-

Didn't sleep much last night. Was wide awake until around 5 or 6 am. Things happened between 6 am and noon, but they're all hazy. My little Bear woke up from a nightmare. I remember that. I brought him back to my room and he fell back asleep, probably after I did. I got out of bed at noon. He was already playing his favorite video game.

I have to go to class now.
I probably won't write much today. Maybe I will tonight. I don't know.
I'm tired, but it's an emotional tiredness, probably more depression than exhaustion. Sleep won't come easily tonight, either. I can tell that already. Maybe I'll write through my insomnia. Maybe I won't.

All three of my critters - two dogs and one cat - were cuddling me when I woke up this morning. That helped. A lot.

Ok, class. Really.

countdown to the giveaway!

Ha! Bet you thought I forget, huh?!

Not so, my friends, not so. 

With less than a week until the drawing, have you entered your name yet?

Here's what's at stake: a handmade copy of my poetry book, 40 Pieces, and a high quality print of Souls.




Here's how to enter:

1. Publicly follow any one of my blogs on blogger.
        - this one.
        - Bones's Fiction
        - Bones' Poetry
2. Follow me on facebook at either my art page or my writing page.
3. Follow me on Society6.

4. (And this one is new!) Leave me a comment on this post, telling me what you'd like to see more of, or less of, on this blog. Alternatively, you could leave a comment and just say hi :)

The drawing is 18 January 2013 - next Friday - at noon, Arizona time.

Good luck!

a is for apes... in oracles

A while back I had an idea to create an oracle or tarot deck full of primates. This post is venture number one into that endeavor. It also conveniently features the letter A, thus fitting neatly into the Pagan Blog Project schedule. Win!

I'll start with apes.

But... there are some big differences between the different apes, you say?
Indeed. Don't worry, I'm all over it.

I'm debating whether or not to include humans when I actually make the cards. For now, I'm toying with that idea and trying to develop it a little more fully. Until then, let's discuss the ape family and some of its other members.

The scientific name of the family of apes is Hominidae, by the way. Little bit of trivia for ya. It includes all the "great apes" and humans, with orangutans in one subfamily and the rest of us - gorillas, chimps, and humans - in the other. Chimps and humans are even in the same tribe; the gorillas have their own tribe.

Did I say trivia? Well, it might be meaningful to this post after all. Let's see.

Oh, and in case you're wondering how I'm going to do cards for all 500+ species of primates, or how I'm going to group them without glossing over essential character differences in species, this post will be a great example of that. See, there aren't that many ape species, but some of them would be repetitious. Take gorillas and chimps, for example... well, hang on. Hold that thought.

Ok, so there are two recognized species of gorillas: eastern gorillas, which live in the lowlands of central Africa, and western gorillas, which live in the mountainous rainforests of central Africa. There are more similarities than differences in these species. They weren't even separated into two species until relatively recently. So, gorillas will be one card; the lessons each species has to teach is inclusive of both.

Chimps, on the other hand... there are two species of chimps, too, but these two species are vastly different in their behavior and ecologic solutions, thus they have very different lessons for us. Each species will have its own card.

Make sense? That's how I'm going to do this - one family/tribe/genus/species at a time.

~

Apes do have some common themes. Perhaps the group of them could almost be considered a sort of 'suit' - much like the suits of a playing card deck or a standard tarot - only there won't be enough apes to make a full suit. Regardless, the common themes of apes should be known and recognized in the deck I'm building.

So, without further ado, here they are: the themes you've been waiting for (or at least, the themes I've been waiting for)...

Apes are the thinkers of the primates; they use tools and seem capable of learning language (personally, I would argue that the great apes do, in fact, use language - maybe better than some humans I know - but that's a hotly debated topic). They have complicated social systems and emotions. They hunt, make war, practice altruism, heal each other, they experience joy and grief. They are the thinkers, and the feelers; great apes are the nearest of our kin. Though each species of ape has a different story to tell, a different lesson to teach, it's likely that the lesson will be related somehow to those truths. Their theme is social cognition: how do we think about our interactions? How do we act on our feelings? How do we process emotions and empathy?

~

Next time, I'll talk specifics: Bonobos.

a Pagan Blog Project post... sorta, but not really

Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules.

That's the first title I noticed when I glanced (ok, stared) at my bookcase just now. Google, which is the power behind my automatic spell check thingy, says I spelled "cataloguing" incorrectly, but the book's spine says otherwise. I'll trust the book. But I wonder if perhaps the spelling hasn't changed in the 60+ years since the book was published. Maybe it was right, then, and is wrong, now. And then I wonder, what about the other Americans? Do they catalogue differently? (Google says "catalogue" isn't a word, either. Clearly, google does not know everything.) But that's silly. Then again, maybe 60 years ago, they were the only ones running libraries in any sort of official capacity. That seems more likely. I don't know, just guessing. I'm not strong in librarian history, even as it blends with American history.

Actually, what seems most likely is that the title refers to the British ("Anglo") origins of the American cataloguing system, and has nothing at all to do with the race of person utilizing that system.

Funny how our minds first jump to issues of contention, eh? Or maybe that was just because I'm on the first day of the spring semester - which includes a course on historical African American literature (specifically, the autobiographies of African American women), and we're starting out with a text from 1865.

Surely, I must have a point.

~

After a brief lunch break, I've decided I might not have a point after all. But the post does  start with "a" so I must be getting somewhere, right? Maybe not.

~

Maybe I should take my medication earlier in the day. I think my brain's just now getting warmed up.

~

So, anyway, as I was saying... well, I'll let you know when I remember what I was saying.

~

This started out as a stream-of-conscious writing exercise intended to work up some "a" post inspiration for the Pagan Blog Project (see button on the right sidebar if you're not familiar). Clearly, that isn't what happened.

On the bright side, I did get an idea for my PBP post.

To be continued... (in a separate post because, really, would you  want to this one to go on any longer?)

Driven to Distraction - a book review about ADD and me

I started reading this book because my little Bear has ADHD, and I'm struggling to help him.

The book is Driven to Distraction: Recognizing and Coping Attention Deficit Disorder from Childhood through Adulthood, by Edward Hallowell and John Ratey. It's mostly by Edward Hallowell, but includes the ideas of Hallowell's mentor, John Ratey. Not that it really matters. Both men are well qualified to write this book.

Anyway, I started reading it so that I could better understand my child. In the very first chapter, I realized I needed to be taking notes - this was good stuff which I knew damn well I couldn't possibly retain unless I wrote it down. Correction: I started taking notes while reading the Preface, which I almost never read in any book (yes yes, bad student, blah blah... that's not the point here, not exactly).

By chapter three, I was reading the book for myself. I'm still trying to understand my child, and the book is still immensely helpful in that endeavor, but I've become completely engrossed in it because it's about me, too. I'm learning that although I thought I had a pretty good handle on what ADD is (I'm including ADHD under the ADD umbrella), I really only had a superficial understanding. ADD is a spectrum, not a single set of narrowly-variable symptoms which are either present or not. And now, I'm sorely tempted to do that cardinal sin of psychology (and psychiatry, and medicine...), and diagnose myself. The more I learn, the more I see myself. Which would explain a lot. I mean, a LOT.

The book is filled with case studies in which I've seen myself and my little Bear, and it is giving me insight into each of us. It has gone beyond just opening my eyes, and shown me new paths to take which will help us both. It's also the first non-fiction book I've ever read that I couldn't put down. I'll probably read it a couple times. I've actually been taking notes, just because I never remember what I read unless I write it down. And this, I want to remember.

The only caveat I have is that it's dated, having been published in 1995. Some of the medications the author mentions are outdated. However, medication is only discussed specifically in three of the 300+ pages of the book. So this datum is really irrelevant, in my opinion. I scanned through those three pages and went on my merry way. Also, the contact information in the appendix is probably no longer useful, either. That's what we have google for, eh?

~

I just found a couple more recent (2005 and 2010) books on this topic, by the same author. They're goin on my amazon list... right...now. And done.

Also, apparently there's a newer, revised edition of this same book. I highly recommend it, based on this earlier edition's excellence. 

Terrorism: the third and (probably) final installment

Terrorism, with or without religion (Part 1)
The Psychology of Terrorism (Part 2)

~

Osama bin Laden was known to continuously step outside his 'small group' to consult theologians; his higher order capacity was very high. However, I think ObL thought of himself as more of an irregular general than as a terrorist. This is important; our own (American) generals don't think of themselves as terrorists, but Palestinians would disagree.

~


If we consider the capacity for terrorist actions to be a non-pathologic behavior,
then we began to view that capacity as, perhaps, a "normal" or healthy reaction
to what we almost must assume to be an unhealthy environment of situation - or,
more likely, a series of unhealthy situations which either result from or shape that
environment. However, we must consider this capacity as a potential rather than a
certainty because there are too many examples of people surviving the same adverse
conditions as terrorists without becoming terrorists themselves. So, we have two
primary questions with which to begin: first, from where does the potential come?
Second, what influences that potential to develop into action? I will address only the
second question in this essay.

Essentially, to answer this question we are looking for the intersection between the
psychological (micro) theory and the socio-cultural (mezzo) theory, in any individual
terrorist. I'll begin with questioning what it is about the host milieu (population/
culture) that causes or allows terrorism to evolve from potential to action? We have
to look at both the host and the sub-cultures within the host, because portions of the
larger environment might have a greater influence than the larger environment. In
other words, there could be a smaller sub-culture which might be exerting a greater
influence on the terrorist potential than the greater milieu.

We also want to look at the dynamics - the action components. You don't get actions
just by plopping someone in an environment; there is no variation with just being
there. We want to look at the intersection between the domain and the person. There
has to be an interactive effect - a friction, or some type of dissonance - for change
to occur. We have to create a stimulus situation that has enough energy, dissonance,
and difference, so that something happens to create a new pattern of behavior. We're
not going to see that just looking at the broad milieu; we're going to have to look at
the dynamic. We want motility because without that, there is no change. When the
individual factor interacts with the socio-cultural, friction creates change. So, how
does this friction develop?

I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce another theory to our discussion: Lonnie
Athens' theory of violentization. Although he studied violent criminals in America,
not "terrorists," I believe there is an overlap here that deserves our attention. His
underlying question was, what makes people capable of violence? He was looking for
the places where psychology and socio-cultural influences intersect to create a person
capable of taking the lives of others violently, or seemingly "unprovoked." In sum, he
observed a four-part series of events that had occurred in some form in the life of each
person - each convicted, confessed violent criminal he interviewed. The stages are, as
he names them, Brutalization, Belligerency, Violent Performance, and Virulency (in
that order). Without boring you too much detailing those stages, I think it's important
to note that perhaps we need to be examining the lives of terrorists in a similar way
as Athens did with the criminals, if not actually check for the same series of events.
Essentially, Athens did with criminals what we would like to do with terrorists, and
in the end, how much difference is there between terrorists and 'people capable of
violence for no apparent reason (from the victims' perspectives)?'

Well obviously the difference is in the intent behind the violence, right? Maybe
not. Perhaps the difference is only in the scale. The need to create fear is very much
entwined with the last three stages of violentization. In Athens' process, the need to
create fear is specific to the would-be criminal as an individual facing the rest of the
world. That person feels the need to perform violent acts as a way to keep themself
intact, while a terrorist, as we have viewed them in this class, is seeking to further
the security of their group against another group. So for a terrorist, the scale is a bit
different on both sides of the conflict. However, recalling that we have determined
that our terrorists identify so strongly with their small groups, that the group's identity
might be considered their own identity, to some degree. That concept then lessens the
degree of difference in scale between violent criminals and terrorists.

The idea is worth consideration, I believe.

a is for apples and adaptation: a statement in favor of firsts

Adapt to survive; adapt to thrive.

I'm taking a history course right now entitled, "Native Americans in US History." There are two main themes which I'm taking away from this course, which is nearing its end. The most obvious is that Euro-Americans have been some seriously genocidal motherfuckers. I think we all pretty much knew that already, but I'm getting a much more detailed account of our historical treachery and modern apathy through this course than anything I've gotten before. The second theme is far more uplifting, and that is a theme of adaptation.

We tend to look back on our histories as a listing of chronological events in which monolithic groups of people clashed or merged. Even those Euro-Americans who believe themselves sympathetic to Native Americans in the power struggle between them and the various invading entities (my white girl self included), tend to see only that the Native Americans were beaten back, and beaten down, until their cultures had been all but decimated. What I hadn't given much thought to, before taking this course, was that there were tribes and individual Native Americans who attempted to adapt their own culture in order live peacefully, or even successfully, within the new economic and social structures being built by the Euro-Americans. There don't seem to be many success stories, but some came closer than I had ever realized.

I'm not here to give a history lesson today. My point is, I'm realizing that when we look back we need to remember that nothing happens in a vacuum, everything that happens has a first time, and nothing stays the same. I suppose what I'm working toward is a theory in defense of UPG (Unverified Personal Gnosis), but I think it's more than that. It's a plea for us all to look at each other - all the other humans we encounter every single day - and remember that every thing has a first.

Last autumn, when I needed something for my first-ever offering to Odin, I scanned my kitchen for available potential offerings. My eyes found apples, and something told me that was appropriate, despite having never heard of any connection between Odin and apples before. I offered Odin an apple, just on a hunch, and there are plenty of anti-UPG people who would have cried foul. When I later learned that there was  a verifiable reference to a positive relationship between Odin and apples, I felt validated in my earlier UPG-based offering. It was a good feeling. Kind of a raspberry in the face of the nay-sayers. It was also my first intentional step onto the UPG path, because, what the hell, it seemed to be working for me.

The more I think about it, though, the more I'm inclined to view UPG as the continuation of the longest human tradition of all: adaptation. There had to be a first, after all. Every story we tell, every myth we learn from, every parable and every divine truth we uncover in our reference books - every single one of those had a first time. First time being told, being written, and even a first time being thought of.

When we stop thinking of firsts, we stop growing, and we shut out our natural capacity for adaptation. If we picture all our various cultural paths as branches on a tree, perhaps we can more easily recall that stagnation is death: the tree will die if new branches, new leaves, and even new roots do not continue to grow.

Our species is not stagnant; we are not static. We are dynamic.