Thursday, September 29, 2005

ZOOMING IN ON THE SOUL OF A BUTTERFLY

                                         ZOOMING IN ON THE SOUL OF A BUTTERFLY

     I have been sitting and listening to the audio book version of Muhammad Ali’s autobiography, Soul of a Butterfly.  I have never been much of an Ali fan, believing him to have been an obnoxious and overrated fighter.  I still believe that, as a fighter, Muhammad Ali was highly overrated, but then again, I am of the opinion that ALL heavyweight boxers have been overrated for the last 30-40 years.  (And YES, that INCLUDES MIKE TYSON!)  My reasoning is based upon the simple fact that physical skills (speed, agility, balance) and endurance, which define a quality boxer, are greatly diminished by excessive body weight.  Thus, from my point of view, discussing the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time is comparable to discussing the greatest heavyweight jockey or gymnast of all time—uh, it’s really not of much interest or pertinence.  A boxer should epitomize self-discipline and physical conditioning.  If a man is the epitome of self-discipline and physical conditioning, he is extremely unlikely to fall into the heavyweight weight division.  If an athlete desires to float like a butterfly, he has to be willing to cut out the butter!  But now that I have chastised and inflamed the entire clinching and flinching heavyweight division, I will lay it to rest…for now!  But beware, all you heavyweight fanatics, should you rise against this feisty flyweight, the floating keystroke will squash your mighty picks!
     Moving on.  In Soul of a Butterfly, Ali portrays his intense spiritual journey by means of poetry, parables, personal accounts, Sufa stories, personal references, and the devout testimony of his daughter, who assists her father with articulation. She also takes part in reading the audio book.  Ali passionately recounts his philosophy of boxing and life, his memories, his hopes for humankind.  Much to the chagrin of desperate fable clingers and bandwagoners, Muhammad Ali was not the greatest boxer of all time.  But he is one of the most vivacious figures to have ever graced the wide world of sports.  He was, and will remain, a stalwart figure in American history.  Soul of a Butterfly is a marvelous time and money investment for those seeking inspiration and a glimpse at a man, once brazen, now devoted to peace.  But I must caution that Muhammad Ali is a complex and multifaceted character, and the face that he puts forth in this book is clearly the one that he wants to project to the public.  That is not a disparagement, insofar as the persona he emits is virtuous and noble, but I do wish to point out that human ideals and human actions are not always in accord.
I have often chuckled at the way in which humans attempt to bolster their egos and status by means of “charitable” deeds.  Everyday we hear tell of a revered celebrity or some colossal organization giving a sizable donation to a charitable cause.  But let me ask you, if a man has a billion dollars, and he gives away one million, is that really a spiritual gift?  Many may believe that it is, but I laugh at that notion.  The man with a billion dollars will not suffer in the slightest financially speaking by giving away that million dollars.  In fact, that million-dollar donation is nothing more than an investment, for surely it will attract publicity and future tax breaks and credits.  Hence, the benefactor has not truly “spiritually” given anything at all.  He cannot truly relate to the predicament of the needy because he himself is not in a state of need.  A TRUE philanthropist will live by the aphorism that it is not an act of charity to give a hungry dog a bone unless the giver is hungrier than the dog.  Obviously, a TRUE philanthropist is an extremely rare breed.
At the conclusion of the book, I was of two minds.  One mind was definitely inspired, uplifted…, and pacified.  The other mind, the one that harbors my nagging critical faculties, was on the verge of erupting.   (Can anyone wrap his mind around an erupting mind?)  I began to wonder why it is that Muhammad Ali is not donating all proceeds from the sale of his book to either a charitable or an educational cause.  After all, according to Ali’s own words, such gestures are the most spiritually satisfying. Certainly, there are many individuals who provide spiritual guidance—expecting NOTHING in return, so why have you not followed this path of which you speak?  Muhammad Ali has upped the ante, and he has talked the talk, but in the end, he has balked; he has not yet walked that proverbial extra mile.  On balance, I have reached the conclusion that Soul of a Butterfly tells a moving tale—a reader-friendly, sentimental tale—but it is the tale of a man—and not a SUPERman.
It seems to me, Great Ali, that free-spirit butterflies know no fee!

Three stars.  ***

Saturday, September 24, 2005

FURTHER COMMENTS OF PARENTING

                     FURTHER COMMENTS ON PARENTING

     Astutely, one might notice that the tips I have provided for effective parenting can be applied in an even broader sense.  Although I am not a parent myself, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I would do my damnedest to abide by the basic guidelines that I have suggested.  No matter what might occur, I would be an active participant in my child’s life, always wanting to learn more about his or her psychic experiences—likes, dislikes, goals, pursuits.  My focus would be on maintaining good communication, and for that reason those things which might be of importance and interest to my child would necessarily be important and of interest to me—whether it be technology, music, or basket weaving…or some combination thereof…it doesn’t matter in the slightest.  I am not trying to sound pious or self-righteous here (I am above that of course!), but the key virtue, the saving grace, the guardian angel, one must cultivate and foster throughout life is curiosity.  Curiosity is personified by the child—the untainted, non-jaded, wide-eyed child.  The consciously artistic parent, the parent who envisions his or her parental role as an art, is a parent who sees the world through the eyes of a child.  That parent realizes that just as the child remains an aspect of the adult, so the adult is always an aspect of the child.  Without curiosity, one becomes bored; woefully disillusioned, he or she falls prey to the debilitating belief that all of life is meaningless.  That, my friends, is a state of mind worse than any imaginable hell.  Plain and simple, those who are curious are those who care.  I have often wondered how different the world might be if every human being applied my parenting tips (come on now, let’s be real here—these are certainly not my tips!  They belong to us all!  Share the wealth!)  to every other human being with whom they came into contact.  What would the world be like if we could look at ourselves in all situations both as masters and as students—each of as hungry to share knowledge, advice, and ideas as we are to receive them?  What if we were to perceive each acquaintance as our parent or personal mentor, somebody from whom we can learn and grow?  What if we were to perceive that same acquaintance as our own son or daughter, somebody whom we are privileged to guide and direct.  So many barriers we could break, so many walls we could tear down, if only we could consistently stay attuned to the reality that all knowledge is self-knowledge, all communication is self-communication….


Friday, September 23, 2005

PARENTING FOR DUMMIES

               PARENTING FOR DUMMIES

     It has become commonplace among parents to tell others that no instruction manuals for proper child rearing exist.  They say that every parent just kind of “wings things” and tries to do the best they can with what they have at the time.  Well, that may sound like a kind and socially graceful thing to say, but it also excuses apathy toward humanity’s greatest responsibility. Since I am not a parent myself, I feel no obligation whatsoever to pay homage to this line of shiftless crap.  It simply goes without saying that life happens, things change, and challenges arise.  But that does not mean that parents should not have a general plan, or philosophy, by which to pave the way for their offspring.  Parenting is an art.  The parent has the opportunity and the power to nurture his or her flesh and blood into an independent, free-thinking, socially productive, confident, and self-content human being.  Surely, the way one goes about doing this will vary in terms of style and technique, and spontaneity and flexibility are without a doubt essential—that is precisely what makes parenting such a high form of artistry.  But it is absolutely wrong to believe that general principles do not exist when preparing for a child’s future.  It is a matter of balancing strategy and spontaneity…or, more appropriately, allowing for spontaneity within the strategy itself.  To this end, I have prepared a sort of cookbook for child rearing.  I’ll call it Parenting for Dummies—by Dr. Spike.  Kind of catchy, no?  Bon-apetit.
     The first thing I want to emphasize is that children are much more adept at learning than what many people believe.  Indeed, they are essentially blank slates and sponges.  Therefore, a parent should take advantage of the child’s flexibility of mind and expose him or her to a stimulating and educational environment immediately.  I am not saying to cram everything down a child’s throat and dictate “Learn this, learn that”.  I am saying expose the child to a variety of healthy stimuli.  Remember, the goal is to prepare the way for a child so that he or she has the greatest probability of becoming well integrated in terms of the body, mind, and spirit.   Therefore, things such as physical activity, nutrition, music, reading, writing, mathematics, religion, sciences, philosophy, etc. should all be encouraged—immediately!  The parent should encourage and discuss the role of art and creativity throughout life.  The parent should respect the child’s intelligence.  I repeat—loudly—the child is not a vegetable incapable of comprehending “lofty” subject matter..  All too often I have heard adults say things like “How can anybody expect a (fill in ordinal number) grader to know how to do this or to know the answer to that?”.  The thing these adults don’t seem to understand is that children are extremely capable at tasks like learning languages, memorizing facts, etc.  Mathematics is nothing more than a language.  Science is nothing more than an application of mathematics and methodology.  In many places throughout the world, “children” have mastered three or four different languages and can recite hundreds of lines of memorized text at a time. Moreover, young people have made some of our greatest advances in mathematics.  And of course, let us not forget all of the young musical, literary, and athletic prodigies who have graced and continue to grace the globe.  The point is that a parent should assume that the child has unlimited potential.
     Now, as I have stated, it is also essential that the parent not attempt to force everything upon the child and expect the child to express interest in everything.  That is simply unrealistic.  Any given child will express more interest in certain arenas than in others.  Since this is the case, it is important that the parent not only nurture the child in developing in those particular areas of interest, but it is also important to show the child how those particular interests may be related to other disciplines.  This is important.  When it comes right down to it, all disciplines are related to one another.  Philosophy is related to Mathematics is related to Physics is related to Chemistry is related to Biology is related to Psychology….I’ll try not to belabor the point, but when one begins to realize these interrelationships, life itself takes on new color and tone.  For example, I have stated above that Mathematics is nothing more than a language.  For a child who shows anxiety or fear towards Mathematics, but who has an interest in learning languages, it may be useful for the parent to demonstrate to the child just how it is that Math and language are related.  One sees that the parent should be actively involved in the upbringing of a child.  A disengaged parent is an ignorant parent is a poor parent.  Harsh but true.  Sorry if I offend, but I am not running for office.  If no child is to be left behind, the parents had better be willing to set an example by teaching the child HOW to learn, and they had better understand that REAL learning requires creative thinking and active participation.
     One of the biggest mistakes that parents make, and this relates to what I have said above, is that they fail to recognize the “innate” wisdom of a child; thus, they behave in either an overbearing manner or in a condescending manner—or both.  This is not good because it shows a blatant lack of respect for the child’s knowledge and emotional response.  Respect is a central concept in a functional and enjoyable parent-child relationship.  In order to receive respect, one must give respect.  And one thing that all humans share is a basic need for respect.  If a parent is determined to learn from. as well as to teach his or her child, the odds are in favor of a mutually beneficial relationship.  A parent never, never, never should have the attitude that the child is a “possession”.  Likewise, the parent should never, never, never allow the relationship to get to a point where the child dominates a household.  In other words, I am not advocating spoiling the child rotten!  This requires basic courtesy, diplomacy, and communication—CONSTANT and REGULAR communication.  That is essential.
     In my zeal to impart infinite wisdom, I have already exceeded the number of words I intended to use on this dense subject matter.  Hence, I am going to proceed curtly with some Commandments, which I hope will one day smack of “common sense”-- if it doesn’t already.  These Commandments are in no particular order of priority, but I think most will find that if both the parent and the child fully appreciate the import of the first one, the truth and necessity of the others will come into focus.  (Well, with the possible exception of the final one….)
          
1.  Thou shalt teach the child that all things in nature—matter, space, time, events, disciplines—are intimately related.
2.  Thou shalt respect the child’s ability to learn and to create.
3.  Thou shalt cultivate all forms of creativity and expression.
4.  Thou shalt define and stress the importance of a healthy body, mind, and spirit.
5.  Thou shalt expose the child to a great variety of stimuli and educational disciplines.
6.  Thou shalt instill the importance of acquiring information from a rich variety of sources.
7.  Thou shalt nurture the child’s innate tendency to wonder and to ask questions.
8.  Thou shalt be actively involved in the learning process.
9.  Thou shalt ensure that the child is computer literate and that he or she appreciates the ingenuity and power of technology.
10.  Thou shalt indoctrinate within the child the principle of impermanence:  with the exception of the principle itself,   all things continually undergo change.
11.  Thou shalt ensure that the child understands that words, thoughts, and actions possess great power.
12.  Thou shalt see to it that the child understands that with great power comes great responsibility.
13.  Thou shalt openly discuss philosophical issues with the child:  free will vs. determinism, nature vs. nurture, chaos vs. cosmos, and identity within a reality of flux.
14.  Thou shalt see to it that the child is physically active and exposed to a variety of sports and games.
15.  Thou shalt teach the child the importance of nutrition and moderation in food consumption.
16.  Thou shalt discuss topics of religion and spirituality openly and frequently with the child.
17.  Thou shalt prompt the child to ask the big question:  “Who Am I?”
18.  Thou shalt teach the child to throw more punches than his opponent!  (Wait a minute—does that one belong here, or am I off topic?)

     With the exception of the affirmation itself, there are no certainties.  But there are probabilities, and the parent who has the courage and who takes the time to exercise the above guidelines is a parent who is consciously stacking the odds in favor of bringing up a productive, content, and well-balanced human being.  In closing, I again want to emphasize that a child is capable of learning a lot.  A parent should undertake the childrearing craft with the knowledge that the child is a sponge—and in this context, a sponge is a very intelligent organism!   The trick for the parent is to indoctrinate their sponges in ways that will seize them just long enough to glimpse the value of the life itself.  Parents, you are artists divinely expressing yourselves through the medium of your offspring. You are now contracted to create a citizen of this world, of this universe.  Strive for a veritable tour de force, and behold the beauty of your sculpture.


       

Thursday, September 22, 2005

PLUNGING DEEP IN THE WELL

                               PLUNGING DEEP IN THE “WELL”

Well, I have done my jogging, now it’s time for blogging.  I wonder why it is that I begin my passages with “Well”.  It always seems to be the first thing that pops into my head as a prelude to some kind of explanation or discussion.  It is as if I am signaling my audience that I require a one-syllable pause before I launch myself into the throes of discussion.  But why do I habitually require this pause?  Why the hesitation?  Is it to formulate my thoughts for articulation? Does “Well” indicate doubt or uncertainty?  Or does it mark a need to assess the question at hand from various standpoints in order to respond most appropriately—that is in order to process and integrate the question?  It seems that both are relevant.  If it is merely the pause I require, then why do I feel compelled to verbalize this pause with the specific sound “Well”?  I mean, what in the hell is “Well”?  Why not say some other word that is more specific to function, like “Pause”?  Or even “Ellipse”?  What is the derivation of this word, “Well”, when used in this peculiar manner?  Is it related to the adverbial meaning of “well”, which issues connotations of “doing or feeling in control and in harmony”?  Is it related to the verbal meaning with its connotations of “rising up and springing forth”?  Can it be that when I begin a statement with “Well”, I am unconsciously habitually barking an order to my thoughts:  “Spring forth thoughts, in a harmonious, orderly fashion!”  Well…it is hard to say.

Monday, September 19, 2005

KISS Keep It Simple Stupid!

                              KISS!  (Keep It Simple, Stupid!)

          I admit I have fallen out of the loop on occasion, and I am by no means an historical pundit, ready to spout off brow-raising trivia and obscure footnotes at the slightest provocation, but I can confidently assert that I have been a boxing fan since I was young boy.  Fondly I remember walking to the home of Don Huber (who would later become my stepfather) on weekends to watch the likes of Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas “The Hitman” Hearns, Aaron “The Hawk” Pryor, “Marvelous” Marvin Hagler, Hector “macho” Camacho, Ray “Boom Boom” Mancini, Alexis Arguello, Larry Homes, and innumerable others wage epic wars on plain old simple and free public television.  Ah yes, those were the days!  Free championship boxing—and primetime to boot!  Don had been a champion boxer in the Navy, and he taught me some of the fundamentals—basically, he taught me to respect the jab and the straight right hand.  I had a good friend at the time who was also a great boxing enthusiast, and about once a month or so we would battle each other for 15 grueling 3 minute rounds in a ring we roped off in his backyard.  We used no cumbersome headgear or padding—just two pairs of 8 ounce gloves, and a lot of desire to be like the champs of the day.  These fights were no small ordeals mind you!  My friend—or foe, I guess is more appropriate—David was 10 inches taller than I was, and he outweighed me by over 50 lbs!  No joke!  “David” was a misnomer.  “Goliath” would have been a much more appropriate.  Nevertheless, I always gave a spirited fight, and on occasion, I would even knock him on his ass for a few seconds. (Giants fall hard, but this particular one was also always quick to rise.)  I can’t help but laugh at my stupid self during these days.  I thought I was indestructible, and I believed my boxing heroes to be virtual deities.  Daily, for hours on end, I would jump rope, run, pound a heavy bag, do sit ups, push ups, chin-ups, shadow box, and make up reflex honing games using golf balls, tennis balls, hoola-hoops, and whatever other cheap toys I could find.  It was all for the love of the game!  It was all for self MASTERY!  Progress was measured in terms of pain and lactic acid build up, and in drops of sweat.  Since that time, I have learned a lot about myself and about the world of boxing.  One thing I have learned is that boxers are not ONLY human…but they definitely ARE human.  They make mistakes, they act in accordance with faulty underlying assumptions, and they fail to ask themselves big questions like “Why in the hell am I doing this?”  I say this tongue-in-cheek, for most people, even those who would like to see the sport banished from the face of the planet, agree that a competitive boxer must possess a tenacious work ethic.  However, it is also true that many fighters perform ritualistic, energy-sapping gym routines without having the slightest notion why they do so.  They muddy up a fundamentally simple sport by attempting to turn it into a form of rocket science.  I can already hear the objections!  “Boxing is the sweet science!”  “Boxing is all about skills!”  “Boxing is all about animal training!”  “Boxing is blood, sweat, and tears!”  “Boxing is art!”  “Boxing is life!”  Be still damn it!  I am not disagreeing with any of you!  But GAWD, let me finish, will you!  Look, here’s the rub.  Boxing is a metaphor for life, and life can be a convoluted bitch.  But the reason it can be such  a convoluted bitch is becasue we make it that way.  Albert Einstein once said something to the effect that (I paraphrase here because I do not remember the exact quote) one should strive to make things as simple as possible, but never any simpler.  In science, remember, the best hypothesis is the one that requires the fewest assumptions.  In other words, the best hypothesis is the most parsimonious.  And that is what I want to get across to aspiring fighters.
          But hey, enough of all this complicated scientific talk already!  Let us take a look at some of the observations made by Bruce Lee over his remarkable career as a combat artist.  Again, I am hearing ranting objections.  “Bruce Lee was not a boxer!”  “Bruce Lee was all about show and glamour!”  “Bruce Lee was a genetic freak!”  With all due respect, this is all gibberish.  The fact is that it would behoove all boxers to read up on the life and philosophy of Bruce Lee.  He was a veritable visionary, and he was as REAL as they come.  Bruce Lee, having studied and mastered a variety of martial art forms under the tutelage of many “masters”, became a staunch advocate of reducing the art of fighting down to its simplest form. This was a key concept expressed throughout his classic book, The Tao of Jeet Kune Do (JKD).  JKD, as explained by Bruce Lee, was intended to be a “style” of fighting that evolved, a style of fighting that was individualistic, a style of fighting that was effective and fluid.  Literally, Jeet Kune Do means “Defense through offense”.  As Bruce Lee’s JKD was “evolving”, his respect and admiration for good ol’ Western style boxing grew tremendously.  He loved to watch Dempsey and Ali among many other historical greats.  Bruce Lee himself had once been a high-school boxing champion.  What he really appreciated about boxing was that the participants were supremely conditioned and subjected themselves to actual combat—something which many practitioners of the various martial arts will rarely do.   This is something about which I want to be very clear.  Bruce Lee was most definitely NOT all about glitz and glam!  He was a man who embraced fistic combat for the sake of survival.  In many ways, he was a true enigma—a steel hand in a velvet glove as it were.  On the one hand, he was amiable, highly cultivated, and intellectually profound.  On the other hand, he was savage and ruthless.  He was a street fighter, and the way in which he wanted to simplify and integrate the art of fighting was to break down the rules and barriers that he felt were so restrictive within the martial arts.  In short, he argued that a true martial art should be natural, flexible, and directed toward practical self-preservation.  If the occasion required biting, hair-pulling, or a kick to the groin, then THAT was the most artful approach to settling the dispute.  To hell with a triple spin, back-flip, push-up, somersault kick to the chin!  Bruce acknowledged that such gymnastic displays were good for ticket sales, but he was definitely not one to believe they were of much use in a real fight scene.  To illustrate the point, he said, “If I were to fight you in a real situation, I would sooner punch you in the toes than I would kick you in the head.”.  One other point to consider is that Bruce Lee may never even have come to America if he had not gotten himself in trouble in the Orient because of his habit of getting into violent street scuffles.
          I hope that I have convinced you that Bruce Lee was a real fighter worthy of icon status.  My personal belief is that he would have literally embarrassed, if not seriously injured, any of the top prize fighters who grace the sport of boxing today.  But that is speculation that threatens to throw me off of my simple path.  I simply want to point out a few things that I believe all fighters should consider.  First, a fighter who is able to throw many punches in a round is a formidable opponent.  Second, a fighter who uses a stiff jab and a well-timed straight right hand is a formidable opponent.  Third, an opponent who comes forward is a formidable opponent.  Therefore, fighters, practice these things religiously!  I might sound boring and simplistic, but that is precisely the point.  The bottom line is that it works.  Another thing that works is practicing from both the orthodox and the southpaw positions.  This is something that most boxers are reluctant to do, and from my point of view, it is a real shame.  There are many benefits derived from being able to fight effectively from both positions.  Returning briefly to Bruce Lee, I will note that his philosophy was generally different from that of conventional Western boxers when it came to the appropriate “on guard” position.  He believed that the most powerful hand should be the lead hand.  His reasoning was based on the facts that the lead hand is the one closest to the target and that it is the one most frequently used.  Furthermore, it made sense to him that the fighter’s least powerful hand should be placed in a position where it could unleash optimally.  The argument is cogent and compelling.  The orthodox Western boxer of course fights from a stance that allows his strongest hand to come from the power position.  My position is that a fighter should practice in both positions, because it allows for a more balanced approach to fighting.  In addition, with daily practice, the body and mind will adapt to both positions, and the result of this adaptation is a more fluid, more skilled, and more complete fighter.  Many trainers will argue that practicing both stances will only serve to hinder the fighter from “mastering” the necessary movements involved in fighting from a single stance.  Nonsense. First of all, I am merely suggesting that fighters should feel comfortable with a 1-2 combination and some basic footwork from both positions.  Secondly, practicing from both positions can help prevent training injuries due to muscle imbalances and chronic overuse ailments in the muscles, joints, and connective tissues.  In short, practicing from both positions allows for sport-specific cross training and variety.  Moreover, this method of training can be viewed as learning to “punch from different angles”.  Most boxers will obligingly attest to the “inherent” difficulties of fighting a “slick southpaw”.  Much of the reason for this difficulty, however, is because they themselves have become so enmeshed in their own orthodox “comfort zones” that they are afraid to make an earnest attempt to fight as a southpaw.  They may make an enfeebled attempt, decide that it “feels awkward”, and hastily retreat to safety and convention.  To each his own, mind you, but really, I believe most will find that a little practice on a regular basis is a very good time investment.  Apparently, many of the 2004 Olympians were in accord with my sentiments, for many of them were southpaws or fighters who could “switch hit”, if you will.  Something tells me that these young athletes were able to excel because they recognized that the time invested in “breaking out of the box” reaped worthwhile returns.  It just never ceases to amaze me that so many fighters are willing and able to expend such an exorbitant number of calories running mile after mile, doing pushup after pushup, situp after situp, axe swing after axe swing, jumping rope until the remains of the base is no more than a thread, lifting weights until their muscles are a pool of lactic acid, etc. etc.—and yet, these same fighters spend virtually no time or energy training their bodies to throw multiple 1-2 combos from different stances.  What gives?  A big ol’ training faux pas, that’s what… or for those who don’t appreciate my freaking French, let me call it a training FART!  Do these fighters and their trainers actually believe that the human body can not adapt to the rigors of throwing variations of the 1-2 from both an orthodox and a southpaw stance?  If so, I highly recommend a little extra padding in the head gear, for the effects of the blows are starting to show!  Ah, come on ya’ll—I’m just KIDDING!  No need to get surly with me!  Seriously though, why in the world would the human body so readily adapt to, say, a rigorous running schedule, and not to a training schedule that implements varied on-guard stances?  Why?  Why?  I ask you!  Why?  Moreover, how in the world does the fighter expect to use his running prowess in a fighting situation?  How? How?  I ask you!  How?  Gad!  I’d rather watch two fighters clinch after every punch than hit and sprint away from each other!
     Saving the most important point for last, I will say that in order to optimize his training time, the fighter must keep his mind in the ring!  I can not stress this enough.  A fighter cannot assume that his physical training in the gym, performed under conditions with which he is familiar, is going to translate automatically into a good spotlight ring performance.  There are far too many variables involved, and the fact that one might routinely feel strong and fast in the gym, by no means assures that he will feel likewise in the ring.  THEREFORE, when the fighter is training in the gym, it is paramount for him to be fully cognizant of the skill or attribute that he is trying to refine.  As he runs, he should not concern himself with speed or running economy.  Rather, he should concern himself with the mental intensity and the cardiovascular benefits that are required inside the ring.  Nobody gives a DAMN about how fast or how efficiently a fighter can run in the ring!  If that’s what he’s training for, he belongs anywhere but inside the confines of the fighting arena!  REALLY!  The same goes for the time spent hitting the heavy bag, or shadow boxing, or whatever.  The fighter must SEE the opponent in front of him, he must FEEL his presence—the sweat, the stench, the adrenaline, the WILL to defeat and devour!  So as a fighter throws punches in the gym, he must throw them with BAD INTENTIONS!  He should not just hit the heavy bag.  He must hit through the heavy bag.  He should not just throw out a lackadaisical left or right jab and leave it hanging out there awaiting an easy counterpunch.  He must SNAP that jab!  The jab is a whip—the strike and the retrieval back to the on-guard position should be thought of, and performed as, one simultaneous action.  This “simultaneous action” mindset should be used with combination punching as well.  A fighter looking to maximize his potential should not be thinking “one….two”.  He should be thinking “onetwoonetwoonetwo….”—all one easy floooowing motion!  Cobralike!  StrikeStrikeStrike!  As hall-of-fame trainer, Angelo Dundee likes to spew out—“Speed Baby!  Speed!  Speed!”
     In closing, I will summarize:  KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID!

          1)  The primary goal of conditioning is to reap the ability to throw many clean, crisp punches.
          2)  The fighter should focus on advancing in small steps (6-8 inches).
          3)  Straight punch combinations to the body and head are simple, natural, and highly effective.
          4)  The fighter should practice routinely from both the orthodox and southpaw stances.
          5)  The fighter must VISUALIZE to realize!

A fighter who possesses a good hold on these guidelines, coupled with a strong desire to win, can expect to hold both hands high—in VICTORY!    

          

Saturday, September 17, 2005

DEATH OF A SALESMAN

                              DEATH OF A SALESMAN

     I must confess to being more than a trifle nervous.  But a good late evening workout has calmed me considerably.  My manager at my new job at Company X called and left a message on my voice mail this evening.  I called her back, but she was unfortunately unavailable.  Hence, I am apprehensive about what she wants.  The reason I suppose, or rather, I know, for my apprehension is rooted in guilt and uncertainty.  I have mixed feelings about working at Company X.  I have an incredibly arrogant side of me who screams out “Todd, you don’t need to tolerate corporate America and all of its bullshit ass-kissing and greed!  It’s not what you are about, so why don’t you find something more suitable to your disposition?”  Answering myself, I proclaim that I don’t know what “I” really want, but I do know that I definitely do not want to be weighed down by a lot of mind-numbing obligation and responsibility.  It is difficult to make a living at reading, writing, eating, and working out—all on my own time and vagary of course.  Yes, I have this feeling—this certainty, really—that my pious and intellectual journey, though excruciating and highly disciplined in some sense, has been a long vacation in another important sense.  Certainly for the lover of knowledge, it is easy to understand that the words “school”, “scholar”, “scholastic” and the like are all derived from the Greek word “skolia”, which means “leisure”.  Yes, it is true, although I have worked vigorously; I have nevertheless become a man of leisure.  I have grown accustomed to living life on my own terms, and I have shunned the responsibilities of the “real” world.  (The “real” world to which I refer here is in fact only as “real” as anybody chooses to imagine it to be! For some ridiculous reason, however, I refer to the “real” world only as a convention to distinguish it from the “dreamy” world of academics, arts, sciences, and abstract ideas.)  Why?  Because the “real” world bores the hell out of me!  I have the sheer egotistical audacity to believe that I am superior to the “real” world.  Thus, I guess it makes sense that I have some “real” lessons to learn.  This is precisely why I am presently nervous over that call from my manager….
     With closure comes a wave of relief.  Finally, I was able to talk to my manager, who coolly announced that there had been a major layoff at Company X.  Funny, I suppose, that I felt such a paroxysm of relief when I probably should have been feeling an onslaught of worry and anxiety for the future.  I simply said to myself “Well, Todd, no going to work tomorrow and having to worry about getting caught in that down pour of rain the Doppler 12 weather experts are all predicting.  Now I can read, write, enjoy my food, workout, listen to music, walk my dog, and reflect upon “Who Am I?”—all of the time cultivating my awareness, as I do now.  But should I not be scared?  Worried about the future?  Certainly, I have no mass of wealth on which I can rely.  I have no insurance, no family or friends on whom I can dare turn for refuge from the storm, and my credit is in a murky muddled mess.  And what should frighten me the most is the stark reality that I have no real desire to enter a world of wolves and sycophants.  It is not that I fear competition, nor that I feel incompetent, or that I scorn financial security.  It is simply that I want to live life on my own terms, and I know that no matter what happens, that is exactly what I am doing and will continue to do.  It is also what all of you are doing…like it or not, know it or not.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

WHAT AM I LEARNING NOW?

                         WHAT AM I LEARNING NOW?

     How strange are the everyday occurrences that befall one if he is only receptive their gravity.  But one must ask are ALL events that shape a lifetime potentially edifying in character?  In other words, why is it that some things that occur to us produce such ethereal emotions, evoke memories, and/or seem to say something meaningful about the future?  What is so “special” about these occurrences that force us to notice them?  Why are we so stricken by some events and not others?   Let me provide an example of such a poignant event that occurred to me this past week.  The event is not necessarily momentous viewed from a “large scale” perspective I suppose, but it undoubtedly caused something to resonate within me that further confirmed my belief in UNITY, TIMELESSNESS, and GUIDANCE.  
Recently I have again found myself involved with the principles set forth by the theory of holographic universe, namely those principles which suggest that we each create our own realities in order to learn from them.  The fact is that I have championed this conception of reality for nearly half of my life now—ever since becoming deeply entrenched in the Jane Roberts’ Seth Material books.  In short, some of the basic tenets set forth within the volumes of this material are that infinite worlds manifest themselves as a function of our thoughts and that they exist simultaneously—that is, time and space are only as “real” as we need them to be in order to learn that all is ONE.  Anyway, since it is often frustrating and futile to attempt to convey abstract notions with words, I will leave it at that for now.  But let me stress that I’m typically pretty bookish—not really shy or timid mind you—but definitely introverted and reserved.  Material wealth has never been of great priority in my life, and carnal lust is something with which I haven’t battled for several years now.  I am no slave to my libido.  I have sown my wild oats…so to speak.  (Symbolically enough, they now comprise the caloric bulk of my primarily vegetarian diet!)  I have never owned a car, and for that matter, I have never even obtained a driver’s license.  In this Western land of opportunity, the car--symbol of status, prestige, power, identity, and influence--I have eschewed in favor of the pedestrian lifestyle.  Often I have stated, quite haughtily, that the car has become the bane of humanity.  It completely astonishes me at times that the majority of Americans have become absolutely dependent upon these monstrosities of nuts and bolts.  Hell—I personally embrace Michael Jordan’s attitude when he cockily asks “Why drive when you can fly?”  HA!  Anyway, often I have mused that I should have become a Buddhist monk.  People think I am kidding.  I am not.
     Now, as it so often happens, I find myself in the midst of irony.  And, as it happens, it happens for a purpose—the purpose that I learn something, the purpose that I develop some other “aspect” of my “self”.  But enough guru shit.  The irony?  Where do I find myself employed, but at a 258 million dollar privately owned nutritional supplement company, which I will for now refer to as Company X.  What do I do at Company X?  Well, I am currently doing inbound sales, taking orders for male enhancement products.  I am literally surrounded by men and women of all ages discussing erections and orgasms all day long for the sake of making large amounts of money, money, money!  If ego could be personified, Company X would be a quintessential model.  Privately owned by an entrepreneur who spends half of his time here in Cincinnati and the other half in San Diego, California with his wife and four kids, Company X has ridden a torrential wave over it’s five year history.  There have been raids and seizures, claims of fraud, layoffs, high-turn over rates, disgruntled employees, etc. etc.  Company X has embodied the entire human drama over the course of its five year history…and yet, it continues to grow, develop, and prosper.  (It stands erect, if you will pardon the off-color pun.)  I believe at base it is a legitimate enterprise, or I would not waste my time there.  However, I am hardly naïve, and I know that it has a tendency to present pictures in glitzy bright lights when shades of gray are more appropriate.  There is little doubt that Company X plays the GAME for keeps!  But hey—let us be real here.  That is the way of the world after all.  I should further mention that Company X is not only a distributor of male enhancement supplements.  They are merely the greatest income generators.  Company X also offers a line of nutritional products tailored for various and sundry needs.  Nothing wrong with nutrition, but having researched and studied the subject intensively for over18 years, I know that many of the claims made are entirely unwarranted.  I am actually astounded at how little management seems to know about nutritional supplements in general. Or, perhaps it knows much more than it cares to say for fear of putting Company X in a bad light.  It is difficult to know for sure…I am a simple fledgling you know….
     Okay, okay, enough of the prelude already!  Move on!  I have said all of this so that I might say this.  My good Indian Brother V has recommended to me a book entitled The Monk Who Sold his Ferrari.  One day a couple of weeks ago, I had just dismounted the bus and was meditatively walking to Company X for my training class.  As I was walking, a boyish looking man in the same class pulled over and offered me a ride.  Although I was enjoying the morning walk, I did not wish to be unsociable, so I accepted his courteous offer.  The man’s name was Bobby.  I soon discovered through our conversation on the way to work that Bobby is an avid tennis player looking to take his game to the next level.  Coincidentally enough, he is also from the same part of Cincinnati as I am from—Clifton.  Since I am a personal trainer who enjoys teaching sports specific training methods, I gave Bobby my business card.  I further discovered that Bobby is 33 years old, and I swear to the forces that be that he looks to be no older than 20! Right off the bat I was awestruck by a couple of Bobby’s personality traits.  One was his extreme passion for the game of tennis.  Another was his penchant for blaming outside forces for his failure to excel against higher caliber players.  He was resentful—angry, hostile.  I politely but frankly pointed out to him that if he wanted to legitimately compete against elite competition, he must first change his attitude and take responsibility for his training habits.  He was receptive to my candid remarks.  H acknowledged the truth in them.  I felt as though I was teaching him something about himself—but mysteriously, I also felt as though he was teaching me something as well.  I had this esoteric feeling that I was creating this entire scenario.  I felt as though Bobby was actually an alter ego.  Kind of like a black and white image—despite our apparent differences, it was as if we were derived from the same source--but we had taken different paths….But it wasn’t just Bobby’s physical appearance—it was the entire context of the situation that felt so profoundly eerie.  Bobby had at one time been a bus rider.  He now is quite outspoken about his disdain for the bussing system in Cincinnati.  I, on the other hand, am quite outspoken about the overuse and overdependence on cars within the US today.  I am a staunch advocate of walking and public transportation as a means of curtailing many of the maladies that plague modern Western “civilization”.  Bobby is a car enthusiast.  Plastered inside his own car are pictures of racecars and their drivers—and their drivers’ women!  What is directly above the gearshift?  A large picture of a fully adorned Ferrari!
     I have not seen Bobby for a couple of weeks now.  Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, he failed his training examination at Company X.  I wish I could say more about some of the chilling insights that I have tapped over the last couple of weeks as a result of being immersed in a microcosm of ego, sex, money, and interpersonal competition, but my ability to coherently explain them and convey their significance is inept at this time.  I will add though, just for the sake of a final thought provocation, that I had been wondering about the derivation of the name Berkeley Premium Neutraceuticals.  I mean, after all, it is located in Cincinnati, Ohio, not in Berkeley, California.  Well, I just happened to be reading an article on Buddhism the other day, which mentioned in passing that Berkeley was the man who proved that the notion of the indivisible atom is a metaphysical fiction.  Interesting…but what does it all MEAN?  ONE IS ALL?  Yes, I suppose THAT is what it ALL MEANS….
     

Sunday, September 11, 2005

LIP FLAPPING ON LABEL SLAPPING

                         LIP FLAPPING ON LABEL SLAPPING

     HA!  Here again I wish to speak out on the nature of words and the subtle art of communication.  More specifically, however I wish to discuss briefly how this ties to the human tendency to categorize phenomena, both mental and physical.  (One might astutely note that I have just made a categorical distinction between “mental” and “physical” phenomena.)  Indeed, good communication often requires precise “operational” definitions of terms among working professionals in order to articulate ideas, theories, and hypotheses of various sorts.  This is especially true within the “natural” and “social” sciences.  If scientists cannot agree upon the criteria that define a particular condition or event, they have no control over that condition or event.  Thus, as human beings, we strive to control words so that we might articulate ideas about phenomena.  In turn, we aspire to gain control over that phenomena.  Point being—to label is to articulate is to control, control, control.  But what happens when we seek to label a particular quality, or mesh of qualities, that define a sentient and reactive human being?  I ask whether it is even possible to pigeonhole a human being?  My immediate response is that any attempt to do so is egotistically motivated, harmful, and ignorant.  Allow me to illustrate.
     I am an enthusiast.  I have interests and passions.  Some would call me an extremist in certain respects.  At the same time, others would call me a slacker.  Hey, you know what?  Sticks and stones!  I tend to chuckle at how utterly meaningless an endeavor it is, especially for those employed in the mental health disciplines, to conveniently slap “normal” and “abnormal” labels upon people and their behaviors.  The problem is not so much the label per se, but the stigma that often accompanies that label.  This accursed stigma in turn only serves to hinder the person’s inherent expressive powers and to promote feelings of spiritual unrest…or “dis-ease”, if you will.  Allow me to express an opinion about scholars in general, and psychologists in particular.  They are ALL, completely and utterly, no doubt about it, no questions asked, egotistical bipolar head cases!  And I say this with the utmost respect!  For I am also of the opinion that TRUE, UNSULLIED Psychology is the meaning of life itself!  I mean, come on, what is Psychology, but the study of the human mind and behavior?  The word most literally can be translated as “Study of, or knowledge of, the soul”.  Make no mistake about it—Psychologists are extremists.  They have undergone and survived the wrenches of graduate school, they have been immersed in the politics and the dog-eat-dog world of academics, and they have wallowed throughout in the elevated ivory towers of abstract theory.  Let it be patently clear that these people are maniacal in their endeavors.  Euphemistically speaking, they are “elitists”—the statistical aberrations, the outliers!  And yet, for some odd reason, they seem reluctant to acknowledge that excellence depends upon such maniacal qualities.  Excellence, by definition, is not normal!  It is, by definition, that which exceeds “normal”.  But let us cut to the chase and be intellectually honest here.  “Normal” does not exist any more than a point in time or space exists.  So in order to “scientifically” comprehend or communicate this shadowy term of “normal”, one must be willing to think in terms of  “continuums”, and one must realize that these continuums are sliced and diced arbitrarily, at the whim of whoever it might be who feels compelled to play the role of Label God Almighty.  Ah, but this is the nature of the Beast!  This is the nature of the GAME!  We all try to reduce complex and multidimensional structures by dissecting them into ever finer “units”, “concepts”, and “processes”.  Why?  Control!  Yes, that is correct!  Again I cast a light and label upon our behavioral motivations!  We are CONTROL FREAKS, MANIPULATORS—often to the point of being LEACHES, usurping the creative juices of others, locking them inside a box, for the sake of ego gratification and self-aggrandizement.  Let us strive to CEASE this vain and counter productive practice.  It is time that we ALL raise the bar so the MANIA becomes the “norm”.  Let us all tear down walls, break out of boxes, stomp on spirit crushing labels and march to the beat or our OWN damned drums!  Let us revel in the knowledge that we are all inexplicably complex, endowed with powers far beyond those which we have previously feared to imagine possible.  Let us take refuge in the notion that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, in the notion that infinity exists within the present moment, that the part contains the whole.  Let us rise above head shrinkage!  Let us vie for mind expansion!  Let us journey forth—brave, proud, unfettered!  RAH!
     Another day has passed, and still I refuse to release this topic.  I fear that I may have given the impression that I am altogether against the human need to “label” and “categorize” events, patterns, and entities.  This tendency is an unavoidable, in fact it is a defining, characteristic of the ego.  Without ego, without labels, there is no sense of identity, orientation, communication.  Thus, the process of “labeling” is essential to intellectual engagement.  However, it is a mark of ignorance for one to mindlessly slap a single “one dimensional” label upon a multidimensional construct, to attach a stigma to that single label, and then to focus exclusively upon that shallow, sordid label.  This practice may have little or no effect upon those of us who know the nature of the GAME and who can laugh at its strategies and idiosyncrasies, but it may serve to stifle those who put far too much stock in the opinions of others.  With that having been said, let us ALL become apt pupils of the GAME by looking truthfully within ourselves and realizing that we all have one thing in common:  we ALL exist and function on the fringe!  So let us just laugh, have fun, slap high-fives, and ride the wave of lunacy together!  Accept it, welcome it, make peace with it.  It’s all just good-old yin and yang folks!  The bipolar nature of the universe dwells within us all….

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

HISTORICAL REFLECTIONS


          HISTORICAL REFLECTIONS:  A Need for the Past

     Several years ago, I was required to read a book for a history class written by John W. Dower entitled War without Mercy; Race and Power in the Pacific War.  That book has resonated within me ever since—so much so that I recently read the book for a second time.  Although I will often reread a short story, essay, or article to gain a sort of “global” view of the author’s message, rereading an entire book is something I seldom do.  But this book was different. This book challenged me to think in different terms; it challenged me to lay aside preconceived ideas about past and present; it challenged me to appreciate the art of history.  The historian is an artist, a painter of the past—pens and keystrokes serve as brushes; shades of Literature, Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology, and Anthropology comprise his palette.
In light of the violence in which the United States is once again embroiled, it occurred to me that we, as a civilized people, cannot afford to eschew history and conveniently dismiss its relevance to the present.  No…to see beyond, we must look behind.  We must stand on the shoulders of giants.  Friends and compatriots—this is a time for reflection.  It is a time for unity.  It is crucial that we collectively attempt to understand, and thereby avert, the pervasive patterns of thought that have fomented so much bitterness and bloodshed throughout time and space.  Please don’t get me wrong.  
                                                               Khoori 2
I’m not claiming that the study of history per se is sufficient for the realization of lasting peace.  However, I am claiming that the discipline provides an effective method of acquiring insights into human similarities and differences--insights that are paramount to mutual respect and tolerance--and civilized life. In hopes of illustrating the historian’s craft—in hopes of illustrating its relevance to this brave new world--I would like to take a moment to share with you some of the impressions I have obtained from that “global” reading of Dower’s War without Mercy.  

History has repeatedly shown that human experience is unquestionably volatile and that men and women adopt whatever attitudes are necessary to maintain a sense of purpose and self-righteousness.  This penchant to adjust ones outlook relative to a given situation manifests itself not only on an individual level, but on a societal level as well.  Indeed, it is this flexibility of mind that ensures our survival as a species; for if this phenomenon was not to exist, any single event might lead to en masse apathy and the extinction of life as we know it.  The point to be made here is simple:  the mind is continually healing itself.  Although the “mind” is an abstract and ambiguous concept, it suffices for now to describe it as a sense of awareness.  Proceeding from this argument, it follows that a mental “disorder” is, at least to some degree, a relative term insofar as the “disorder” itself can be viewed as a healing process.  This idea can perhaps be made more concrete by way of example.  A highly stressed young woman is continually complaining about pains in the back of her neck.  Physicians are unable to locate any neurological damage and therefore conclude that the pain is strictly psychosomatic.  The question now
                                                           Khoori 3
  
becomes “If the pain cannot be described in neurological terms, is that pain in fact “real”?”  The answer can only be given in metaphysical terms, since any physical source of pain has eluded the realm of “hard” science.  However, we can take license to assume that our hypothetical patient is in fact lying and actually feels no physical pain whatsoever.  Being entirely aware that no such pain exists, why would she risk embarrassment and proceed to seek medical attention?  The answer may well be that her mind has mysteriously responded to an urgent need for compassion and has acquired a unique mode of reasoning in order to accommodate that need.
     John W. Dower explores the enigmatic mechanisms of the human mind as he soars above the subjective human condition and gives an intellectual account of the psychology of humankind before, during, and after one of the most horrific events to transpire upon the face of the planet in modern times—World War II.  He stands aloof and successfully juxtaposes the similarities and the differences that necessarily exist between races and cultures.  It is his belief that such ubiquitous rancor arising amongst “civilized” beings can be quelled through empathy, and that understanding can best be achieved by means of detached analysis.  He explains the motives behind the war from two disparate vantage points—the Western view and Japanese view—as he inquires the inseparable issues of racism, egoism, and superiority / inferiority complex.
     As already implied, a red-letter similarity between the two warring forces was that of ineffable animosity toward the opposing power.  However, it now becomes necessary to collapse the general category of “animosity” and to scrutinize the stereotypes that each
                                                           Khoori 4

side attached to the other.  To begin, let’s look at the way in which the Westerners perceived the Japanese—as inferior adolescents prone to obsessive fanaticism and devoid of analytical capacity—or, more tersely, as madmen.  At the time, this description was offered not only by the layman, but also by the highly-trained therapist.  In short, the mature Japanese mind was believed to operate in a fashion comparable to that of a Westerner still in an adolescent stage of life.  Many Freudian analysts were inclined to diagnose the Japanese race as mentally disturbed people trapped in an anal or phallic stage due to unresolved conflicts arising in early childhood—specifically, during the time of toilet training.  The symptoms displayed by the Japanese indexing childlike behavior, claimed Westerners, were tendencies for duality, secrecy, compulsiveness, and general fickleness.  Clinicians also pointed out the blatant Japanese inability to contribute substantially to the sciences and the fine arts.  Although we will return to this topic later, it is of merit to note here that the propensity for Westerners to employ clinical terminology in reference to others may have helped buttress their own feelings of superiority.
     In keeping with the theme that the human mind exists in a continual state of flux, let’s examine the Japanese as mystical supermen.  This view, seemingly in stark contrast to the outlook just described, was adopted in the mainstream following a series of impressive and unexpected Japanese victories over the Allied forces.  Rumors were rampant concerning the indomitable Japanese will and capacity to convene occult spiritual forces in times of crisis.  However, it should not be taken that Westerners either
                                                                  Khoori 5

lowered their own status of superiority or raised the status of Japanese inferiority.  Rather, the view of the Japanese superman became compatible with the view of the Japanese subhuman.  Since the superman image had emerged from esoteric Oriental religions (such as Zen Buddhism), which emphasize the importance of instinct and intuition over logic and reason, Westerners found it convenient and appealing to assert that the Japanese had not yet evolved as a rational people.  The sentiment that the Japanese were an evolutionary laggard people in turn incited a trend of “scientific racism”.  Myriad theories were proffered that might account for Japanese mental inferiority, and not surprisingly, “empirical” evidence was found in support of several.  Unfortunately, science is governed by human beings and is subject to their inherent biases.  The “empirical” science of just fifty years ago is today considered unduly racially biased and is generally discredited—yet another example of how subjective bias and objective fact often become indistinguishable.  Dower’s razor is this:  whether subhuman or superhuman, the Japanese were definitely not human.  
     Now that a cursory overview of the typical Westerner’s attitude toward the Japanese has been provided, what can be said about the typical Japanese attitude toward the Westerner?  In sum, the Westerners (as well as all other races) were inferior.  This in and of itself may not be so surprising, for it would be difficult to envision a war in which both parties actually believed the other to be equivalent in all respects.  What is somewhat surprising, however, is that the Japanese did not feel the Westerners to be inferior mentally, but rather felt them to be so morally and spiritually.  The white man
                                                           Khoori 6

was perceived as a creature capable of both great beneficence and unutterable iniquity.  On the one hand, the white man played the role of a benign educator, and on the other hand, he was a ravaging demon.  This fact per se is noteworthy, for it suggests a willingness on the part of the Japanese to learn from a former enemy under more affable conditions.  Nevertheless, to a provincial Westerner, the notion may appear logically incompatible with the Japanese idea that they themselves were the superior people.  This may be partly due to the Westerner’s preconceived idea that superiority implies superior intellectual aptitude.  Again, the Japanese school of thought did not require this assumption.  On the contrary, veritable superiority should not be expressed in terms of analytical and rational capacity, but rather in terms of spiritual purity.  From the Japanese point of view, it was they who were blessed with an innate sense of unity and ultimate wisdom, and hence it was their moral obligation to demonstrate the inner bliss to a tranquil, albeit subservient, world.  From these devout sentiments emerged what Westerners declared a mad nation bent on bloodletting and death.  As argued here, however, the Japanese were clearly not devoid of logic (for this, in effect, would be analogous to declaring a day devoid of weather); the Japanese simply extended their logic from a different collection of underlying assumptions.  In passing, it is interesting to note also that although Western propaganda belittled the Japanese as a culture, the Japanese were more inclined to attach a specific face, such as that of Theodore Roosevelt or Winston Churchill, to the “Demonic Other.”
     
                                                                  Khoori 7

Giving heed to this description of the Japanese mind-set, perhaps it is feasible to make some sense of yet another striking phenomenon.  World War II was irrefutably fraught with intolerance, menace, and ungodly hatred toward the opposition.  However, once the war was over and the brutality had ceased, amiable, and cooperative relations commenced forthwith.  The stereotypes had not completely dissipated, but they did take on new and friendlier connotations.  The Japanese were no longer depicted as irrational and stupid children; rather, their childlike qualities were exactly what enabled them to be such capable learners of newly instilled Western ethics.  They were no longer frenetic monkeys and apes raging through jungles; they were instead adorable little pets awaiting the white man’s beck and call.
     By what possible rationale could such emotional vicissitudes occur?  How could a people once so willing to embrace death in the name of a sacred emperor and a sublime nation now be so patently obeisant to an impious demon?  And how could the emperor himself so readily surrender his aspirations for a Utopian world functioning under the leadership of his virginal people?  Many may have predicted episodes of mass suicide or perhaps even interracial genocide on the part of the fanatical “Japs”.  The fact that such a tragedy did not occur is perhaps suggestive of an indigenous desire for peace common to all people. Although this idea may appear overly optimistic at first glance (and indeed it may be), let’s again observe the change in psychology that occurs and specify exactly what is gained and what is lost in respect to both sides.  The Westerners have obviously won the war and have, at least in their own minds, demonstrated dominance by means of
         Khoori 8

superior technology, endurance, and might.  With their status of superiority no longer jeopardized, their individual minds relax and become more tolerant of disparate worldviews.  Finally, concrete stereotypes soften in order to receive more agreeable and peaceful sentiments.  
     The Japanese framework must also endure attitudinal transformations.  Innately proud survivors, these people do not think in terms of what has been lost.  At the war’s culmination, the white man, being a dual entity, dons the guise of the magnanimous teacher.  The emperor now envisions his proper role as a figure of peace, and because he depicts himself in this way, it is only fitting that his loyal followers adopt the same ideology.  In this way, the Japanese as a people do not succumb to crestfallen feelings of inferiority.  They now exist in a different spiritual realm where they contend with new and different challenges. They have not lost in war but have won in peace.  This notion is embraced by the entire nation, and rejuvenating energy expands exponentially, propelling the Japanese to new stellar heights.
     Although the model just presented is admittedly abstract and supposes an entity not yet scientifically testable (the presence of actual “mental energy”), it does adequately fit the empirical observations and describes the phenomena illuminated by Dower and other revered historians.  Whether “mental energy” will ever exist in the scientific vernacular is hardly the topic of the foregoing discussion.  The crux is that individuals and societies alike mentally respond to an ever-changing world.  In turn, these responses dictate the direction of the future world; they must therefore be placed under the
         Khoori 9

microscope today for discreet analysis.

     In closing this discussion, allow me to share some final thoughts that I hope will arouse an intuitive understanding of history’s ongoing merit.  It has been asserted by many authorities that human beings can be distinguished from other animals by their ability to reflect upon their own existence.   Similarly, the late martial artist and philosopher Bruce Lee once mused, “All knowledge is in fact self-knowledge.”  Finally, my history teacher, the same man who compelled me to read Dower’s work several years ago, one day said something most striking and profound, “History is what people say it is, and what people say it is changes”….  Although these final thoughts may at first glance appear random and illogically construed—unrelated to my thesis--I urge you all to take a second, deeper, glance.  I believe you will see the relationships; I believe you will paint your own portraits.








       Khoori 10

                    NOTES ON RHETORICAL STRATEGY

Vision:  My intention for this essay was to present a multifaceted piece of rhetoric.  I aimed to embed arguments within arguments and thereby coax the reader into experiencing firsthand my overarching argument:  The study of history allows us to understand the present and is therefore conducive to civilized development.  In addition, I wanted my concluding thoughts to echo my introductory thoughts—but I also wanted to continue inviting the audience to draw conclusions from personal experience and reflection.  I wanted to engage them in the process.  I wanted to persuade them into forming their own rhetoric thereby stimulating their creative faculties.  In other words, I wanted to instill the idea—or the feeling—that logic, like history, is a product of art.
     The list of rhetorical tools, terms, and techniques is long, and the concepts are intricately interrelated.  Therefore, what follows is a mere cursory overview of my rhetorical design.  I hope that it reflects something of what I have learned this semester.

Ethos—arguments from intelligence, moral character, and good will toward the audience; arguments that establish the appropriate voice and distance for the pertinent situation.
Demonstration:  I hoped to convey intelligence by immediately referring to books and reading habits.  I attempted to convey good will and appropriate voice and distance by establishing myself not only as a teacher, but also as a student.  The message I want to
       Khoori 11

instill is that I can relate to you; I want to share something about myself with you; you are important to me; you can trust me.  To do this I have considered the various uses of punctuation, grammatical person, verb tense and voice, qualifiers, and word size.  All of these factors influence the distance I strived to create with the audience.  On some occasions, I desired to step back from the audience and invoke the role of “teacher”, or even “preacher”; on other occasions, I preferred to close the gap and become more intimate with the reader so as not to be portrayed as pompous or condescending.  Achieving appropriate balance is the key to all successful art.  In short, I wanted to reveal that I, like they themselves, am a perpetual “student”.  

Pathos—arguments that appeal to emotions by painting vivid pictures and using honorific or pejorative language.
Demonstration:  By depicting Dower as an artist and by using metaphor to compare his craft to that of a painter, I aimed to create a vivid picture in the reader’s mind.  This picture should allow the audience to connect familiar ideas and objects to the ones I am currently attempting to stress and indoctrinate.  To emphasize and reinforce the idea of pathos, I provided a type of “ring structure”; I first alluded to the image of the painter in the final sentence of the introduction, and I again summoned the image in the final sentence of the essay.  


       Khoori 12

Logos—arguments available in the issue itself—enthymemes, inductive arguments, maxims, examples, signs.
Demonstration:  I used a commonplace maxim when I mention the need to stand on the shoulders of giants to see beyond.  The idea of logos is demonstrated throughout this article, since the entire product is hinged upon an example of a modern historian’s piece of literature.

Extrinsic Proof—data and testimony from authority.
Demonstration:  Extrinsic proof is a subcomponent of the idea of logos.  By writing about Dower’s exploits within the realm of history, I have attempted to represent him as an expert in the field.  I invoked him not only as a source of authority, but also as a source of inspiration.

Kairos—a multidimensional term that suggests a notion of space and/or time.  
Demonstration:  This entire article is dedicated to the concept of time and to the relationship that exists amongst the past, present, and future.  I have drawn upon the concept of kairos by providing experiences of my own; I have also shown how these experiences have related to the past.  In so doing, I have attempted to demonstrate that the importance of a study of history is valuable today insofar as it provides a means of achieving tolerance and respect.

       Khoori 13

Stasis—comparable to the English word “issue”, this term refers to a point about which all parties to an argument can agree to disagree.  
Demonstration:  I have purposefully avoided explicitly stating a counterpoint.  Although the implicit counterpoint can be understood as something like “history is dead and irrelevant” or “the present is all that matters”, I felt it counterproductive to my intentions to bring it to the fore.  Rather, I opted to concentrate my efforts on creating an environment in which the audience draws its own conclusion through self-discovery.  I felt it unnecessary to draw attention to a potentially distracting and/or insulting counterargument.

     FURTHER COMMENTARY ON INTRODUCTION AND PERORATION     Bearing in mind the lasting impact that the introduction and the conclusion (the peroration) of a piece of rhetoric has upon the audience, I was particularly attentive to their construction.  As I have mentioned, my ambition was to coerce the reader into feeling the spirit of my message for herself; I vied for audience participation.  In order to accomplish this, I needed to establish her trust and confidence; I wanted her to relate to me.  In short, I wanted to establish a tone and distance that was friendly and sincere, and above all, conversational.  For this reason, I frequently used punctuation that suggests the pauses and breaks that occur in common discourse—pauses that represent my own spontaneous reflections.  Furthermore, I wanted to create an image in the reader’s mind that would excite her creative nature.  The image of the painter and her tools seemed a
       Khoori 14

good metaphorical device for the historian. To ensure that this image was most penetrating, I placed it in an emphatic position—at the end of the introductory paragraph.  I also wanted to make use of a “ring structure”, meaning I wanted to emphasize various aspects of my work by emphatically returning to them in the conclusion.  For this reason, I ended my article with yet another allusion to the art of painting.  In regards to the peroration itself, there was a method to my madness—or perhaps a madness to my method.  The references to my history teacher and to Bruce Lee, and the quotes issued by them were not arbitrary—nor was the statement concerning the distinguishing feature of human beings.  The latter reference was made as a general statement.  The person who first suggested the idea is not known, and therefore I chose to use a passive construction.  I then decided to return to my history teacher—again, utilizing the idea of ring structure.  The name of my history teacher is not important; the important thing is that he is connected to my experience—my history--, and my reference to him emphasizes the fact that I was once (and still am) a student of history who gained insights and inspiration from an “everyday” person.
I also conjured up the image of the late Bruce Lee—a world-renowned icon and inspiration to many.  I chose Bruce Lee because he so well embodies the essence of my message.  In effect, he serves as a personification of the yin and yang of war and peace, of motion and stillness, of body and mind, of structure and spontaneity, of past and future.  Because of the lingering mystique that surrounds Bruce Lee, and

       Khoori 15

because of his nearly “immortal” status in the eyes of many, he seemed the ideal candidate to juxtapose against my everyday history teacher.      
     

RENEGADE RHETORIC



                           RENEGADE RHETORIC
                               On Pathos and Ethos

     As I sit poring over my textbook struggling to fashion a persuasive piece of rhetoric that demonstrates the power of either pathos or ethos, it suddenly dawns on me that these two concepts are by no means mutually exclusive!  Ah ha!!  What a revelation!  What a relief!  Finally, the war has ceased.  Pathos and Ethos have amicably merged and reconciled their differences within my aching psyche.  Indeed, any good argument necessarily contains elements of both.  It also occurred to me that all human dialogue and communication inherently involves the utility of both.  Since this has been a recurring thought in my mind throughout the preparation process, I’ve decided to have some fun with this assignment.  With all due respect given to the great pioneering minds of Aristotle and Quintilian and others of their ilk, I, a proud rhetorical renegade, propose to argue that rhetors should not attempt to draw split-hair distinctions between pathos and ethos.  Rather, they should realize that the concept of one depends upon the concept of the other.  In so doing I will begin by stating textbook definitions of each:  Pathosarguments that appeal to emotions by painting vivid pictures and using honorific or pejorative language; Ethos—arguments from the rhetor’s intelligence, good moral character, and good will toward the audience and arguments that establish the appropriate voice and distance for the rhetorical situation at hand.  Now, let us all pause and reflect a moment on the strategies I have thus far employed to illustrate my point.  I have attempted to paint a picture in your minds of me struggling with the creative process of formulating a cohesive argument that is appropriate to this assignment.  Furthermore, I have used personification in order to enthrall you even more deeply!  By pointing this out, I am emphasizing my use of pathos.  However, I am simultaneously demonstrating my intelligence, moral character, and good will to you.  Indeed—I care about you!  I want you involved in what I am saying and in what I am experiencing!  Without you, my words are insignificant.  Also, note my use of vocabulary here.  In several places, I have chosen to use “lofty” speech.  Why?  Well, because I can.  After all, I am a college student who has attended classes and studied books, and I recognize that you are also college students who have attended classes and studied books.  But I have not stopped at that—I am relentless!  I have even gone to the utmost trouble of providing definitions of technical terms.  Is all this  not exemplary ethos?  Well, of course it is!  And so is my reference to Aristotle and Quintilian. (My reverence to these great men, however, is probably better suited to the concept of pathos than it is to ethos.)  In closing, let me reiterate that I am having fun, and it is important to me that you do the same.  I hereby rest my case.  (More ethos—wink, wink!!)


MY WAR MY WAY


                         MY WAR, MY WAY!!

     The back of the boxer’s old beat up Chevy says it all:  MY WAR, MY WAY!! It declares as it delivers a blast of pollutants while racing through the yellow, soon to be red, light straight ahead.  Well, actually, the Chevy had a few other things to say from the back windshield:  RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE!!  Ah, a vehicle of few words to be sure.  But such eloquence and expression in those few words!  This is Paul “The Talon” Henderson’s machine, and it betrays the driver’s attitude of nonconformity and macho individualism from bent and angry bumper to scratched and dinged-up front end.  The artistry on Paul’s hell-bent vehicle clearly portrays the ideology that one must be willing to fight and to openly display anger and contempt at times in order to obtain certain things in life.  In other words, one must be willing to stand for something of fall for anything.  This is a very common ideology amongst competitive athletes and especially amongst boxers, who are known to hang out for hours on end in moldy adrenaline and sweat filled gymnasiums trash-talking each other and pounding heavy bags with savage ferocity.  Indeed, the boxer not only fights to live, but lives to fight.  In the eyes of the warrior, life is often a war, but that war is waged on his terms—that is, the outcome is determined by him, for better or for worse.  The warrior declares his independence from the “machine” of “conventional” society.  The irony here is that even though these attitudes are commonplace among boxers and athletes, it must be acknowledged that these “diehard combatants” are in fact renegades.  They exist primarily in a subculture.  Since this is the case, what is “commonplace” to them is often seen as rebellious, hostile, and antisocial to the mainstream populace.  They become figures of controversy, and yet, ironically enough, they also become figures of envy.  They are looked at and depicted as strong, courageous, resilient, and resourceful…and a certain “mystique” envelops them.  This type of “dynamic separation” often occurs if a commonplace is not common enough.  In a very real sense, the more the “majority” (I will call this the “machine”) consolidates, the more the “minority” will deviate in order to express its individuality. This in turn can result in the majority consolidating all the more.  The snowball grows larger as it gathers momentum.  We now have a virtual “tug-of-war” going on which can result in very distinct political factions, demonology, and various other hostile relations and misunderstandings amongst human beings.

KEEPING IT REAL




                                   KEEPING IT REAL

     “I can’t believe they call this “reality boxing”!”  chimes the half-exasperated, half-amused Ross Enamait.  “This is nothing but drama, glitz, and smack!  People watching this crap will think that anybody can box!”
     Ross Enamait as usual is multitasking.  He is watching a videotape of last night’s episode of Fox’s “Next Great Champ”, jumping rope, and talking to yours truly.  Ross is what I might call a “throwback hybrid”.  He is testy and forthright, independent, noncomforming, and above all, passionate about everything he undertakes.  First and foremost Ross is a fighter, a scholar of the “sweet science” of boxing, and has been ever since the age of  five when Mom laced up his first pair of gloves.  In addition to being a boxer himself, Ross is also a boxing trainer and writer, and founder of www.rossboxing.com and www.warriorforce.com.  In short, Ross’s life is about fighting!  However, Ross is not about violence and street fighting.  In fact the opposite holds true.  He is about using the sport of boxing in such a way that it actually deters the participants from fighting amongst themselves in a bloodied and drug-infected street setting.  Ross considers himself a teacher of skills and attitudes that prevent trouble, pain, and hardship for many impoverished youths who inhabit the streets of Hartford Connecticut.  “Boxing has done a lot for me over the years.  I used to be nothing but an angry thug looking to fight and steal.  But I have been lucky in that I became more enthralled with the science of the sport in the ring.  It changes ones outlook…makes him think differently about the need for discipline and responsibility.  Now I want to give back as much as I can and teach others some of the lessons that I had to learn the hard way.”  Indeed, Ross is no stranger to discipline and the learning of lessons!  He possesses Bachelor Degrees and Master Degrees in the Sports Sciences and is also a personal trainer certified by the International Sports Sciences Association.  Moreover, he has written several books that deal with the training and nutritional requirements of boxers, martial artists, and other athletes.
     When I asked Ross what makes boxing so different from other “mainstream” sports, he simply smiles and states that there are subtleties to the sport that are just completely overlooked by most people who do not truly follow and participate.  “Everybody is completely overwhelmed when they see Michael Jordan sky eight feet in the air and dunk a basketball.  Everybody reacts like crazy when they see Marcus Allen run 75 yards for a touchdown.  These are seemingly superhuman feats in the eyes of most.  And yet for some reason everybody, but everybody, thinks he can box!  That is absurd!  Boxing is a skills sport!  It is the “sweet science” that embodies life more than any other.  And its historical richness is unparalleled!”
     I have to chuckle at Ross’s passionate state of arousal as he speaks of this sport.  He is a REAL fanatic to say the very least!  But one can not argue with what the man says nor with the results that he sees on a daily basis.  He invites all to visit his website and participate in forum discussions, where one can quickly observe the reverence that his many “disciples” pay him.  The man is strict and quick to crack the whip if necessary, but at his core, deep within the leather-weathered body, lie intention and purpose that is golden-gloved!  When prodded for a one-lined summary of advice to offer the boxing novice, the pugilist pensively responds “Keep your hands up, listen to those who have been there before, hit, and don’t be hit.”  Sounds pretty simple doesn’t it??  

ADDICTIVE REFLECTIONS



                         ADDICTIVE REFLECTIONS

     As I left the feature presentation, my mental gears of critical inquiry were churning at an alarming rate.  There was something disturbing about the subject on which the speaker lectured…so disturbing that my pulse quickened, and my blood pressure rose accordingly.  However, I cannot say that this feeling of disturbance was in any way negative.  In fact, it was stimulating and invigorating…it’s a feeling I enjoy, or at least yearn for.  Let’s see.  How can I describe this feeling?  Maybe as a sort of “rush”?  Yes, that will suffice.  It was an adrenaline rush.  Indeed, I was thinking, and therefore I was!  But am I addicted to this rush?  Hmmm.  Well, I guess that all depends upon how one defines an addiction.
The precise meaning of the word addiction is not easy to pin down.  Merriam-Webster defines the term as “a compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal”; more broadly, it is defined as “the persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful”.  Interestingly, psychologists routinely equate addiction with substance dependence, which they operationally define as “the abuse of a drug sometimes accompanied by a physiological dependence on it, made evident by tolerance and withdrawal symptoms.”  Further investigation into the core of the meaning of addiction therefore requires working definitions of tolerance and withdrawal symptoms:  the former is defined as “a physiological process in which greater and greater amounts of an addictive drug are required to produce the same effect.”  The latter is defined as “negative physiological and psychological reactions evidenced when a person suddenly stops taking an addictive drug; cramps, restlessness, and even death are examples.”  The reader should now realize that reliance upon these definitions is starkly problematic: indeed, the argument for the meaning of addiction as provided above becomes rhetorically circular and is therefore insufficient as an effective medium of communication.  That is to say that the word we are attempting to define has merely been expressed by the use of synonymous terminology.  Hence, the question has been begged—“What exactly is addiction?”  Hmmm.  Again, it looks as though we have come full circle….
     All right, I’ve indulged my senses in the high and lofty ivory towers, and crashing into my embracing armchair, I will grant momentary respite to my lapsing reason.  In truth, I cannot feign to know what addiction is, and I will not presumptuously categorize individuals in equivocal terms.  The fact is that one man’s addiction is another man’s passion.  Furthermore, any attempt to isolate the “cause” of addiction is nothing more than an exercise in futility for several reasons, the primary one being that which I have just pointed out:  one cannot isolate what she cannot operationally define.  Moreover, biological research continues to show that nature and nurture are not mutually exclusive concepts—genes may be the guns, but the environment is the trigger!!  And of course a plethora of cogent research exists showing that sex and food (especially sugar) elicit physiological responses that mimic drugs (or vice-versa as the case may be).  In addition, the study of exercise physiology clearly shows that exercise releases endorphins, the brain’s “natural” opiates, which are much more powerful than morphine.  With that said, in the dim light of shadowy ignorance, allow me to convene the menial, questioning spirit of Socrates, and put this sensually arousing discussion to numbing rest.  Can exercise become addictive?  Can sleep become addictive?  Can food become addictive?  Can sex become addictive?  Can survival itself become addictive?  Finally, assuming an affirmative answer to any of the above, is it not possible to revamp Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in terms of compulsive behaviors and addictions?  Wow!!  What a HEAD-RUSH!!