Novel First Page Essentials

I have rewritten the first page 10 times - so far. Sound familiar? Good. Then you already understand the importance of a novel’s first page, and you could not be more right. Readers, editors, and agents alike are moved to the next page by the first one.

The first line should get the ball rolling with a mighty shove. You don’t get a second chance to make a first impression. The first few lines should render a promise, pose a question, introduce conflict, or use some other such literary mechanism (the hook) that will inspire the reader to want to keep reading.

You cannot write for every individual on the planet, but to give your first page it's best chance at keeping your reader interested, you might want to employ these elements and techniques:

• provide an image or feeling of setting (context within the action) 
• introduce your main character
• capture the reader’s attention with a narrative hook

Context within the action provides the reader with a sense of setting - where and when the story is taking place. Providing context for the action by identifying the setting establishes reader orientation and perspective. A reader who has to reread to get their bearing may lose enthusiasm for your story.

Generally your protagonist should make an appearance on the first page, and as with any character introduction, you should reveal their core characteristics. Introduce your characters with action. Describing what a character is doing or how they are reacting to a situation reveals aspects of their personality. Engaging characterization invokes reader feelings for the main character. Stated simply, we love to love our protagonist and loathe the antagonist. Characteristics such as clothing style, or an unusual physical condition are good characterization builders. The reader doesn't need to know details such as hair/eye color, height, and weight from page one (unless such details are critical to the current action).

A narrative hook is a literary technique used to engage or escalate reader interest. Common forms of a narrative hook are dramatic action, mysterious settings, interesting characterization, an engaging thematic statement, or a combination thereof.  A narrative style known as in medias res, (“into the middle”) in which story-telling begins at a midpoint, rather than the beginning, can be used to hook the reader. Of these techniques, dramatic action or a combination of dramatic action and interesting characterization, are almost ubiquitous in fiction novel writing. Dramatic action invokes reader curiosity about what the consequences of the action will be.

The narrative hook may consist of several paragraphs, or several pages, but ideally, hooking elements will be included in first sentence.  Hooking content is most effective if it is the focus of something important, particularly if it involves a major (or very interesting) life event: relationship, separation, employment, dismissal, sex or the refusal of sexual favors, survival, physical danger, death, and so on.

Using these essential story-telling techniques, you will have provided the reader with an interest in seeing what happens next. As readers reach the bottom of the page, hopefully they will be eager to turn to the next one.

Here is an example first page that fits on A5 size (from the first draft of my first novel) in its own 11th draft form. Decide for yourself whether if satisfies the qualities I have described, and leave a comment to let me know if by the time you finished reading, you wanted to read more.


Chapter 1

       My usual morning begins with smacking the snooze-button of my alarm clock-radio some number of times until being awake doesn't feel so utterly hateful. The antics of the morning talk-show filters past my resistance to waking and reels me into a groggy giggle; not a wholly unpleasant way to start a morning actually. The anticipation of my first cup of coffee motivates me to move my feet from under warm covers to the cold hardwood floor. But this morning, the last of my nocturnal adventures dissolved peacefully with the onset of consciousness and the dawning perception of traffic noise from the street below my window. The air in my room reeked of old coffee that sat too long on the burner – not the pot of joy it would have been two hours before. The clock-radio was silently flashing its bright red digits. Kicking and throwing covers in the air, I scrambled to my feet and hit the cluttered bedroom floor running. I skipped over boots, books, and what-not as I headed for the bedroom door that opened to the hallway. 

     There was no sight or sounds of roommates downstairs, and the bathroom door at the end of the hall was open. I gathered up my jeans, sniffed out the cleanest shirt, and quickly skip-walked in my T-shirt and boy’s briefs across the creaky hallway floor.  I had no idea what time it was, but judging by the volume of traffic noise outside, I made the logical presumption  that I would be late.

* * *

Here are some links to articles discussing first line, first page, and first chapters  …

How To Write The First Sentence
Grab The Reader From Page One
Introducing Your Protagonist
Storyville: Narative Hooks
The 3 C’s of Writing The First Page of Your Novel
The First Chapter of Your Novel

Cheers, and happy writing!

Fast Breaking

I do love early mornings. I wake hours before the sun begins its daily run across the sky; don the seasonally appropriate exercise apparel, climb high to nowhere on the Stairmaster, or jog down the long country road from my cabin to the state highway some 6 miles there and back. I start the coffee brewing on my return from the run (or stepping down from nowhere), then shower. All this is leading to the oracle event of all mornings - breakfast. On work-week days I typically break my nocturnal fast with a few hundred calories in the form of hot oatmeal, orange juice, and toast. But it is the weekend days that receive my homage and devotion to the morning meal.

On these fine weekend days, breakfast will include the delicious animal calories and fat that I avoid polluting my arteries with during the week. I can think of no way better to start the weekend morning with brisk exercise, a refreshing shower and subsequent hot cup of coffee, followed by an enormous caloric intake of animal proteins and lipids: scrambled eggs, sausage, bacon, hash-brown potatoes made in bacon grease, and biscuits with real butter, marmalade or real maple syrup. And nothing gives a house the smell of home like the aroma of sizzling bacon.

Happy fast breaking!

Plot Development

A plot is a series of linked events concerning a character who wants to acquire or achieve a goal that will be challenging to obtain. Each event should make a difference, or significantly relate to a subsequent event. If a particular significant event has no effect on the story line the event should probably not be part of the story.  For example: Jane and John are in love, but John cheats on Jane. Jane finds out and dumps John. John stalks Jane. Jane gets restraining order on John… and so on. Optimally, the events should reach a satisfactory conclusion (John is arrested for violating the restraining order).Also, events should escalate in ‘interest factor’ from one to the next, up to climactic point or resolution.

The story revolves around a protagonist. Other characters are antagonists at best, or collateral players. If the story is told from multiple viewpoints (switching viewpoint between Jane and John) then there are two plots.  Plot one is represented from Jane’s viewpoint – wanting a monogamous love relationship. Plot two is represented from John’s viewpoint - wanting Jane as his main squeeze, but free to play the field as well. If the story were told from the single viewpoint of Jane, the story would have only one plot.

So essentially a plot is about a character who wants something (to win the heart of his/her affection, to be an astronaut, earn back a lost reputation, or evade the law). The goal should not be an abstract concept. If the protagonist wants to “get rich fast”, the goal should be building the next great dot-com website or robbing a bank. The goal shouldn't be something simple or without opposition. Opposition can be an antagonist who wants to stop the protagonist for whatever reason, or some physical obstacle, or some internal – emotional strife, or  mental/behavioral disorder to overcome.

The plot should have a beginning, a middle, and an ending. The beginning presents the protagonist’s goal, the middle describes the effort toward achieving the goal, and the end reveals whether the goal is achieved or not and reveals how the goal has changed the protagonist or his/her circumstance. If nothing has changed about the protagonist’s life or circumstance, the story may have been a theme that demonstrates the futility of whatever the goal may have been, but such an ending be very difficult to portray to the reader. A novel may have a series of such plots or subplots.  If it does, each new protagonist goal should be more engaging than the previous goal, or at least as interesting, and generally the most engaging and interesting goal should be the last one.

The Lighter Side of Apathy

I had to Google "the royal baby" to see why this phrase had crossed my computer screen more than a few times over the last couple of days. On finding information on the "royal" nativity, the breadth of my general apathy grew. The litany of "news" items for which I lament having wasted time on just reading the headline is enormous - but not normally, only today as I verified the justification of and for my apathy. Just to name a few...

• Mayor Anthony Weiner acknowledged messages between himself and a woman not his wife...
• VA Gov. Robert McDonnell announced repayment to Star Scientific...
• Pope Francis' push to bring the papacy to the streets...
• Europe's decision to blacklist Hezbollah...
• Starbucks teams with French-based Danone to create a Greek yogurt...
• Netflix aims to craft 'House of Cards' into 'Harry Potter' hit...

These were "top stories"! 

Apathy, according to Wikipedia is "a state of indifference, or the suppression of emotions such as concern, excitement, motivation and passion". This sounds pretty serious, but still, I find that the proposition does not motivate any measure of concern in me. My absence of interest in emotional, social, spiritual, philosophical, and political matters is not what my apathy is about. I am apathetic about your emotional, social, spiritual, philosophical, and political concerns - unless your concerns somehow directly affect me. And I am apathetic about the inconsequential personal activities of politicians, celebrities, my neighbors, my neighbors kids and pets. I am a lot more concerned about dog poop in the park than I am about anything the Prince, the Pope, Presidents, and Pop-stars may or may not be doing in their personal lives, and very very little about what they are doing publicly.

According to "positive psychology", my apathy may be a result of feeling that I do not possess the level of skill required to confront a challenge, but in fact I am probably over-optimistic about my abilities. The truth is that I really just don't care about those aspects of other people's lives. And there are more things for which a fuck I do not give.

By definition, I may lack a sense of purpose or meaning in my life, to wit I respond; So what? Some may feel that I exhibit insensibility and/or insensitivity, and their observations would be accurate on many levels, but still, I continuously and consistently could not care less.

My Truth About Television

It has been 20 years since I unsubscribed my cable television. Truth: If I still subscribed I would probably be a couch potato like so many of you. I love documentaries on history, science, nature, technology... and on and on. The "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan is an all-time favorite. I love movies - all kinds, and particularly romantic comedies, science fiction, historical fiction, and movies  based on true stories. I am an avid Equal Rights (activist) and global science news junkie. I like and have enjoyed many television shows such as Star Trek, Cheers, Seinfeld, All In The Family (did I just date myself?), Futurama, The Simpsons, and a few others.

So what keeps me from subscribing to my local cable company? There are two sustaining reasons: For one, the information and entertainment value does not justify the health risk; yes health risk. According to a research report (JAMA, 2011) by Frank Hu and Andres Grontved , for every two hours of TV viewing, the risk of type 2 diabetes increased 20 percent. The risk of cardiovascular disease rose 15 percent and the risk of early death rose 13 percent. Of course the health factor is about sedentary behavior and not the television itself.

So I could easily argue that my rigorous fitness routine would nullify, or at least offset the harmful effects of sedentary time in front of the television, and the argument would be valid. However, the critical term in the previous sentence is 'time'.

I already spend eight to ten hours daily in sitting in front of a computer, working, writing, and surfing the Internet. If I were to incorporate or replace some of that time with watching television there would be little time left over for living. And by 'living' I mean seeing the world in person; participating instead of watching. Life is too short as it is to spend any more time looking at pictures of it. I would rather be in the picture.

Summertime Writing

Summertime, and the living is easy - but staying indoors to write/work is becoming increasingly horrible. I want to be outside playing in the hills, gardening, on a road trip to the beach..... anything that doesn't include being indoors.

You Owe It To Yourself

Being alive means exercising conscious awareness – not waiting to die, but living life for the sake of the journey – being in the moment to learn, love, and pursue happiness as a reason for being here. And by 'happiness' I am referring to the quality of a whole human life including well-being, joy, and yes, the lessons learned from pain, without which there would be little appreciation of the good.

The Greek word for happiness is eudaimonia, but not in the "joy" sense as it is normally meant in modern times. Eudaimonia more accurately translates as flourishing or thriving; as suggested in Aristotle's description of happiness as "living well". Not that joy has no place in the scheme of happiness, hopefully there would be many instances of joy in a life lived in the pursuit of happiness.

Conversely, a doctrine that supports self-immolation (self-sacrifice) for the "greater good" is an immoral proponent of self-loathing, fear, and hatred. Anything purporting the renunciation of your own happiness as a an ethical value is a negation of real morality.

Happiness is the foundation on which joy, without penalty, or guilt may be achieved. "A joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but of using your mind’s fullest power, not the joy of faking reality, but of achieving values that are real." ~ Ayn Rand.

The pursuit of happiness is something that you owe yourself, indeed, it is your highest moral purpose, because your ultimate and final responsibility on this planet is to your own life.

My Pet Bear

I confronted a bear in my 'front yard'. I heard noises from the open window, so I went out on the porch with a flashlight – I growled at the darkness like I always do to scare away stray dogs, raccoon, whatever, but it was all quiet. So I thought it might be teenagers or some other form of human prowler so I said to the darkness “Ok next time I come out with a shotgun.” Still all quiet. I gave the yard another sweep with the flashlight and just as I was about to turn and go back inside, the flashlight reflected the green glow of an animal’s eyes from the darkness near the corner of the garage. I moved the light back over to the eyes, and then noticed that all the blackness surrounding the glowing eyes was the form of the biggest black bear I had ever seen.

He stopped paying attention to me and went back to the goody bag that he had apparently retrieved my trash can ready for the morning pickup (or was ready). I watched in total awe for a minute or two – he was a magnificent looking animal. I say "he" because I am familiar with the relative sizes reached my adult male and female black bears, and this one could easily have weighed five hundred or so pounds. I’ve seen a few black bear in my day, even had a Yellowstone Park beggar lean up against my car hoping for a morsel.  But I have never seen one this big.

After some deliberation I decided that I should run him off since it could become quite a nuisance having the trash scattered around on a regular basis.  I growled, barked, and yelled to no avail.  The bear just kept eating and tearing up the trash bag. Then I was overcome with apparent temporary insanity and the wild notion that I could make a "pet" out of him - not in the classic sense, but perhaps feed him on a regular basis if he so chose to return. So I dashed back into the house and grabbed a fillet of Salmon from the fridge, went back outside, down the stairs, and started toward the bear. I held the fish out in front of me so he could smell it and maybe take an interest.  He stopped ripping the bag apart as I came within twenty feet or so.  He held a steady gaze into the flashlight.

Realizing the "dear in headlights" phenomena was likely in effect (despite his being a bear), I turned the light toward myself so that he could see me and make a decision. On realizing the situation he bolted toward the nearest tree and he jumped on the tree as though intending to climb it, but his weight proved too great for tree bark to support, but he held on as he slid downward leaving deep grooves in the innocent tree, and gave a mighty warning growl before reaching the ground. The magnitude of volume and obvious intent behind this growl brought me back to my senses and I threw the fish over near the trash bag he had been into, and made a hasty retreat back to the front porch. The bear lumbered off into the bushes. He didn't seem to be in much of a hurry so I went on back into the house hoping he would return to eat the fish in peace. It was an expensive piece of salmon and I hated to think it might go to waste in the belly of some other unworthy critter. Later I went out for a look and the salmon was gone.

My pet bear made one more visit some days later to destroy my bird feeder. I can't keep house plants alive. I don't know what made me think I could have a pet.

~

Seeing Past Recovery

For twenty years, or thereabouts, I have been working on freeing myself of the emotional baggage collected over the years (particularly from a childhood) that kept me motivated to remain "medicated" by alcohol and other sundry drug addictions. And though I no longer habitually partake of such substances I still consider myself to be on a path of recovery. This journey of healing has been paramount in unlocking my creative energies. So as I relinquish burdens that I am no longer willing to carry, my life more appropriately becomes about seeking happiness. Thus, and currently my life journey is guided by healing, loving myself, family and friends (chosen family), fulfilling my desire for new knowledge, seeing the beauty that abounds, and creating my truth through writing or whatever expression that moves through me.

Alas,  my mind has been conditioned to take beauty for granted, or not see it at all. So it is important to me to become aware of, and set aside my conditioning in order to hear and see more clearly. Unfortunately I often miss what is right in front of me. Familiar emotions and sensations so often pass unnoticed or are labeled and judged in a way that moves me past them with little or no real awareness.  My mind quickly labels what it perceives as good or bad and I respond with unconscious and automatic judgments – one of the more tenacious aspects of conditioning from which I am trying to recover.

At long last, there is a light at the end of the proverbial tunnel, and it is not my death. It is an existence illuminated by living a full life - conscious, aware, healed.

~

The Right To Defend

There are several reasons one may have for owning firearms... sport, hunting, collecting, but the two most critical are defense against personal injury, and defense against tyranny. A firearm is the best tool available to protect one's own, and/or the lives of family members. Even though a civilized society has laws against the use of physical force between members of its constituency, law enforcement officials are not capable of protecting you from criminals. The police collect evidence pertaining to a crime and arrest and formally accuse people who are suspected of committing an offense. However, if someone wants to kill or steal from you, then you must protect yourself since the police are not available for prevention.

Of course the hope is that we never have to use deadly force to defend ourselves. But that hope should not foolishly include being unprepared to do so. Fortunately for citizens of the United States, the authors of the constitution and Bill of Rights knew that; "An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny." The second amendment also states that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Unfortunately there is currently a growing constituency in favor of dissolving the right to own firearms. Revocation of the right would disarm law abiding citizens leaving weapons in the hands of law enforcement officials, the military, and criminals.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Thomas Jefferson

As Mr. Jefferson points out, gun control laws make it harder for law-abiding citizens seeking to protect themselves. Criminals already obtain weapons through illegal channels consequently they are unaffected by current, or additional gun control laws. Gun control is not the solution to ending random killing.

As it is, government already holds a monopoly of sorts on the legal use of physical force. From the government position, it must hold such a monopoly as the restraining element of the use of force by its constituency against each other, and against the government itself.  For that reason alone, government must be rigidly defined and controlled by the people.

According to the National Crime Survey administered by the Bureau of the Census and the National Institute of Justice, it was found that only 12 percent of those who use a gun to resist assault are injured, as are 17 percent of those who use a gun to resist robbery. These percentages are 27 and 25 percent, respectively, if they passively comply with the felon's demands. Three times as many were injured if they used other means of resistance.[1]

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
 --Thomas Jefferson

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."
 -- Thomas Jefferson

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
 -- Thomas Paine

"Who will govern the governors? There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its
 rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government"
 -- Thomas Jefferson

1. G. Kleck, "Policy Lessons from Recent Gun Control Research," Law and Contemporary Problems 49, no. 1. (Winter 1986.): 35-62.

~

Agnostic Atheist

No, agnosticism is not atheism lite. Like theism, atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is a logical proposition. To expedite discourse on these concepts I first offer these generally agreed upon definitions:

Theism: 1. Belief in the existence of a God or gods, especially belief in a personified God entity as creator. 

Atheism: 1. Belief that there is no God. 2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. 

Agnosticism: 1. The doctrine that certainty about truth is unattainable without proof, and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. A doctrine affirming that there can be no proof either that god exists or that god does not exist.

The most notable and relevant difference between these definitions is that two of them (theism and atheism) describe suppositions based on an unknown, both of which represent a departure from critical thinking and enter the realm of believing in something based on feeling, whereas agnosticism describes a neutral conclusion about knowledge based on a lack of evidence. Knowledge (information gained by proof) is a separate issue from a belief in something for the want of it.

The term 'agnosticism' is predominately used to claim abstinence from siding with the belief or non-belief in the existence of a God or gods. But by definition, agnosticism enjoys a broader meaning. Agnosticism is rooted in logic; a position that does not permit a claim of something unknowable or predicated by negative proof. Both theism and atheism claim to have knowledge based on a negative proof (also known as a faulty inference), which constitutes a logical absurdity. To the agnostic, all such proposals, are equally untenable. Consequently, agnosticism is not a withdrawal from participation, but rather a position of non-participation because there is nothing to contend.

True agnosticism includes no opinion about the existence, or non-existence of God or gods. As an adjective, 'agnostic' can be used with theism or atheism. One might believe in gods without claiming absolute knowledge of their existence, a position which could be described as agnostic theism. Conversely one might disbelieve in gods without claiming absolute knowledge of their non-existence, which could be described as agnostic atheism.

For years I called myself a true agnostic with no emotional investment in the belief or disbelief in the existence of God - most likely my religiously fraught childhood instilled in me at least some modicum of belief that there may be a god  presiding over my possible continuance beyond the duration of my biological form; a god that may very well deny extended existence to non-believers, yet show leniency toward those who simply claimed not to know what cannot be known. However, brainwashing in youth dissipates with intellectual maturation, and the notion that persistence after death might be presided over by some deity, is recognized for the fairy tale that it is. This concession is an implicit acceptance of atheism - a disbelief derived from nothing more substantial than the same disbelief I have in the existence of Santa Claus - it seems unreasonable. Nevertheless, holding that something is unreasonable without proven data to support the conclusion still constitutes a belief not held in evidence, and consequently represents a departure from pure logic of which, I confess my guilt. However, I qualify my departure from pure logic to an atheistic belief with the 'agnostic' adjective. I don't believe there is or ever was a god (atheist), but withhold judgment about proving this belief (agnostic) since such a thing cannot be verified. My use of the agnostic adjective with my atheist belief does not redeem my departure from pure logic on this matter, but it does qualify and explain my refusal to engage in a discussion about the consequences and/or rewards of being naughty or nice.

~

Ego

The abundance and proliferation of "ego" nay-sayers has always surprised and caused me to shake my head in disbelief. First: it should be clear that I reject the commonly accepted misunderstanding of ‘ego’ that is ubiquitous in our society – that promoting one’s ego is somehow pathological, or the contention "having an ego" represents some kind of spiritual malady. I have never understood, and completely reject this little piece of stupidity, obviously not founded on any system of reason or rational thinking.  Second: there is no source within us, which is without ego since the self is the ego.  Borrowing from Merriam-Webster's definition:

Ego -- 1: the self, especially as contrasted with another self or the world

So basically your ego is who you are. And personally, I am not interested in depreciating who I am.
Do the anti-egoist support their absurd contention because the ego by nature is NOT self-sacrificing or self-immolating (which for some insane reason are considered virtuous behaviors in our society)? People denounce ego and wonder about the amoral condition of society at large – what a pity. What else could there be in a society that promotes self-loathing – and make no mistake about it, denouncing the ego is an unequivocal promotion of self-loathing by simple virtue of the meaning of the word ego.

The natural condition of ego is not self-sacrificing, self-immolating or any other such form of self-depreciation. The ego by nature is self-promoting, not self-depreciating. The natural inclination of ego is toward self-esteem and pride, not shame. The ego and its natural extension – pride is about believing in yourself and your abilities. Feeling pride in your abilities and accomplishments is the recognition of your own self-worth.  Pride and ego are all about recognizing self-worth through the realization that you are capable of producing value and consequently capable of sustaining your own life. How can this be considered bad in any way? The amoral faction who consider pride to be a sin are the proponents of fear, hate, and discrimination that plague society.

Rewire America.

~

On Freedom

Freedom is not an illusion. It is an unrealized concept. Within any social framework the concept of freedom pertains to its constituency as a whole, and the individual members are bound by governance. Consequently, to maintain a feeling of freedom while adhering to the social mandate, you must manifest the concept of freedom within your own particular cage - or not.

Other freedom challenges can include physical impairment, financial issues, obligations, property ownership, family and other relationship affiliations, and so on. Whatever your cage may look like, your freedom is what you make of it. True freedom cannot be granted or taken away. It is achieved within your own heart and mind. That is the only mantra on freedom that permits its actualization, and I live it because I choose not to fester and die by constriction.

What I Really Think

In a recent conversation while lambasting faith, television, spectator sports, gender assignment, flu shots, the patriarchy, decaffeinated coffee, and other such nonsensical and/or useless conventions and inventions,  my audience of one interrupted my soliloquy with the seemingly comedic interjected question; "So, what do you really think?" True enough, I am, and have been abrupt on many an occasion in my reactions to piety and other institutions of mindlessness – but in defense of my social skills, I most often only rail against that which has been shoved in my face, or otherwise been made unavoidable.

To me, whether it is Heaven or Hell, no mantra, dogma, or their associated ‘ism’ is too sacred for derision. Yes, I will even make sport of militant ignorance to amuse myself and other rational thinkers within earshot. Trivializing issues of grave concern is the American way of covering up or otherwise euphemizing that which we don’t want to see is it not?  And if it can’t be trivialized then you can probably get a prescription for it.

Yeah, I know - just tell us what you really think. . .

Well I think that a really good cheesecake is better with Champagne than chocolate.  And I think that Champagne is best when shared with a lover, though I dare say, it can be pretty damned good self-served a la singular. I think the earth is an imperfect spheroid in orbit around a dying star.  I think Jack must have been a dull boy to begin with for even considering cutting out play time for work. I believe Oswald was a pawn of a much larger conspiracy. I am finally convinced that there is at least a good chance that I may die some day, which consequently makes all of this seem so unimportant, and yet dramatically important at the same time, and that bodes well with my belief that all that really matters is what is happening right now.  Consequently it is my personal charge to make the best of it.  I celebrate the present, because in a very real sense, it is all that we have.

“Life moves pretty fast.  If you don’t stop and look around sometime, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller

Skeptical and Mystical Absurdity

In a recent discussion with an online acquaintance about Skepticism and mysticism and whatnot, I found myself once again in the position of having to defend logic, reason, and rational thinking.  Much of the difficulty in maintaining focus in the conversation stemmed from the lack of common definition of critical terms.  For that reason I offer a definition of "mysticism" relevant to our discussion from Webster’s dictionary:

Mysticism: Any doctrine that asserts the possibility of attaining knowledge through intuition. 

Essentially mysticism is the acceptance of allegations as factual – a claim of some irrational means of knowledge such as intuition, revelation, or any other form of “just knowing”, also to my amusement, referred to as magical thinking.  I also draw on Webster’s definition of knowledge since that word seems to be wholly misunderstood by Skeptics and mystics. I use these published definitions because they represent a common ground for communication.  An attempt to use these words with some meaning other than their accepted published definitions removes the common ground element of communication.

My debate participant oscillated between supporting proponents of both Mysticism and Skepticism (which are logically in opposition) and being exposed to such "crazy making" anti-reasoning was challenging to say the least.  At one point he expressed having no certainty about "anything" (classic Skepticism); an unacceptable contention because I am not willing to doubt my mind's ability to form cogent interpretations of my perceptions - particularly when perceiving scientifically obtained results or any other self-evident truth. (To be certain, I am not referring to scientific skepticism which is simply the requirement of proof to substantiate knowledge.  I am specifically referring to the philosophy sector known as Skepticism - a doctrine that questions truth in knowledge, even doubting existence itself which of course is a logical absurdity).

Existence merits identification for the sake of our (humankind) understanding of the concept as such, and it is simply that existence exists.  Existence cannot be reduced to any other sub-part or component and therefore needs no other evaluation or verification.  An argument that would attempt to disprove existence would constitute an absurdity (i.e. proof by means of non-existence).

The laws of Nature are unequivocal, absolute universal corollaries of existence.  I do not mean to imply that all of Nature’s secrets are attainable.  Humankind obviously does not know or fully comprehend all of Nature’s secrets, and has miscalculated more than a few – but those discrepancies in the repository of human knowledge, in no way permit an existence that defies the natural laws.  Pardon the personification, but Nature doesn't care about the accuracy or inaccuracy of our theories concerning her order.  But the fact that Nature has secrets, and that we are as yet unable to decipher many of them, does not substantiate a general negation of knowledge and truths that have been observed and verified.  Factual, knowable information is not contingent on doubt.

The principles of an objective reality are self-evident and absolute.  (Note that I do not claim to offer proof of these principles.  An attempt to prove an irreducible self-evident principle would be equally as absurd as trying to disprove it.  To propose that these axioms are not self-evident truths would constitute a denial and evasion of reality.

By the same token, reality does not permit a claim of truth where there is no available evidence, such as the existence of god, or other such forms of mysticism or magical thinking.  The mystic’s claim of “knowledge” without any evidence to support the claim does not conform to the definition of knowledge and consequently represents nothing more than conjecture by speculation.

My debate contestant also asked what does logic have to do with the real world (implying that logic is only useful as a tool for proving Boolean expressions).  My answer was and is everything - provided that you intend on conducting your affairs and making decisions based on the precepts of reason and rational thought, but certainly logic has no bearing at all if you operate on a belief system rooted in mysticism. Thinking is an act of identifying and integrating information.  Logic is the application of non-contradictory identification.  Logic is the fundamental concept of method on which all other rational methods depend. The abandonment of logic is the first condition on which mysticism and Skepticism depend (which is likely the only commonality between those classically divergent camps).

I reject mysticism for accepting something as factual without proof, and I reject Skepticism for upholding that provable information cannot be conclusively substantiated or true.  Both of these contentions represent logical absurdities.  To assert that natural facts (i.e. existence) can not be proved is to create an unnatural dichotomy between logic and reality.  This kind of anti-reasoning is what Skepticism sustains.  Credulity in a system that permits this kind of abandonment of reason leaves its constituents within the confines of hopeless perpetual uncertainty.

The application of reason, which inherently sustains the integrity of knowledge and truth is freely available to anyone choosing to think rationally.  It is not a requirement that anyone subject themselves to the impairment of their cognitive faculties as demanded by the Skeptic and the Mystic.  Fortunately, reason and rational thinking are matters of volition.

~

Fascism American Style

American fascism is a long standing tradition that began with the arrival of Columbus and the establishment of Jamestown by the English.  In post-conquest America (after slavery and extermination of the aboriginals) fascism flourished in economic crisis.  The conservative movement today is directly derived from the Lincoln administration that defined the post-civil war oligarchic state - a vision embraced by every aspect of the modern American Republican party, from the support of the religious right, to their obsessive, mindless nationalism. This modern oligarchic movement is also blatantly racist, sexist, exclusionary, and determined to keep its hold on the American public through control of the media, and backed by its sustained implementation of military and para-military (police) force.

Some have told me that comparing the Republican party to Fascism is an extremist and alarmist point of view, but is it?  According to Wikipedia:

"Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology [that] seeks rejuvenation of the nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and eugenics."

Sounds like modern conservatism to me.  The modern conservative (Republican) movement promotes social change through "moral revolution", and the glorification of nationalism, just as Fascism does. Fascism and Republican conservatism  reject internationalism, pacifism, liberalism.  Republican conservative values are rooted in the concepts of social class order in which 98 percent of the population are in servitude to the ruling 2 percent. Fascism and Republican conservatism are anti-feminist as evidenced by policies on birth control and abortion (just to mention two).

There may not have been a committed institutional partnership between conservative elites and the Bush administration but most observations would testify otherwise. Advent of an American version of totalitarianism as demonstrated by Nazi Germany and other fascist regimes blossomed in the wake of the World Trade Center disaster of September 11, 2001, and there seems to be no limiting the ever expanding police state.

The conservative faction supports and promotes terrorist action by law enforcement agencies against American citizens in peaceful protest.  From here, does it escalate to murder and targeting certain groups for elimination?  Or are we already there.  From the alternative minority (GLBTQ) point of view we certainly are.

Republicans target immigrants, gays, women, and liberals for persecution. Republicans do not want the public to recognize the need to replace the corrupt media, and a government system that gets away with stealing away rights under the banner of national security and moral values.

Anyway, I digress, and ramble on.  In the absence of returning to common sense and social sanity, at the very least, now that Osama bin Laden is dead, can we please have a little dignity returned to the mass transit experience -- do away with Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, and whatever other fascist implement that was enacted after 9/11?

Answer: Probably not in my lifetime.

~

Solitude

    I made my home as far from the city as feasibly possible. Not so much for reasons as noble or lofty as to live deliberately in the woods, though I delightfully embrace that aspect as well. I came to live on the edge of a great wilderness so that I might find solitude for peaceful living and to find an environment where I might do something with my creative inspirations.

    I settled not squarely in the thick of the unshorn wild, but in a riverside cabin on the edge of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness area of the Cascade mountains.  Neighboring houses can be seen through the trees, but the general occupancy of the area is elderly and quiet. Elk and deer regularly visit my cabin grounds, and the occasional bear brutally inspects my garbage can. Even though they may not welcome my presence here, I am none-the-less honored by, and welcome theirs. Very few people visit my cabin; the once or twice per year Jesus merchant, and the occasional drop-by visit of a friend/loved one, and I enjoy their good company, made sweeter by time passed in their absence.

    These ramblings may ring somewhat misanthropic, but such an interpretation would be inaccurate. Though neither is philanthropy substantially intrinsic to my nature (or yours), I am not given to indifference either. However, my first obligation is to my own health and happiness, without either of which, I would be incapable of giving back. - this unequivocal truth is a natural human fact, and it is ubiquitous, albeit woefully, and seldom acknowledged or expressed.

    Because I chose to live in the woods, despite being alone, I have yet to discover the meaning of loneliness. Within the confines of my cabin, I have little serving the effusive media machine (no television or radio); a computer for writing, employment telecommuting, social networking, blogging, and such.  This connection to the outside world is enough to satisfy whatever general need I may have for human contact (intimate companionship notwithstanding). I suppose my lifestyle is as close to hermitage that can be had while still having intimacy and employment needs.
 
    I need to be alone to bring my creative inspirations to fruition. Being in solitude brings many things to the creative and emotional table; thoughts that can lead you to tears, laughter, revelation, invention, and art. Alone is when conversation occurs spontaneously and continuously in your mind. Given ample isolation and time, you may get to know yourself.  Solitude is the condition in which creativity is afforded the opportunity to flourish without distraction. And of recent, I have been writing and singing often .....

    .... Sometimes I engage my creative energy with a walk down to the creek, which I just did at the conclusion of the last paragraph. Each season has its own song, and myriad of sun spilled colors dancing on clear water caressing the rocks beneath a flowing surface. I have pelted the creek with stone and stick, and splashed my face with its icy snow-melted freshness. In early autumn the trees still replete with yellow, orange and brown leaves, applaud the efforts of the wind with gentle hushed rustlings. They cling desperately to the mother bough, each one engaged in its own unique dance with the wind. Catching sight of one released from the clutches of its twig is as likely as predicting the point where a lightening bolt may exit a thundercloud, but I am pleased enough to watch for one, and follow the flight path of any that may enter my view. Out from under the shelter of my cabin roof and walls, I welcome the dilution of my solitude by the presence of nature. Connecting and comingling with the abundance of life outdoors feeds the fire of my inspiration further, and after some time I am torn between lingering and being compelled to go back inside to describe what I can.

    Back inside the cabin the aroma of coffee hangs in the air.  Scanning the interior with its unfilled chairs and couch, I sense the lingering essence of loved ones and visitors now gone. The floor speaks to me in crackles as I head for the kitchen and the coffee, reminding me that I am not really completely alone in my animated little home in the country. Steam from the fresh brew rises up from my cup, to remind me to sip with care. The oak table in the kitchen creaks a complaint against my resting elbows as I lean closer toward the window, in the hope of seeing something more - something I may have missed while walking; some forest creature perchance passing in the safety of my withdraw, or the flight of one more leaf.

    Shifting my gaze from the beauty beyond the window pane, back to the stillness inside, I close my eyes to look within me for the words to describe the quality and character of my solitude. These that I have written thus far, scarcely express what I had hoped to convey. I am going back outside with my coffee.

 ~