Thoughts on various subjects

 I have a site at https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought. In it are insights and observations on a number of issues, from religion and psychology to politics and economics. A huge site, it contains material for anyone interested in broadening their minds or developing insight into these issues.

Cossacks And Cowboys

The Cowboys and the Cossacks are both regarded as symbol of manhood and freedom in their respective countries, America and Russia. Examining both of these groups sheds light as to the character of the manhood of both countries.

Both the Cowboys and the Cossacks are looked back upon fondly by many people because both groups were largely independent from the government. That carries appeal to those people who see government as organ of oppression. What people who think in this way fail to realize is that government is not the only organ that is capable of oppression, and both the Cowboys and the Cossacks were themselves guilty of brutal and oppressive tactics. But that does not reduce their appeal to people who have little perspective besides that of "government bad, people good." What is however instructive about both Cowboys and Cossacks is that these groups, operating in relative absense of government, give insight into the character of both American and Russian people in its raw form.

The Cowboys were settlers in America who moved to the frontier wanting to be away from the government. The Cossacks were peasants in Russia who likewise struck off on their own. Both groups valued their independence, and yet both groups were intensely patriotic. The Cossacks provided troops for the Russian army while demanding from the government some distance and tax breaks in return for their collaboration. The Cowboys likewise were likely to volunteer for American army, having it understood that the American government followed its promise of remaining true to its constitutional principles.

The Cowboys were focused primarily upon economic gain and went out to the Frontier to ranch. They also knew how to fight and fought to drive out the natives, to protect their property, and to defend their settlements from raids both by natives and by one another. They were both farmers and warriors - farmers by choice, warriors by necessity. The Cossacks were first and foremost warriors and fought for Russian army in its wars. They were the best warriors in Russian army, with Napoleon claiming that, if he had soldiers such as Cossacks, he would rule the world.

The Cossacks were led by a chief known as the hetman, with a Band Assembly known as Rada having legislative powers. They were sworn to an unwritten law of the Cossack tradition. The Cowboys followed a cowboy code as well that had frontier and Victorian influences. While the Cossack code was totally sworn to Cossack tradition, the cowboy code likewise had many traditional influences but also stressed self-reliance and was more tolerant of individualism.

The Cowboys were seen to be real men when they were able to hold their own in battle and to provide for their families. The Cossacks were mostly measured by their military success. The Cowboys had far more interest in economic gain than did the Cossacks, who had far less respect for property or wealth and frequently conducted raids of neighboring people and taking their property.

The Cowboys and Cossacks were both masculine and violent cultures. But whereas the Cowboys had some chivalric notions to go along with their

violence, the Cossacks were blatantly misogynistic. Both cultures were full of brutality; but Cowboys also had some noble notions regarding treatment of women that Cossacks did not. Alongside Cowboys there were also "cowgirls," or women who went to Frontier to farm and to ranch. There is no record of women Cossacks, or of women having any place in Cossack society except as bearers of children.

So were the Cowboys better than Cossacks? Not on all modes of quantification. In the contemporary times, the Cossack descendants score higher than their neighbors in literacy, whereas the Cowboys and their descendants are aggressively anti-education and see schools and universities in the same derogatory way in which they see the government.

Take all these things and put them together, and you know everything you need to know about manhood in Russia and America.

https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

Removing the beam from one's eye

As someone who's written in favor of goodwill between men and women, I am asked such questions as “what if you've found terrible things in your partner's character?” The response to that is, By what code? If you are using Adler or Freud or self-esteem psychology toward that effect, then your analysis is going to be wrong. You may find things that these people think to be terrible that are not terrible at all. If you are applying a wrong reference point, you will come up with wrong conclusions.

I have seen such conclusions made by contemporary psychology. Someone may be genuinely altruistic and like helping people, only to be told that this is a product of low self-esteem. Someone may want to love and be loved, only to be told that this is the product of narcissism. I take issue when good things are presented as bad things. And we see plenty of that in psychology.

When people have wrongful expectations, usually as a result of wrongful beliefs such as the above, they are going to find nobody whom they would find of good character. When expectations are absurd ones or incorrectly informed, nobody will be able to meet them. There will be people pretending to meet them. They are known as players. One would have screened out most of what is out there and wound up with absolutely the worst.

The Greeks made a similar mistake. They applied ridiculous standards toward women. No human woman could meet the standards they set. Then they decided that women were inferior or evil. They became misogynistic, and they passed that attitude to posterity. Women are still suffering today as a result.

Similarly, the misandrists became that way because they applied to men ridiculous standards – standards that no human male could meet. So they decided that men were bad – an error mirroring that of the Greeks.

Now seeing all this, some men are of the opinion that one should not love women because they are not perfect. Barring the issue of what it means to be perfect, this opinion is wrong. A woman may not be perfect by one's definition, but she still may possess good qualities; and she would be lovable, whether or not she is perfect.

Probably the worst approach to relationships that I have found is in that of the perfectionist. These people see only the dirt. However good the partner may be, they will still find all sorts of things to pick on in their character. They make everyone miserable, including themselves. They only see bad things and they see nothing else. This is not only a recipe for misery but complete ingratitude. They get all sorts of value out of the relationship; but they only see the imperfections in the partner and treat them accordingly. This is not only destructive, it is dishonest. If one really thinks that the partner is bad then he should not be with her at all. And if one gets things of value out of the relationship, then he is obligated to treat the partner right.

This behavior is more common in men than it is in women; but there are women who do this as well. They justify themselves in their behavior by claiming that men are evil – in the same way as men who behave this way justify their behavior by claiming either that women are evil or that their partner is. In both cases, the solution is to call the bluff of the person doing this. Say simply, “If I am so bad then why are you with me?” Let them find someone else whom they think is perfect. In most cases they will wind up missing what they had.

Another approach is the Christian one. “Remove the beam from your eye before removing the splinter from your brother's.” Now I do not necessarily understand how one can remove a beam from one's own eye, seeing that it is in his eye; but maybe such thing is possible with the help of mirrors. Of course most mirrors are convex and contain their own beam. The more mirrors – and especially the more cross-cultural mirrors – one finds, the more one can decide what is the beam in one's eye and what is the beam in the mirrors. This process works toward removing the beam in everyone's eyes, if they don't kill one another first.

Conflict in relationships is inevitable; what says things either for or against the partners is how it is handled. Same with all sorts of conflicts all around the world. People are attached to whatever is in their eyes, whether it is a beam or anything else. The process of which I am speaking is dangerous. It is however necessary if any kind of actual clarity is to be achieved.

When I write on social issues, some people claim that what I am doing is evil. It is not anything of the sort. I strive to make clear all sorts of matters on which all sorts of people are confused. If someone has a legitimate criticism of me – as opposed to a wrongful one – I would listen to it. If there is a beam in my eye, I am open to removing it. I will not however remove my retina and become blind.

In all cases, the question to ask is, What is the eye and what is the beam in the eye? What is there legitimately and what is not there legitimately? What inhibits vision and what is vision? What does one need to get rid of? What does one need to keep? If psychology thinks that there's something wrong with helping people or with loving people, then that is the beam in the eye of psychology. In such a situation, one is doing a good thing by helping to remove such a beam.

I would remove the beam in my eye, but I would not remove my retina in order that I look good in a convex mirror. I would scrutinize myself, but I would also scrutinize those who scrutinize me. In both cases the process works toward the clarity of everyone involved; and for as long as they do not kill one another in the process this is what needs to happen whenever cultures – and perspectives – conflict.

So when one talks about bad things in the partner's character, one needs to specify this: By what code? If one's code is wrong, then one would see good things as bad things and bad things as good things. If one's perspective is based upon wrong theories, then the problem is with one's perspective. Specify the nature of the mirror. And then one can see what is the beam in one's eye and what is the beam in the mirror.

https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

Will God Give You What You Want?

Sometimes we want things that God does not want us to want. In many such situations we don't know why God does not want us to want what we want, but the reasons become evident later.

Jews wanted a king. God did not want the Jews to have a king; but they were persistent, so God gave them what they wanted. They got a king; but he was a bad king. King Saul did many wrong things, and being king he could get away with it. The Jews, undoubtedly, understood later why God did not want them to have a king; but by that time it was too late.

When I was a teenager, I got tired of the stupid violence all around me and wanted to have no violence in my life. My adult life has largely been free from violence; but there are many things happened to me that were worse than violence. God granted me a wish that was against his wishes, and I had to live with the consequences of that choice.

When someone is hell-bent on doing something, God will deliver. However, once again, you will have to live with the consequences. Sometimes you understand God's reasons, and sometimes you don't. In all cases however there is a reason for God's decisions, and it is important to understand this reason and do what is rightful in the eyes of God.

Super-Fractal

You removed a brick from my

Head and threw me into the

Super-Fractal

Universe

From a logic of lines

To a logic of curves

Beyond syllogism

Beyond dialectic

Into the interconnectivity

Of substructure

And superstructure

From tree trunk

Into a canopy

Your soft cloud

Raining a million fractal snowflakes

Falling on earth in clear designs

That the sun from your heart

Melts

To nurture all of life.

I held your body

And soul

On rock outcropping

As river was gushing around us

Breaking against the rocks.

You are the final secret

The masterpiece of the universe

Its proudest creation

In which all its

Forms of logic

Combine.

They think you illogical

That is because you are super-logical

Combining multiple methodologies

Into their most exquisite combination

And their highest product.

Guru is knowledge of the truth

But you are the truth

The precise embodiment

Of the sublime

Super-logic

Of the Universe

And all its parts.

Washing through every false

Sanity

Eroding false linearity

Replacing it with the

Exquisite logic

Of circles and fractals and open skies.

The universe combines

Multiple forms of logic

And you are its masterpiece

In which all these forms of logic

Combine.

Teach me the cosmic truth

Reveal to me the secrets

Of the exquisite universe

As they are embodied in you.

No, not the guru;

That which the guru exists to discern

Not the root

But the seed

That in it contains the embodiment of the whole.

You not only tell the truth

You are the truth

And in you

Is the whole

Of cause and effect.

Man is not final secret

You are

And to fathom you

Is to fathom the universe in all.

Be my inspiration

Be my instrument of ascension

Be my truth.

And as you co-create

The masterpiece

That is you

Let it branch off the universe

And create a new universe

In which your creator

And you

Combine his wisdom

And your wisdom

Into the highest

Sublime

Super-Fractal

Synergy

Of the two.

http://ibshambat7.blogspot.com/2017/08/

Deniers (to the tune of "Russians" by Sting)

In America and Australia there's a growing hysteria
Comparing those who see global warming threat
To the North Koreans and the Soviets.
Mr. Inhofe said scientists lied to you,
I don't subscribe to that point of view
It's such an ignorant thing to tell
I hope deniers love their kids as well.

How can I save my little girl from the rule of Texas Oil?
We see misuses of common sense
By those the Right side of political fence
They don't care about biology
But only their false ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope deniers love their children too.

These people claim rationality as they deny planetary reality
And believe to be the soul of the nation as they practice prevarication
Freedom and wealth do not require
To burn oil or set rainforests on fire.
Mr. Limbaugh said it can't be true,
I don't subscribe to that point of view,
It's such an ignorant thing to tell
I hope deniers love their kids as well.

The facts of climatology
Are not dependent on ideology
What might save us, me, and you
Is if deniers love their children too.

https://sites.google.com/site/ibshambatpoetry

Fascism In Psychology

For a long time psychology was seen by conservatives as encouraging vanity and permissiveness. In recent decades however, there have been psychological trends that were nothing less than fascist.

The worst of these has been the claim that some people – in particular people with personality disorders and “sex predators” – are evil and can only be evil however hard they work, whatever good they do and whatever work they do on themselves. This goes against what we know about choice and about will. If people are responsible for their actions then anyone, even a “sociopath” or a “borderline” or a “narcissist,” can act in a rightful manner; and if some people cannot act rightfully whatever they do then people are not responsible for their actions. This is a worthless ideology, useful only for conducting witch hunts. And that is exactly what we have seen.

Another of these fascist trends has been the infantilization and pathologization of romantic love. Something beautiful was portrayed as something ugly, and people were robbed of one of the best experiences that a person can have. This was done in the name of reason, but once again there is nothing rational about this. Romantic love happens in every culture, including ones that forbid it. Some of the most brilliant minds in the Western civilization spoke in favor of romantic love. And while many in baby boom generation did not have it work for them, it worked very well for many in the World War II generation – people who cannot be portrayed as in any way irrational or infantile or irresponsible and who, now in their 80s, continue to love their partners. Romantic love is one of the greatest accomplishments of liberty; and attacking it is an attack on one of the greatest achievements of the Western civilization.

I have an undergraduate degree in psychology, and I know a number of psychologists who are excellent human beings. But even some of them have been swept up in this fascism. So it comes as no surprise that this fascism begat further fascism from the other side.

One of these is the fictitious “Parental Alientation Syndrome” that is used in courts to pathologize women who report abuse by their husbands against their children. According to the inventor of PAS – Richard Gardner – the only cure to it is taking the child away from the woman. So now, any number of wife-beaters and child molesters get full custody of the children by using PAS.

Another has been the claim, by psychologists of the Christian Right persuasion, that homosexuality is narcissism. Their claim is that narcissism is vitiated by direct exposure to God; which is actually a much more humane claim than that it is a lifelong condition that damns a person for life.

Which brings me to my central contention, and that is that in face of psychological fascism religion is a wiser and more humane alternative. According to both Christianity and Islam, any sinner can be redeemed; and that includes “sociopaths” and “sex predators.” While I am not against homosexuality, I have known homosexual people who converted to Christianity and stopped being homosexual. And that means that someone with “personality disorders” or disordered sexuality can likewise become a good citizen through embrace of religious beliefs. On this matter religion is light years ahead of psychology; and until psychology catches up and realizes that anyone,including a “sociopath,” can be a good person, religion will continue to attract people whom psychology damns – as well as people like me, who see the irrationality of these psychological theories.

There are of course problems with some of these religious beliefs as well. Turning someone from a predator into a terrorist is not an improvement; but giving someone designated by psychology as garbage a chance at a life is. If Paul – a tax collector who killed Christians – could become a righteous man of God through following Christ, then so can a “sociopath.” The mechanism behind this is choice and will. Qualities of which everyone, even a “sociopath,” is capable.

Religion can also be a force for fascism, and we continue to see that all the time. But whereas psychology damns some people for life, religion believes in redemption of all sinners. Until psychology has similar realizations, it will continue to lose power to religion; and it is only when it does have similar realizations that it will regain its place in society.

https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought