What Is Love?

Love is the urge to bless with no expectation of being acknowledged, appreciated, or blessed in return.

I don't mean "bless" merely as a synonym for "praise" or "glorify." I mean "bless" as in, "materially and actually improving the life experience of another."

Many are blessed by others, but they don't actually participate in love. Love is doing something you don't want to do because your urge to bless overcomes your laziness or distaste or disinterest.

When your child's nose is running green slime, you may not wish to wipe it. She may be coughing and vomiting, lying in her own filth. Her diaper might smell like the Chicago sewer system. If you don't want to go near her, you don't love her.

That's it. Sorry. End of definition. Love is not a thing received. It is a thing done, a thing performed. And many, many people live their lives through without understanding that fact.

If you immediately experience an urge to embrace and comfort the filthy child and then begin wiping, washing, and changing her, you are participating in love. You get the puke and snot and poop on you, but you get past it because your perceptions of your child's needs defeat your offended senses. Your tolerance instantly surpasses your initial disgust. Your energy levels rise to meet the needs of the human being you cherish, and you act.

Your memory of this event will be the way this child clings to you. You will vanquish misery, and the child will worship you. Long after she sleeps in your arms, you will hold and comfort her. You'll be reluctant to let this moment go. You won't feel proud or heroic. You'll be forced into total wakefulness, and you will be humbled by a third Presence that remains with you and your child. Awed by Love's transformations, this is as close as you will ever get to God in your lifetime.

If you force yourself to go back into the room after your initial decision to walk away, you may or may not be exercising an option to love. You may be acting out of a perception of "obligation." The ethics and morality of your role as parent (whether you are, in fact, the biological parent of this child), might force you to do your "duty" by this other human being. You will tend to her needs efficiently. You will perform your cleansing and reclothing tasks reluctantly.

Afterward, you will remember the presence of revolting substances and little else. You will remember your attempts to put the child back to bed several times, and you will remember your anger because she kept waking up. The experience will be marked chiefly by the overwhelming sense of disgust and your relief when she finally stayed asleep so that you could go back to bed yourself.

"Now just a minute!" people will exclaim. "Love is simply a feeling! It's a moment that one perceives at the peak of excitement, say (figuratively speaking), when two are gyrating and undulating in a carnival ride!"

Nope. Gyrate and undulate all you want. Sweat, pant, gasp! Cry out involuntarily as the roller coaster rounds a curve and gravitates the two of you tightly, tightly together.

That is not love.

Love is an overwhelming desire to do that which eases pain and heightens joy in a thing, place, idea, or person you find wonderful. And if you are the person receiving that love, and if it is a sincere love, offered as it should be, with no conditions and no expectations of being returned, you might not even know it's there. Your pain is eased, but you feel entitled to having your pain eased. You may have moments of ecstatic joy, but you get used to it, and after a while, it isn't a carnival ride, but it's comfortable, and you take life's comforts for granted, forgetting that many of them exist because someone believes you are wonderful. You come to the erroneous conclusion that you somehow deserve all of this.

When love is gone, we at last recognize that our lives were good because of a person who made it good. We also recognize ourselves for the pigs we are, but we find that conclusion distasteful. We walk out on it; we find it easier to dismiss "love" as merely a feeling that came and went, and we simply begin looking for the next gratifying experience.

We began life as selfish little creatures. Some of us remain so. We continue to take more than we give. We do exactly as we like, always. We laugh at people who see Love as that third entity in a relationship. In our relationships, we're constantly searching for the best "deal." We're Capitalists, after all! We're still pigs.

Upon whom (or what) have you showered love? For whom have you experienced a desire to do that which is difficult, tedious, or miserable, with no expectation of receiving anything in return? What do you love? Whom have you blessed?

Do I Regret My Years of Teaching?

I’m retired from full-time teaching. I guess you could say that I’m not completely “retired,” since I still teach summer school and substitute occasionally.

But I work at other jobs now too. I’m currently employed in the receiving department of a large store that specializes in home improvements, hardware, and lumber. I intentionally took a job that requires real physical work because frankly, I found myself sitting on my rear end too much during my retirement.

Unlike teaching, the job is intrinsically rewarding. It is sheer fun to operate equipment and move things that weigh literally tons, to look back at what you’ve accomplished and think, “I did that.”

That’s wealth. You can see it. You can feel the energy go out of you to produce a result. You see the result. The result is wealth.

Let’s be brutally honest about money: Money is not wealth. Money is the symbol of somebody’s efforts to produce real wealth. Sitting around managing investments, buying low, selling high, is not wealth creation, no matter how much money you garnish in the process. Someone paid too much for a stock; you sell it for a profit and keep the difference before the price falls. I unload freight that someone has paid for, and I get paid for delivering it. What you’re practicing is wealth drainage. You take a share of my effort. My pay stays the same; you get a profit. Yours is the act of fleecing somebody, somewhere, out of his or her efforts to create real wealth.

Like it or not, that practice has become a legitimate business in this so-called “free” market economy. It’s the real world: There’s wealth creation, and there are those respected for fleecing us. That accounts for most vocations and professions in life. If you’ve got some other way of explaining it, go right ahead; I’d be interested in seeing it.

But where does teaching fit in with all of it; what is that?

In the many years I taught full time, I used to get a bit depressed occasionally. It occurred to me that I may be striving for unreachable, idealistic goals and wasting my life. I wondered how long I could go on before quitting and starting over with a new job, any job. There were many, many moments I wanted to do so. But the moments passed, and I remained a teacher until almost exactly six years ago.

And I was so, so tired; and so, I retired. And now I have time to think back upon it.

One thing teaching isn’t, is wealth-creation. And it certainly isn’t fleecing. Another thing teaching isn’t, is gratification. Oh, yes, you feel great after a class has gone well. And occasionally a kid comes up to you and says, “I really appreciate that.” One kid actually said this to me: “I want you to know that I’ve been attending school for almost twelve years now, just waiting for someone to reach me the way you did today.”

Well! Yes, that makes you feel great when it happens! But it happens rarely. Most kids keep their opinions of you to themselves, and when you think of it, that’s not so bad, because most keep their complaints to themselves also.

Statements of appreciation don’t come often. Your audience is tough. You’re constantly trying to penetrate hardcore adolescent and pre-adolescent prejudice, and most of the time, to be honest about it, you both succeed and fail. You reach some kids; others, you don’t reach. It’s a draw; there are no piles of wealth, neither earned nor fleeced.

Now my work is different; my job is physical; I reach for material things rather than nebulous educational objectives.

I used to be so strong physically. Very, very rarely did I meet up with someone who could move faster, lift more, or do more than I could. Now I am an old man. Now the pain is in my joints, not just in my muscles. When I lift something, it always hurts, at least a little. You get old and you get used to the pain, but you never get past it. You only get so strong. The muscles can’t grow beyond your ability to withstand the pain in your joints. I can’t show the kids up anymore. I used to lift and carry with one hand what they do with two. But I can’t “one-hand” anything anymore. I’m just another guy, struggling to keep up.

Still, I create superior wealth! I do better work than they do. My work is cleaner. My piles are straighter. I am more careful. I damage far less freight. Even if I work a bit slower, the wealth I contribute is of significantly greater worth than that of the young kids who throw things around because they can. Not only that, but I have a wisdom about dealing with people, and a sincere interest in them, attributable, no doubt, to my years of teaching. The supervisors tell me, “When you’re not here, we really notice it. We miss you when you’re gone.” In only a few months, I have received official and public recognition for the quality of my work no less than four times and numerous other unofficial statements of appreciation.

In all my years of teaching, I never once received official or public recognition. Nor did I want it. I observed, about those who received such accolades, that they were not praised for their work; they were praised for “fitting in.” You don’t get honors for making kids work just a little harder than everyone else. You don’t "fit in" if you show kids that a work of literature contains within it a warning that they're being fleeced by the rich and powerful elements in our society.

Oh, students sometimes appreciate your integrity; they even offer praise. If you’ve been gone a day or so, they might even say they missed you, but what they mean is, they missed you because they know how far to push you. They know your limits. They’re comfortable with you. They don’t tell you they appreciate you.

Real teaching is putting students through difficult but essential learning experiences that make you work harder as well. So you put in far more hours than you will ever get paid for, and you don’t get intrinsic rewards. But you get used to it; you just quit hoping to receive payoff for a job well done or goals accomplished.

Your students don’t miss you very much when you’re gone; not really - and your colleagues? Many of them don’t even know when you’re gone.

But when your students have left school and taken on other endeavors in other places, they will remember you. They will begin to recognize what you’ve given them, even if they can’t explain it very well. They may only recall something you said in class, or something you did, or the force of your personality. They may not be able to tell you what you gave them exactly, even if they’re living it every waking moment of their lives.

And what did our generation of teachers give our students?

That’s the amazing part of it. All of us gave them something a little different. We gave them a quality that they will never be able to fully appreciate, one that they may never even completely attribute to us, and yet, now, years later, when they approach us to express their thanks, we will see ourselves inside them. They shake our hands and stumble around trying to express gratitude. They say, “I don’t know just what it is, but …” We see in them a sense of self, with attributes mirroring our own, an alertness, a consciousness, a balanced understanding, far more valuable than any symbol of wealth, far more vital than neatly stacked freight.

No, I do not regret my years of teaching.

What I Teach, Why I Teach, How I Teach

I often compare a first trip through a piece of writing with a walk through my own classroom. I’m carrying stuff and I’m looking for a document that I know I left someplace. I have my hands full, but I’m only partially aware of what’s in them. I have my glasses and a board marker in one hand, and a fistful of papers in the other. I get down on a knee to open a bottom drawer of a file cabinet, putting my glasses on top of the file cabinet and dropping the board marker on the floor next to the drawer. I don’t find what I need inside the drawer, so I get off my knee and walk to my desk, where I know I’ve looked before.

Suddenly, I catch sight of the paper I’ve been seeking. It’s in my left hand! I’ve been carrying it all along. There’s some information on it that I need to write on the board, so now I walk over there, but I need my glasses to read the paper. I fumble in my shirt pocket for them, and then I realize that I’ve left glasses and board marker someplace while searching for the paper, but I don’t have any idea where they could be.

I usually illustrate casual, “not-close” reading for my students by dramatizing the above experience or one like it. I bumble about the classroom acting out the part, narrating as I go. They get a good laugh or two of course, and at the end of it I ask, “Does this ever happen to you?”

Heads nod; smiles abound. “All the time,” they say.

Then I tell them, “That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you and I were trained to read. We are taught to dash through, reading and interpreting words – not forming visualizations, not considering ideas. We encounter the words as we encounter life’s little tasks, but we are not conscious of them. We have not been taught to be conscious of them! We don’t pause for anything. We don’t think about what we are doing. At the end of it, we retain nothing.”

Then I show them how to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. I review the dramatization; I kneel at the file drawer again, and as I do, I consciously utter the words, “I am now placing my glasses on top of the file cabinet and my marker on the floor, here by the drawer.”

I proceed through the rest of it and illustrate how much easier it is for me to find those items when I need them, simply because I took a moment to pay attention by making an observation in the form of a very brief, verbal proclamation.

Close reading is the skill of interaction with a written passage, literary or otherwise, followed by careful introspection. For the most part, we are taught that effective analysis takes place after a first reading and during a careful re-examination of text.

Now you know what I teach with my close reading study guides. You have a very good idea how I teach it, and you should understand why I choose to do so. Have a great spring and summer!

TeachersPayTeachers and a New Giveaway

Many thanks to Danielle and Brittany for allowing me to be a part of their new TPT giveaway!

Enemies of Education?

What a phrase!

How ridiculous to assume that people would actually want to slaughter, gut, and devour education because they regard it as their "enemy."

A regime that depends upon total control would want to do so; I understand that. If you want to preserve power, it is important to prevent people from thinking too much. Keep them from thinking, and you have it made. Don't educate them; just train them to do work. In our country, how many politicians do you actually see behaving as though they believe such a thing?

Some few of them, it is true, seem to regard the majority of citizens to be ignoramuses, incapable of real thinking. Of course, if they believed such assumptions, it would be perfectly natural to see why they would want to destroy education, particularly public education. After all, what is the sense of wasting tax dollars trying to educate the uneducable? But in this great nation certainly, most politicians don't harbor such attitudes about common people, do they?

Admittedly, a few politicians, those who want the most labor for the smallest wages, for example, appear to possess such a perspective. You can observe as they befriend the ignoramuses and do their best to fool them into submission, warning them of treacherous intellectual elites who are constantly trying to fool them into compliance. "Framing the debate" in this manner helps them to maintain a certain amount of aversion to education among the ignorant. But really, the number of politicians among us who seek to deceive people in that way must be exceedingly small, must it not?

Now, big money moguls who don't produce wealth, but who possess the symbol of wealth (money), have very powerful reasons to preserve an uninformed class of American voters. They want most of the ignoramuses to respect the symbol of wealth more than the work that creates true wealth. Buying low and selling high must not be perceived as "fleecing" (even though that's exactly what it is).  Buying and selling is nothing more than buying and selling! It's just a person's right, and perfectly legal. If it can be done profitably, such a skill should be advanced as a mere "job," and perhaps even one to be admired at that.

People who behave and believe in those oversimplifications and myths would wish to maintain them, of course, and would certainly like to see education, particularly public education, dead if possible, but that crowd in a nation such as ours, one would think, must be few in number.

They do seem to make a lot of noise at times, however; you can hear them every once in a while complaining about "rising tide[s] of mediocrity" while they're engaged in cutting educational funding - to ensure that the "tide" continues to rise, apparently! But we all trust - do we not? - that those selfish, greedy Americans must be a rare breed in a nation as highly focused on human rights as ours.

Those who routinely play on fears to build their powers would naturally want to weaken education as much as possible. Educated people are the first to step forward and question fear-mongering. When a rascal is trying to get constituents to guard his special interests against people who favor the general welfare, he or she will definitely find it advantageous to spread fear, and an ignorant crowd is the most fertile ground for such an endeavor. But how many powerful Americans would actually do that - foster ignorance and fear, calling their stream of misleading statements a "public [educational] service," just to preserve power?

Most of us can accept that the concept of "enemies" is a comforting one, to be sure. Life is so much easier when you have someone to blame and denigrate when they disagree with you. Defend the right of wealthy people to gather even more wealth; insist upon many, many low wage jobs; keep desperate people desperate, but be friendly with them; keep ignorant people ignorant, and be especially friendly with them. Then, as people step forward to question your motives, demonize them! Define them as enemies - you're free to do so in a free nation as ours - and your ignoramus friends will follow your lead!

Naturally, that doesn't happen in America. Oh, yes, it looks a little like it does at times, but surely, Americans are truly not enemies of education, are they?

Close Reading Doesn't Mean "Draw a Picture"

Drawing a picture takes your mind away from reading. Drawing requires careful control and, particularly for younger students, forces attention away from the narrative to under-developed fine motor skills. I see many "one size fits all" study programs that include "hot button" Common Core terminology and claim to transport kids to the Shangri-La of  compliance by making them draw pictures.

Close reading also doesn't mean, "Write complete sentences in response to the following questions." Composition and reading are two different, admittedly related, but divergent activities. We must establish a pace, direct attention to details, and open the mind to speculation, not assign tasks that constantly take the reader's mind off the substance of their reading. In other words, close reading study guides must be composed of questions that facilitate reading. The answers must be extremely brief.

It takes time enough for a kid to move his attention from the story to a question and then onto a sheet of paper to record an answer. The question should do most of the work. If you want to use pictures, draw them yourself. They can be effective! Graphic novels are effective because they show kids how to visualize! Don't require kids to visualize before showing them how it's done.

Your reading skill builders should draw the reader to critical components of understanding. The answers to the questions must not require too many moments of reflection. Most questions shouldn't require a "gathering of thoughts." They should instead be "bases" that kids touch on their way to understanding. Readers stop just long enough to verify clearly that they have observed the first detail, then the next, and the next.

And finally, yes, you should have them draw a picture or compose a conclusion. But these should be obvious. They should beg for expression. If you have built the road to understanding, and if they've make all the stops, the answers should be easy.

Summer Has Arrived

Just to let everyone know, Old Man Winter finally loosened his wretched grip upon us this past week. We have had three days of T-shirt weather. First ones this year.

Shameless Self Promotion: Correct Essays Fast with Wohlsi's Macros

What if you were an English teacher who kept running into the same problems in your students' writing? For example, your kids have difficulty writing cogent introductions for their formal five-paragraph essays. But the matter is complicated, because the nature of the problem seems to vary. Some kids are capable of writing an excellent thesis, but they have trouble previewing the foundation of the argument. Others bounce right past the thesis, and although they preview the main parts of their argument, the focus of their essay is vague. And still others are caught up in writing "cute" and "original" introductions, but they can't tame their thoughts enough to stay on task in a formal writing assignment.

Wouldn't it be great if you could evaluate the essays on your computer desktop and hit a two-keystroke command on your keyboard for the girl who lacks a thesis? That command would cause a standard note about thesis statements to appear instantly, right there in your corrections. The note would explain the importance of the thesis, a matter you've no doubt addressed already in class. It would remind her of the essential characteristics of a thesis, and it would include an invitation to come to you for help.

The next boy, who doesn't have trouble with a thesis, but fails to provide a preview of the basic arguments, gets a note appropriate to his needs too. But it only takes a two-keystroke command for that student as well, with a similar invitation to ask you for help.

And then there's the young lady who has a pretty good introduction, but drifts into using second person "you" in her second paragraph. You made a special point to discuss this matter before your classes started writing, and you clarified third person perspective all right, but this girl simply "blanked" on it after she got into her work a little way. She just needs to watch for that detail. Wouldn't it be great to have an instant note for that pupil as well?

How would you ever find a method to deal that efficiently with such matters, and allow yourself more time to tend to their individual expression and logic problems, and perhaps even to co-author with them farther along in their work?

You would go to Wohlsi's store at teacherspayteachers. com, download his free preview to make certain your software works with his Macros, and purchase his new product. Then you'd be making those exact sorts of corrections that quickly tomorrow:

http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Dealing-with-Writing-I-Macros

Don't Be a Maslow

Don't pretend to be a self-actualized person. Become one. Quit keeping lists of enemies. Be a teacher. Rise above the fray.

Find someone who truly is self-actualized and learn from that person. Get out and find that person and learn not to be "basic." It is our duty to avoid being caught up in the eco-military-governmental preoccupation rat race for gain and security. It is our duty to get to a place where we can see.

If we can't see, or if we refuse to try, we must remember that it is our duty not to condemn any trains of thought simply because they have a name that you don't like. Even if we're "died in the wool" liberals, and are incapable of removing ourselves from that narrow cell, we cannot, we must not, denigrate conservatives. It is our duty to see the positive contributions of all sorts of thinking.

We must try hard not to be Democrat or Republican, leftist or rightist, conservative or liberal.

We don't dismiss groups as "evil." Communists aren't "evil." Communism is an attempt to make communities work by spreading wealth and prosperity so that all members of them can enjoy it. Communism is an utter failure. There are reasons why it fails. Talk about Communism as a concept with good intentions that is far too easily corruptible to ever be effective, but don't condemn every Communist that ever lived. Our duty is not to dismiss human endeavor. Ours is to see it and help kids see it for what it is.

Yes, we live in a great country. But it is great because we are allowed to transcend. Show them how.

Maslow's Basement Is not to Blame (but Maslow Still Sucks)

Maslow was right about one thing: People who remain gratified with mere “secure” and “basic” lives are inferior people indeed. And in all fairness, society's situation is not Maslow’s fault. Although his theory is deeply flawed, he must have had a sense of what it means to rise to where one can see reality for what it is.

But he must not have transcended very much himself. I can't explain it any other way; he obviously failed to perceive the contradiction, that people at both his highest and lowest levels share so many characteristics. The theory is a good one, but it lacks verification.

Maslow sucks because his theory remains nebulous.

Real self-actualization is rare. It is rare because our society blocks thinking. (Perhaps it did with Maslow.) The government stresses party politics, serves entitlements to big money, deprives the less fortunate, and endlessly proclaims that it is impossible to spend too much money on “security,” the absolute upper limit of Maslow's Basement.

Political parties also serve the interests of big money. Big money owns them. They pare decisions down to the essentials of “we against them.” According to the parties, somebody has to lose, and if you're not one of us, you deserve to lose.

Parties worship at the altar of a “Free Market” that constantly seeks superior production of wealth at the absolute lowest cost of labor. Their thinking stops there. Now we are all capable of knowing perfectly well that if the “Free Market” has its way, it finds slave labor, or the closest equivalent, to accomplish its purposes, but that reality is visible only from a higher perspective, and we don't like the view from up there. Politicians certainly don't go there. They too stop thinking when they arrive at security. Theirs is a fear game: “The other party is out to get you. Vote for us,” they advise. Most of the time, their rhetoric remains on the lowest levels: “If we win, you'll get more – more freedom, more equality, more security, more wealth.”

And if you're already truly one of the party, that is, if you already have ample wealth, and if your party “wins,” you do get more.

In the meantime, most of us get fleeced.

Public education has now been taken hostage by the “basic” authorities of government and the “basic” priorities of politics. They keep kids focused on math and reading and discourage enlightened, creative thinking. Politicians, government officials, and most educators prefer not to have their schemes probed by high school and college graduates. The days of student protest are a thing of the sixties; they're over.

To an astonishing degree, kids have complied. They've memorized the mantra: “Stay in school. Graduate. Get high level skills and take an entry level job. Consider yourself lucky. Join a political party – either one, it doesn't matter – Go to work for us, and become a good consumer. Oh, and stay in line, because we, the big corporations, are entitled to our profits, and you, the little guy, must make do with much less.”

It's not a political party that controls power in America. Its not a Constitution or a President or a Congressional body, or even a confused Supreme Court. The Master of Ceremonies in America today is the “basic” thinking behind greed and wealth.

Do people sense a dramatic change coming?

Of course they do. Anyone smart enough to be about half stupid can see that our current condition is untenable. We do not solve problems anymore. We fight over money and power. We're consumed with a desire to accumulate and “secure” wealth. The so-called “gridlock” of government is all due to a failure to rise above that “base” thinking.

It's time for self-actualized teachers to enter this discussion.

Laughter of Despair

Why is talk between two self-actualized people punctuated with so many chuckles, smiles, and perhaps guffaws?

Because Maslow sucks. Significant numbers of those who are truly self-actualized look like a gang of drunks. They gather in bars as though their only goal in life is to become intoxicated.

They laugh, ridiculing the ignorance of a “basic” society, but they also know well how serious things are. Theirs is the laughter of despair. They who rise above easily arrive at agreement about why the current situation doesn’t work, and why even a phantasmagoric, seemingly “off-the-wall” solution would work out far better. Their sad conclusion goes unsaid, but it is mutually understood: The current “system,” if you’re going to call it that, doesn’t work. We need a revolutionary approach, but it cannot be driven by the corrupt “values” of an entrenched wealthy class. And sadly, that corrupt class, blind to their own errors, currently holds most of the power in this country.

When it becomes obvious that a willy-nilly distribution of cash among the poor would stimulate the economy far more effectively than plans implemented over the past decade, it is clear that we need drastic change in this country, nothing short of a revolution, not a violent one, no, but a dramatic change, not by Democratic leaders, no, they’re too rich; not by Republican leaders, no, they’re much too rich; not by Liberals, no, they’re Liberal because they’re rich; not by Conservatives, no, they’re rich because they’re Conservative; not by rich people, but not necessarily by the poor either.

The self-actualized provide truth and proofs, but Democrats will only accept the parts that reinforce the Democratic mindset; Republicans will only accept the parts that reinforce the Republican mindset; Liberals will …

You get the idea. And all members of all groups, religious, civic, political, or anything else, will grab onto what they can use and they will return to their groups, where they can gather sound bites and talking points to reinforce one another’s fears so that they can reject the other, more uncomfortable truths offered by the transcendent individuals.

What is to be done?

Conversation in a Bar Concludes

Sorry. Meant to have this in yesterday, but got busy with life.

OK. So, last time, we were listening to a self-actualized conversation overheard in a bar. It sounds like two absolutely insane people are talking. These two transcendent individuals are considering a bizarre proposal. We don’t have all the details, but we can draw some inferences about the “plan” from their conversation so far. It goes like this:

Gather all the money accumulated in tax cuts (as part of the “economic stimulus” program) from the wealthy people (those who make perhaps a million dollars or more per year, for example) over the past ten or twelve years. Distribute that money to the poor and destitute in the country.

Next, gather all of the “entitlements” received by those officially defined as “impoverished” by the federal government over the same period, and distribute those funds, in the form of food stamps, to the rich.

What would happen next? Well! Let’s listen to what these two self-actualized people think:

Says one of the transcended individuals to the other, “There’d be some weird stuff happening, but businesses would still profit from the financial stimulus; in fact, they’d probably profit more, because nearly every penny of that money given to the poor would go directly into circulation. People would be spending more immediately, and probably borrowing more too, except after the near-crash, lenders would be a lot more careful about who got loans, of course. Big investors would continue getting dividends from their stocks, and their banking interests would collect interest payments. The money would go “bottom up,” so people in debt would be able to pay their debts. The whole system would get that money injected directly into the arteries of commerce if you gave it to the poor first."

Replies the other, "But the wealthy would get their hands on it somehow. The bank profits and dividends and sales of inflated stocks, all of that would still go to vacations in Switzerland or overseas somewhere else, and they'd put the rest into tax shelters, just like they do now."

"I know. But the money would trickle clear through the entire system, at least one time, if you gave the cash to the poor people first. You don't stimulate the economy by giving rich people tax breaks and letting them put that money into tax shelters right away! They're not going to invest in America’s economy if the economy doesn't give them a return. They'll invest in China or somewhere else to earn a fast buck. That doesn't help us."

“You know, you’re right about that!”

[Many chuckles, pause for reflection, sipping beer, looks of mutual appreciation, more laughter, but quiet laughter, tinged with a note of deep sadness. Strange, strange laughter from these two.]

Of course, the talk will go on, but that’s enough for now to make some observations: Notice all of the truth permeating this exchange? When you hear two people talking crazy like this and in the process, producing so many powerful truths, you’re listening to a self-actualized conversation.

I am not suggesting that such plans as theirs would truly work out. The wealthy have exploited the current flawed system for as many generations as their beloved “free market” has existed. The “free market” has been free to victimize the powerless for so long, that those in power don’t even realize anymore that it’s happening. The wealthy corporate complex simply would not hear of such a scheme as the one concocted by these self-actualized Americans. The wealthy know all about entitlements. They especially know this: If you’re going to stimulate the economy, they, the rich, must get tax cuts first. They know that they are entitled to that money.

But you see, that’s exactly what drives the conversation. That is one of the main tenets behind the theme of the scenario these two transcendent people are producing. To put it simply, rich people who have fleeced the country for profits don’t see truth. They don’t want to look at it. They cannot engage in such a dialogue, even if for one moment. The truth permeates their delusion, pops it like a balloon. It hurts. They simply will not allow themselves to be so treated.

Conversation in a Bar

(Now today's message is a little long, but it has to be that way, so just stay with it and pay attention, OK?)

A bar is a place where strange characters show up. That is one fact nobody will deny. It is the main reason self-actualized people gather there. They know themselves to be strange, and they know that other truly self-actualized humans have a similar awareness of themselves.

So consciously or subconsciously, they go to bars to find each other; it’s as simple as that.

What a transcendent does is, he or she begins frequenting a bar in search of other revolutionary, transcendent minds. When a self-actualized person tells another person his perspective on things, and the other quickly finds another place to sit, the self-actualized individual realizes that he has misjudged the other, and he leaves that one alone.

But the strange people continue searching each other out, and when a self-actualized person discovers one who is willing to listen, the possibility of a genuinely philosophical companionship (not anything resembling an alliance, just a companionship) hangs in the balance.

A conversation occurs. It is a kind of negotiation. The two tentatively admit that they have no conventional position on any political matters; they have very few certainties about what "must" be done about __________ (fill in the blank). All they have is total agreement that the current establishment is deeply flawed, and their only remedies are revolutionary, unusual, wild, and extremely difficult for most people to fathom. Consider this exchange:

"I don't know what all the fuss is about. Democrats want economic stimulus. So do Republicans," says one to the other.

"Yeah. Democrats want poor people to get food stamps and they don’t seem to mind if rich people get tax breaks," replies the other, sipping reflectively on a cheap beer, nodding his head. “And of course, in government, the Democrats are rich themselves. So they don’t mind.”

"Republicans are no different, except they want rich people to get more tax breaks and poor people to get fewer food stamps."

[Chuckle, chuckle, nodding of heads, smiles, sipping of beers, mutual agreement.]

Says one, "Maybe they should experiment; make it so that rich people get the food stamps and poor people get the equivalent of all the tax breaks given out over the past ten years." [Tentative chuckle.]

[Laugh. Quizzical expression, but one obviously meant to encourage elaboration.] "Yeah? That would be different."

[Responding to the encouragement, a bit more bravely now,] "Yeah, but the money would stay right in the country. The poor people would buy booze and drugs and clothes, and the money would go to local businesses and entrepreneurs."

"But a lot of the money would go to criminals and con artists. It might go to illegal drugs, gambling, prostitution - -"

"Rich people buy illegal drugs too, a lot more drugs than the poor. It wouldn't make much difference. Sure, there’d be illegal transactions, but who knows? Maybe there wouldn’t be as many. Poor people need food and clothing. Rich people already have all they need.”

“You know, the really rich already have about everything they need and everything they want, too.”

“Well, of course, and over the past ten or twelve years, if you gave poor people the tax breaks that the rich people got, and gave the rich people food stamps, maybe the rich would’ve spent their food stamp entitlement on drugs just as much as the poor people did, but one thing they wouldn’t do is put it into their Swiss bank accounts!” [Chuckle.]

“Ha! Nope. Swiss banks don’t take food stamps, I don’t believe!” [Laughter.]

“But the rich could probably find more effective ways to buy their drugs with their food stamps! Don’t you think?”

"Hmmm. Now that you mention it, maybe not much else would be different.”

Now, that is one crazy conversation. If you overhear it, try not to disturb it; listen for a little while. Make sure you get all of it before you interrupt. Don’t be rude!

All right. That’s enough for you to think about today. I’ll give you the rest of it tomorrow.

Bars, Politics, and Transcendence

Most people in bars tend to be affiliated with political parties, and even though bar people are inclined to be only loosely affiliated with those parties, their politicized state prevents them from being self-actualized. So most people in bars are not self-actualized.

But even so, many of them are looking for something better, although some are unaware of that motivation most of the time. A few will even admit that they recognize the shortcomings and absolute corruption of all politics, even theirs. They sense a certainty that politics makes us all inferior, even as they submit to its demands.

A small number of self-actualized among the bar crowd have risen beyond and openly voice their disapproval of politics. They're not living for votes or for the opportunity to vote. They have many casual friends and acquaintances, but they are not driven by friendship or social factors. They are driven by a personal appreciation for truth, and it is extremely difficult for them to find others interested in the same, but sooner or later, if they show up at a bar and seek each other out, they will find one another.

Here, in the stink and noise and the mess, they sense the presence of self-actualization. Here, among the various lonely, depressed, joyous, loud, and outrageous people, they find some who are looking for better company, and they find one another, and they gather.

They are a very small crowd, but they are persistent. They are among the "regulars." Oddly enough, one of the principal reasons they go to the bar is because they seek truth and excellence in one another. They go to the bar as others go to church, to bolster their faith. More explicitly, they go to follow their bliss, and it is not in the alcohol that they find bliss; theirs is the bliss of communicating with others who are self-actualized. Oh, they may have a beer or two, or even more. They may get a little too much alcohol now and then. But among their crowd, that doesn't happen often; the companionship is the important thing.

They talk of the strangest matters. They talk of what they are reading and the messages that the authors seem to be expressing through their work. They even see serious themes in some works of popular fiction. They discuss history, mathematics, literature, music, various forms of art, and other academic topics. When they discuss politics, they talk of it as a phenomenon, just another thing to be observed and studied, certainly not their answer to the great questions of life. They discuss very seriously the way society has politicized history and has failed to learn by it. They both talk and listen intently to one another. Watch for that little crowd next time you go into a bar.

Kids in Bars? No!

Wait now. I'm not suggesting that we send our students to bars. I'm saying we find self-actualized people and learn from them, no matter where we find them. They can show us how to teach people to rise above the fray.

But we don't have clubs or churches established for those who transcend. We have groups for the civic minded, the religiously pious, the religiously devout, the religiously scatterbrained, the very smart, the red-haired, and nearly every sort of human being you could imagine. But we have no place for those who transcend the principles, laws, customs, and standards of their culture. However, it just happens that self-actualized people do show up in bars.

Kids won't find many self-actualized people among their classmates. That state of mind is very much an adult perspective on the world, and that perspective today is rare.

Schools don't have much room for revolutionary thinkers. The few self-actualized students in attendance cannot be too insistent about confronting fraud with truth, particularly when the fraud is school policy. It's simply not allowed. And teachers, you even have to be careful how you present revolutionary themes as they arise in literature. If they breach the hot topics of the time, you need to maintain that you are only presenting the possibilities raised by the author, and you must refrain, even if you don't want to, from editorializing based on your own views. You must tread very carefully in schools.

But bars are places where you can find self-actualized people who do not wish to become immersed in the political machinery that squashes most of us into a "basic" lifestyle. I am certainly not suggesting that all people who gather in bars are self-actualized. But a surprisingly large portion of them come to bars seeking out the company of others of their kind, and the local bar is one of the few places we can find each other nowadays.

What? Did I just suggest I am self-actualized? Sorry. Didn't mean it. What I meant is, when I have a moment of self-actualization, or when I'm seeking to experience one, I will go down to the local bar and meet up with some friends I know who are definitely self-actualized.

What to Look for in a Self-Actualized Person

Not all characteristics of self-actualized people can be observed, but some of these can:

People who are truly self-actualized are quite often single. Some are divorced, but many have been single for life, for obvious reasons. The married among them will usually be found alone when you meet and identify them for who they are. Relationships are important to the self-actualized, but not as important as their life's purpose, to know and understand life from the highest levels of human experience. Now we are getting to the second level of identifying characteristics. To probe this deeply, you will probably have to eavesdrop on conversations or participate in some with them:

The most highly self-actualized read voraciously. They work just hard enough so that they can go to the library often and keep informed. They watch television, but not too much; they like science and history channels. They are constantly searching to know more.

Transcended individuals tend to be poor or middle class in today's "cash-first" society. Generally speaking, a state of self-actualization and one of wealth-consciousness repel each other. Rich people know how to work the system they're in. They don't want to think about improving a scheme they've mastered. Their preoccupation (working a flawed but advantageous system) binds them to base purposes.

Those who have transcended are non-violent. When you get close to a person who shows promise of being self-actualized and discover that she or he is violent, you're probably wise not to continue probing.

Can rich people be self-actualized?

Of course they can. Just don't look for them among the wealthiest class. Don't go to fancy upscale lounges trying to find them. You're better off walking into a common bar.