In college I took enough psychology courses that I could have minored in it, had I simply declared it.Focused on ministry at the time, this declaration never happened.My own psychological issues (who doesn’t have them?) show up, I suspect, to those skilled at spotting such things, and friends sometimes suggest books I might enjoy reading.As a result I recently finished Paradox and Counter-Paradox by Mara Selvini Palazzoli, Luigi Boscolo, Gianfrancro Cecchin, and Guiliana Prata.Attempting to summarize the study would necessarily over-simplify what is clearly a very complex topic—what used to be called schizophrenia—but the basic idea can be explained.These psychoanalysts worked as a team to help patients with (since it was the 1970s) schizophrenia.Realizing that the basic mental processes are developed within a family, their practice used group therapy to treat families rather than singling out the “sick individual.”This book is an account of the methods they used.
Seeing schizophrenia as a family issue rather than an individual one, the therapists saw the identified patient as often a child trying to keep family expectations in order.The psychoanalyst team called this a “game” played by families seeking homeostasis—the perceived state of balance between members to assure that things stay the same.The psychotic member enables this to happen and families, as recounted in some of the cases, clearly try to manipulate the situation to keep this strange and awkward balance.The doctors used paradoxical (thus the title) scenarios to treat such families and reported a good rate of success.The focal point of their work was often not on the “sick” member, but on the group dynamics which led to the sickness.
The idea is a fascinating one.We are all members of families (with some exceptions), and the way our group functions is, for the most part, acceptable.Dysfunction, however, sometimes leads to psychosis, which, according to these authors, is a state of affairs best treated on a family scale.While it may be easy for me (having grown up in a clearly dysfunctional family) to see this, I sometimes wonder at how widespread mental issues really are.Our species lives a highly unnatural existence for evolved beings.Our work together in family units often leads to conflicts, overt and subtle.Children—often the identified patients here—can see such things much more clearly than we frequently suppose.Afraid of the consequences, they learn to play the game to keep the situation stable, if untenable.There’s great insight here, even if the book is a touch outdated; our learning about the human mind is never-ending and it makes perfect sense to pay attention to the context when wondering about the results.
This past week we had a plumber here for a day.Our house has been owned by a succession of DIY weekend warriors who had more confidence than ability when it came to things like electric and water (which, I’ve learned, you want to keep apart).Somehow our home inspector failed to spot these costly fixes, and I try to think of them all as investments—a concept foreign to a guy with my background of living paycheck to paycheck.In any case, all this plumbing has me thinking deep thoughts about water.And depth.Things are seldom what they seem—there’s more below the surface, and those who struggle with the depths often come up with sayings we call profound.And they often express them in poetic form because, when you get deep enough, words themselves break down.
I often consider this in the context of science.Physicists break things down into formulas.There’s a certain uniformity, they tell us, until you reach the quantum level, then the rules change.I sometimes see this as an analogy with the staid nature of scientific prose versus the depth of good poetry.Or even, dare I suggest it, profound fiction.These sometimes explain our world better than the accepted facts of mundane existence, such as water always seeking the lowest point.There comes a profundity, however, at which down becomes up.The behavior of water, which we want in our houses but only in controlled locations, is somehow indicative of this.“Deep calls unto deep” as one ancient source says.And the plumber walks away with a good chunk of your cash.
Learning about science in school, I was always taught that good science is elegant—there should be beauty in a theory that explains the world.I’ve often wondered how this fits in with a reality that is often messy—chaotic even.Ancient peoples from the area that produced our Bible believed water to be chaotic.It had to be controlled by the gods.It is vital for life, we need it and yet it wreaks havoc on dry land as those who experience hurricanes know all too well.The world into which I was born was one of indoor plumbing.Once water gets in, as our leaky roof attests, it introduces chaos in a place we want to stay dry.When water won’t behave like we want it to, however, we no longer call on the gods.We call a plumber and pay our offering with profound reverence.
I’ve tried turning it off, but it sometimes doesn’t work.Every time there’s a system update (about every other hour, now) the new system reloads autocorrect.True, my weary fingers are glad for the help when they just can’t spell hypocoristic, but it does seem that autocorrect, although the results are often funny, has no sense of humor.As a writer I often use ironic misspellings.I sometimes have my irony interpreted as ignorance, but if writers aren’t misunderstood they’re not doing their jobs, I suppose.The thing that gets to me is that those who program autocorrect—although sometimes they’re right—can’t let us express ourselves as we wish.The other day I wrote something witha deliberate misspelling.When I hit the “post” button I realized I’d been autocorrected to a nonsense word in the context.I thought I’d turned autocorrect off.
Now don’t get me wrong—I’m not the world’s greatest speller.Sometimes I use words with the slightly wrong connotation.My choices, however, are generally deliberate.Unless my device has selected them, that is.I suspect that autocorrect is appreciated by those who type on tiny screens.The affluent, I notice, wear iWatches.I wonder if they carry tiny people in their pockets whose thumbs can fly across such minuscule surfaces.“No,” someone told me, “it has voice recognition technology.”I was reminded of some embarrassing mispronunciations I’ve made.In seminary the homiletics professor had an individual session with me.“Given your educational background,” he told me, “you don’t mispronounce many words.”Oh, but I do.I just save them for the most embarrassing situations.
My inner critic’s a pretty active guy for his age.He doesn’t need autocorrect to make me realize how little I know.That’s the thing about technocrats, though.They like to correct us based on the most common combinations of these letters.Sometimes I glance back at something I wrote and find a word I don’t even know replacing something that was, in fact, correctly typed in the first place.I write in a program called Scrivener.My Mac’s too old to run Word, and Pages isn’t bad, but it doesn’t allow for the complex architecture of my thoughts (and I’m no architect; I can’t even spell it).In other words, I have to turn autocorrect off not only on my device, but also in the individual applications I run.But then there are days when verisimilitude just won’t flow the way it should without it.
On the way home from Ithaca, we’ve learned the hard way to avoid I-80 through the Poconos on a holiday weekend.Past experience indicates that about 80 percent of the population of New Jersey (to be fair, a percentage of that may be those from New York City) tries to squeeze through the Delaware Water Gap at just about dinner-time the day before work starts again.There is a longer alternate route, I-476, the turnpike, which you catch north of Scranton and exit in Allentown.The only issue with this plan is that, unless you want to exit the turnpike to try to find food in rural Pennsylvania, there’s only one travel plaza between our entrance and exit.It’s a nice enough stopping point, but for a vegan on the road options are limited.As we pulled in we noticed there was a Burger King.Would they have the much touted “impossible burger”?
It turns out that they did.Having last had a whopper well over two decades ago, mouth memory may have faded a bit, but I can honestly say this was like the whopper I remembered.If you hold the cheese and mayo, you have a vegan version.This discovery made me strangely happy.For years at remote locations (and some urban) we’ve stopped when the only other options are meat based and had the BK veggie burger.It’s not too bad most of the time, but if you want to think you’re eating meat while not contributing to the massive environmental degradation of industrial farming, the impossible burger seems like a reasonable option.This is one area of technology that I’m glad seems to be catching up with ethics.
I often ponder how much our western point-of-view is based on the Bible.Our reluctance to include animals in our ethics is another example of how the hard line between species has been applied.Even scientists are susceptible to worldview bias.When we realize we’re all part of a continuum of biological relatedness, it’s a lot more difficult to argue for our special place in the divine eye.At the same time, insisting one’s ethics be applied to all is a form of fascism.I’m just glad my conscience can be assuaged with some plant-based food options.After all, I’ve been on the road for a few hours and I’m sitting here happy to be eating at Burger King.It’s a matter of perspective.
Turn about, they say, is fair play.Turin, on the other hand, is a city in Italy.Its claim to fame is a shroud housed there that is believed by many to be Jesus’ burial cloth.Tests have been done over the years, most authoritatively a carbon-dating done by three independent laboratories, with the results suggesting a medieval origin to the cloth itself.In case your chronology is a little hazy, the medieval period comes centuries after the time Jesus lived.Now, some thirty years after the definitive study, some scientists are questioning the results.They’re being skeptical of the skeptics.Turn about.According to a story in The Catholic Register, a Freedom of Information Act request, honored only by one of the three labs (the one at Oxford University) has revealed that the bits of the shroud subjected to analysis were the worst possible parts of the cloth to test.Herein lies the rub: scientists like to poke holes in credulousness—what do you do when your science is itself the subject of skepticism?
The Shroud of Turin, like Donald Trump, is one of those utterly arcane artifacts that unites Catholics and Evangelicals.When I was growing up these two groups were the cats and dogs of the theological world.They united under the umbrella of conservative social causes during the Bush years and have been sleeping together ever since (while both convinced that the other is going straight to Hell when it’s all over).You see, the Shroud is a Catholic possession and allegedly bears wounds that support the Catholic narrative.(The Vatican has never declared it an authentic relic, however.)Evangelicals see it as proof positive that Jesus was resurrected, and so they tend to go further than the Catholics in citing it as proof.We live in odd times when believers successfully out-skeptic the skeptics.
Since the other two laboratories (the University of Arizona and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) haven’t released the raw data, the grounds for a conspiracy theory grow fertile.When information is kept secret, that’s a natural enough response.The conspiracy-prone mind asks why the data isn’t being made public.They do have a point.The claims of religion are often hoisted on the petard of “no evidence” and when evidence (such as the lab results) exists but isn’t shown, that suggests somebody’s hiding something.I have no vested interest in the authenticity of the shroud, but we all should have such an interest in getting at the truth.The turnabout in this case, however, was completely unexpected.
It’s a little bit worrying.Not just the GOP’s indifference in the face of two mass shootings on the same weekend, but also the fact that the internet knows who I am.I am the reluctant owner of a smartphone.I do like that I have the internet in my pocket, but I’m a touch paranoid that I can be traced to anywhere unless I lose my phone.Even then the government can probably email me and tell me where it is.Don’t get me wrong—I’m not important enough for the government to pay attention to me, but what is really worrisome is that the web knows me.Here’s how I came to learn that.On my home computer I had done a rather obscure Google search.(If you read this blog that won’t surprise you, and no, it wasn’t anything naughty!)When I signed into my work computer—different username, different email address, different IP address—and had to do a work related search, Google auto-suggested the search I did on a different computer over the weekend.
I’m savvy enough to know that Google metrics are all about marketing.The internet wants customer information to predict what they might sell to us.Advertisers pay for that.Assuming that I want to buy underwear and summer dresses online (why?), they tailor their ads to sites I visit.As a sometime fiction writer I go to some sites from which I’m not interested in purchasing anything.(As an aside, old fashioned book research didn’t leave such a “paper trail.”)I’ve gotten used to the idea of my laptop knowing me—it sits on my lap everyday, after all—but the work computer?Does it have to know what I’ve been doing over the weekend?
Artificial intelligence is one thing, but hopping from one login to another feels like being caught in the shower by a stranger.Like everyone else, I appreciate the convenience of devices.When I get up in the morning my laptop’s more sure of who I am than my own sleep-addled brain is.That doesn’t mean my devices really know the essence of who I am.And it certainly doesn’t mean that my work computer has any right to know what I was doing on another device over the weekend.Those who believe machine consciousness is now underway assume that this is a step forward, I suppose.From the perspective of one who’s being stalked by electronic surveillance, however, the view is quite different.Please leave my personal life at the door, as I do when I go to work.
Nothing makes you feel quite as old as seeing a documentary where the names of the experts are unfamiliar to you because they’re too young.So it was when I watched PBS’s Ancient Skies episode “Gods and Monsters.”They had me at “Monsters” although I know that when paired with gods the term generally refers to Greek mythology.This documentary had a pretty cool rendition of Marduk battling Tiamat that would’ve left many a Babylonian quaking in his or her sandals.Ranging across the world, it showed the earliest efforts to understand astronomy, and then went on to contrast it with how the ancients nevertheless still believed in gods.It was a striking kind of condescension, I thought.Many scientists today still believe in a deity, although it’s no longer the fashion.
That sharp dichotomy, that either/or, bothers me a bit.It’s not that I have a problem with science—I’ve always supported the scientific method.No, it’s the idea that everything is explained that bothers me.We understand so little about the universe.Yes, we’ve made great strides over the past millennia, but we’ve not even been out of the cosmic neighborhood yet.And I wish we could acknowledge that even on earth life is still a mystery that can only be solved with poetry as well as reason.“Gods and Monsters” made the point that the ancients realized the explanatory value of stories.Myths weren’t just idle constructs to pass the time.They were ways of understanding how this universe works.Some people take their mythology too seriously, of course, but that doesn’t mean that no stories are required to make sense of it all.
It was the inherent conflict implied between science and religion, I think, that bothered me the most.Not everything in life comes down to an equation.That doesn’t mean that equations are wrong, just that they’re not everything.One of the points Ancient Skies makes is that people of bygone eras had a very sophisticated understanding of the sky.It featured the builders of the great pyramid of Khufu, those who constructed Stonehenge, the Maya, and the Babylonians.They all knew much of the math that would only be formulated in Europe much later.And they all assuredly believed in gods.It didn’t prevent them from complex thought in either architecture or astronomy.Our modern dilemma is the razor burn left by standing before the mirror too long with Occam.You don’t have to shave to support science.