the cold.

So good luck Trump!  I really do wish you well.  Not because I have even the slightest admiration for you as a person.  I believe the way you ascended to the Presidency is the most pathetic spectacle I have witnessed in U.S. political life.  I wish you well because I want our nation to survive and, ultimately, to thrive.  It will most likely have to do that in spite of your leadership and policies rather than because of them.  But if it does I will be happy, even if it means that your petty but gargantuan ego can lay claim to having saved the republic.

Sexual Predation

It is ironic, although certainly not entirely unexpected, that the final nail in Donald Trump’s coffin will be driven in by a legion of women coming out with stories of groping, harassment and unwanted sexual advances by the Republican nominee for president.  Ironic, because the Republican Party considered itself well established as the party holding the moral high road after Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct.  And not entirely unexpected, because any fool could have predicted from first glimpse of ‘the Donald’ that his past must be a veritable treasure trove of sexual improprieties.

This may go down as the year when society finally became fully aware of the extent of sexual predation in our social interactions.  From the Stanford swimmer who was caught attempting intercourse with an almost unconscious woman to the army of sports figures and celebrities who are implicated in rape and domestic violence, to Mr. Trump and his incredible hot mike recording with Billy Bush.  After this recording went viral, millions of women came forward with stories of their own encounters with sexual predators.

Sexual predation is clearly more about power and control than it is about sex.  Most men have strong sex drives.  But a normal, healthy sex drive is oriented around mutual attraction, affection and consent.  A healthy, well-adjusted man may desire an attractive woman he encounters, but he would never make an overt sexual gesture such as kissing, touching or even verbally suggesting sexual activity unless he received a clear signal that the woman is a willing participant. Indeed, the quickest way to turn off a normal man is to show indifference, contempt or resistance to his sexual interest.  This should douse the flames immediately.

Any sort of pleasure that a man feels in forcing a sexual encounter is out of the realm of normal sexual behavior.  It is the perverse pleasure of a bully or a psychopath.  It is the sad expression of some serious psychological flaw.

When a man forces a kiss or gropes a woman’s breast or vagina, or even propositions her, it is a pathetic attempt to overcome feelings of inadequacy or insecurity.  It is the expression of a frantic need to be powerful and in control.  It has little or nothing to do with sexuality in any healthy sense, but rather is exploiting a sexual urge to establish dominance.  It is conflating a healthy human desire with a sordid, perverse need to produce a toxic, anti-social action.

So called ‘locker room’ talk is something every man encounters.  Some participate and some do not.  It occurs most often in one’s youth, in gym class or on sports teams, hence the term locker room.  For the most part it consists of boys talking in sexist terms about girls’ looks and bodies, and speculation or even bragging (often on a fictional basis!) about sexual activity in raw language.

But in my experience it does not include talk of sexual predation.  I cannot recall boys or men bragging about how they could force themselves on women or do things without their consent.  Even in my time in the Navy on a submarine where sexual banter was endemic, I rarely heard men describe forcing themselves on women.  And when they did, their comments were greeted with an awkward silence.  The majority of men know the boundaries.

This is not to say that men in general are not guilty of rampant objectification of women and misogynistic comments about them.  But there is a difference between predatory speech and typical male buffoonery.

Some will say that women invite sexual advances by dressing provocatively or emphasizing their breasts or other anatomical features.  It is certainly true that men find sexy outfits titillating.  But to imply that unsolicited sexual overtures are justified by any type of appearance is totally absurd.

Have men so little self-control or discipline that they cannot contain themselves in the presence of an attractive or even provocatively-dressed woman?  This seems to be the conclusion that society long held and that certain cultures still hold today regarding female attire and this is why historically women all over the world have been forced to wrap themselves from head to toe outside of the home.

Blame will also be placed at the foot of our more permissive, sexually liberated society.  This is surely specious reasoning, as predatory sexual behavior has been around for all of human history, and may even have been worse before women gained some level of liberation and power.  Sex is no longer a taboo topic, hidden behind closed doors fueling massive neuroses throughout society.  Its liberation may cause some degree of discomfort and has certainly challenged our way of dealing with it, but there is nothing in the new openness of sexuality that justifies sexual misconduct.

It is now time for men to draw clear lines around acceptable sexual behavior, and more importantly, to communicate to other men that they will no longer laugh at predatory language or jokes, or shrug off the claims or bragging of the predators themselves.  Silence is equivalent to approval.  Sexuality is a beautiful and exciting part of life, but like many beautiful things, it must be protected from toxic and malevolent forces.

Climate Change and the Election

If there is a single issue that a rational person could choose to make a decision on voting for Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump I would argue that it is climate change.  Trump has labeled theories of climate change as ‘bullshit’ and ‘a hoax’.  He has vowed to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement, to rescind the Climate Action Plan, to save the coal industry and to eviscerate the EPA.

Climate is a complex phenomenon.  A complete understanding of its trends and future will elude us for the foreseeable future.  But are we really willing to take the chance that climate change is not real?  Every major scientific organization in the U.S. has endorsed the theory of climate change and the influence of human factors on it.  Here are just a few of them:

• ·         National Academy of Sciences - "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
• ·         American Association for the Advancement of Science - "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
• ·         American Chemical Society - "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem."
• ·         American Geophysical Union - "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes."
• ·         American Medical Association - "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." 
• ·         American Meteorological Society - "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."

Climate science skeptics will argue that satellite data does not support the warming trend that earth scientists record very clearly (Ted Cruz has promoted this specific critique).  Never mind the fact that there is ample evidence that satellite data is seriously flawed. They will also say that climate change is not ‘settled science’.  In this modern age of social media where every opinion and every set of ‘facts’ is propagated endlessly the ‘truth’ can be hard to discern.   However, it takes a very stubborn skepticism to argue against ALL of the major scientific communities.

And even if one is skeptical, can it possibly be a prudent position to completely reject the risk of climate change and its possible consequences?  Only a fool would be adamantly opposed to careful consideration of this issue – to roll the dice and simply hope that climate change isn’t true or that its impact won’t be catastrophic.

It is somewhat understandable that conservatives fear the potential economic impacts of large scale emission control programs.  No one wants our fragile world economy to be unnecessarily hampered by new regulations or imposed restrictions on energy and commerce.  But what about the economic impact of climate change itself?  If recent events are any indication of what we are in store for in the future, then the costs of wildfires, droughts, floods, storms, famine and a myriad of other potential consequences of climate change – not to mention the political fallout of refugees and global conflict -  will make the control of emissions look like the best economic bargain in history.

Delaying a serious and considered handling of the climate change issue for 4 or 8 more years is perhaps the single biggest blunder our nation could make.  The U.S. needs to demonstrate global leadership on this issue and is perhaps the only nation qualified to do so.  It is clear that this will not happen with Trump.  This is reason enough to completely reject his candidacy.

The Insidious Nature of Boredom

The sentence ‘I am bored’ is probably one of the most frequently used sentences in the English language.  Children learn it early in life and recite it endlessly during long summer vacations or family car rides or moments of exasperation with various tasks or chores.

In its youthful form, boredom is generally a temporary state, brought on by either the lack of obvious play scenarios or by forced participation in an activity that holds no interest.  A child may be bored one second and merrily engaged the next in some new activity.  The mercurial nature of the child generally vanquishes boredom pretty easily.  Childlike curiosity and energy win the day, because there is almost always something new to discover.  But from adolescence on, boredom can be a more complex phenomenon that can easily skirt the edges of lassitude and ultimately plunge one into the abyss of depression.

Of course adult boredom can be as banal as childlike boredom – the boredom of a long meeting, the boredom of a vapid conversation, the boredom of a book that has lost its appeal or a formulaic movie.

But in many cases, to be bored as an adult is no longer the state of having nothing to do or perceiving a single, specific activity as boring, but rather finding no compelling reason to do anything! This sinister species of boredom – a writer’s block of the soul - seems almost nonsensical at first glance.  Why would human beings be so easily bored in a world that has endless possibilities of activity, both intellectual and physical?  A boredom of this nature would seem almost to indicate a very flawed character, a dearth of imagination or curiosity.  Yet, it is endemic in modern civilization and affects legions of otherwise industrious and energetic souls who find themselves inexplicably stricken by a melancholy boredom from time to time.

Why does the infection of a bored lethargy lurk so close to the human psyche, and how does one find an antidote?  Why do some people seem endlessly energetic and buoyant while others grapple constantly with a debilitating ennui?

In my life I seem to vacillate between extremes.  In one moment I am ecstatically imbued with almost superhuman energy and passion, engaged in multiple activities and joyfully contemplating each new endeavor.  Each activity seems to hold endless fascination for me and I almost vibrate with a mad desire to experience everything and master as much as humanly possible.  I am bewitched by the endless possibilities of engagement and reluctant to leave my tasks even to eat or sleep.

But those same passions can be cast aside in paralyzing indifference when I find myself in the clutches of a bored state of mind. The powerful elixir of playing guitar or writing songs that provides me such exquisite pleasure on one evening can seem dull and meaningless to me the next.  I can catalog through the bountiful list of hobbies and interests that are normally a bottomless treasure trove and find not a single item that beckons to me.  It all seems so purposeless.

Sometimes in this state of listlessness I can trick myself out of the ensuing despondency by starting an activity with little or no hope for pleasure.  If I am fortunate, I find myself slowly drawn into its inveterate magic.  Often this will break the spell of boredom and return me to my happy, energized self.

But other times the spell is not to be broken, and I lurch from activity to activity with heavy heart and find nothing to awaken the child within.  In these moments I begin to despair that I have lost the thread of jubilant exertion.  Perhaps I am peering into the chasm of depression.

When I was in college I took a class on the writings of Jean Paul Sartre.  His book, La Nausee, made a strong impression on me.  The protagonist, if he can be regarded as such, is overwhelmed by a ‘nausea’, an awareness of the absurdity and meaninglessness of existence – a glimpse into ‘nothingness’.  But somehow he is able to comprehend and accept pure existence and find the courage to overcome his nausea and live ‘authentically’.  It was somewhat unclear to me whether living ‘authentically’ is supposed to give our lives meaning in spite of the absurdity of existence.

When I am experiencing a time of ‘boredom’, I think about existentialism because the strongest quality of my boredom is a sense of futility, of meaninglessness.  I perceive every possible activity as repetitious and pointless.  As a person who has not embraced atheism but remains rather ever-optimistic that there is indeed a higher order or divine state of being, I want to reject and overcome this flirtation with nihilism.  But my best efforts to do so are not always immediately successful.  Fortunately, the passage of time eventually clears the miasma of my ennui and I can once again throw myself into an activity, albeit without ever solving the puzzle of why such attacks occur.

Here’s hoping that my more ebullient nature and native curiosity are able to continue to triumph over the insidious threat of boredom.  I will certainly do everything I can to ensure that they do!