Electronic Writer

“Cathedral Building” is a term that has been appropriated by the business world to reference a type of long-term building strategy. Employing this strategy may require the sacrifice of some of the program or business strengths in the immediate term, in exchange for a grander vision–something that may take years or decades to achieve.

While this may mean dollars and cents in today’s world, it has not always been so. “Cathedral Building” referred to a commitment that artisans would make. If I agree to become a Cathedral Builder, I really agreed to 150 years worth of my family laboring as Cathedral Builders, as well. I was pledging the labor of generations of my family. Not just my own 30 or 40 years.

What did all of these Cathedral Builders make? What were goals that the architects of those churches were trying to achieve? What did the church fathers want the followers to feel? (By the way, I am wholly convinced that if there had been church mothers, we would much different architecture in those buildings.)

Many of the Catholic Cathedrals were designed to feel strong. In the medieval times, the church was the place where you hid from the invaders. The architecture made sure that the villagers felt safe, and encouraged them to not bother hiding anywhere else. The walls were built of huge, hand-cut stones, and the ceilings had large, exposed, solid beams across the top. There was a lookout tower of some sort, that served as a handy place to hang a bell–an early warning sign for trouble, and a reminder for Sunday services.

The Spanish Missions of California ironically resemble forts, as well. The influence of the Spanish architecture is evident in their designs: rounded window tops, and the thick white walls. Again, there are the exposed beams and giant, wooden doors that are testaments to the military value that was placed upon these buildings by the designers.

St. John’s Episcopal Church in Denver, Colorado was quite a sight. It is located in the downtown area of the city, and I had the rare pleasure to attend the singing of “Dixit Dominus,” by Handel. At the time, the choir at this church was the most-recorded choir in the World behind only the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

When I looked up, I found myself in almost a state of vertigo. The heights were dizzying–or, at least the church was designed to feel that way. Tall spires are placed at frequent intervals throughout the center room of the church, and they all converge together hundreds of feet in the air. The visual effect was caused by hundreds of floor-to-ceiling lines that lead your eye to the roof. And, every Sunday, it was designed to remind you of the dizzying power of God.

The Cathedral of Notre Dame was another experience altogether. Famed for its flying buttresses (I have wanted to type that word for years, and never found the right excuse.) and gothic style, it was designed to be another experience altogether. My timing was absolutely perfect when I walked through it last January. Although I thought the architects had originally intended the dramatic effects of this Cathedral to be a visual one, my opinion was changed after the tour.

While walking through the church, I watched a small procession of choir singers disappear into a room in the center. They were smiling and chatting, quite like most other choir singers that I have encountered. There was a performance scheduled for several hours later that evening, and they were rehearsing one last time.

As they started to sing, the sound did something I never expected. I lost track of where the voices originated, and ultimately, it sounded as if the very air inside the church was singing. It conjured imagery of angels (I even looked) singing the music. While the architecture is visually impressive with all the gargoyles and saints on the outside, I would argue that the designers wanted auditory effects with this church.

My favorite of all the churches I have visited, however, was the 1626 Domincan Abbey in Oaxaca, Mexico. This church WAS the military building of the region when it was built. On the outside, it was a giant, 12-foot high, walled compound, bordered by a huge plaza. The church had gigantic wooden doors.

On the inside, however, something different happened from all of the churches that I have seen. When you walk in (through the tiny wooden doors that were built into the giant ones), the first thing you see beyond the rows of pews is the altar. The wall behind it was solid gold–from floor to ceiling. It was ornately carved, encrusted, and everything else that you could imagine.

To set off the “goldness” of that back wall, the ceiling was painted a deep, azul-blue with the exception of the hundreds of white, cherub faces carved right into the ceiling. Behind me, and facing the altar, was a huge rose-colored stained-glass window. Again, having good fortune smile upon me, I happened to walk into the church as the afternoon sun moved into the correct position.

In that church in Oaxaca, the setting sun streamed through the windows. Between the color of the glass, and the gold wall behind the altar, the air itself turned a golden-orange color. Above hovered hundreds of cherub-faced angels in a sky of dark blue.

In it, I had a moment of clarity. The testament of that church was not about the strength or power of God. It was not designed to make you feel dizzy, or small. It was not designed to reassure you, or make you feel safe. It was about the love that Humankind has for God. It was simply about the strength of Faith.

Over the last couple of months, I have been rather obsessed with truth, authenticity, lies, deception, and a whole host of other related ideas. Upon reflection, I have been thinking about another concept, altogether. In reality, the concept that has eluded me, and the concept that I wanted to discuss, is simply Integrity.

While more and more complex theories have led me somewhat astray, this last weekend (with quite a hang-over and in the coffeeshop in a casino in Reno), I was able to finally articulate the concept. Integrity is both important, as well as extremely abstract. But, I will try to articulate a definition, and then contextualize it later.

My definition of Integrity goes like this: Integrity is the behavior that governs the decisions that you make. Acting with integrity incorporates current events, self-awareness of your actions, and the relationship between those two. You, acting with integrity, would make the “best” choices that incorporate all of that information. The simple definition of just, “Do the right thing,” does not encompass the concept accurately. Although, if you act with integrity, you will always “do the right thing.”

The most troubled part of Integrity is the simple phrase, “best.” I do not believe in Absolute truths (he says, absolutely). From a relativistic framework, the most slippery part of Integrity is the making the “best decision” because what may be the best choice may not be the best if you had different, or more information. In fact, this is a great place to reference the entries on Authenticity, Truth and Lies, and even the entry about Unexpected Advice. The more information you have, the more complex it may be to make your decision with Integrity.

I have discussed many of these concepts over the past couple of weeks without any contextualization. The motivation behind the discussion is that I am truly grateful because I have surrounded myself with people of Integrity. I may have only a few friends, but every one of them acts with Integrity. And, of those friends who are married, they have all married people who have it, as well. My family is the same way. And, Integrity is also a concept that I try to embody in my own decision making process.

If you have no Integrity, there is a slim chance that I will ever have room for you in my life. It may sound like a soap-box or a threat, but it is not. It is merely the best choice with my current information. Why would I subject myself, my friends, or my family to the consequences of poorly made decisions? Why would I want to bring someone into my life who doesn’t strive to make the best decisions? I owe it to myself and my family to seek like-minded people.

People with Integrity wanted. No need to apply. I’ll recognize you.

Last weekend, I went to Reno. It was a drunken debacle of gambling, booze, smoke-filled casinos, hang-overs, all-you-can-eat brunch buffets, and whatever else. It is not a typical thing that I do for relaxation, however, I did it this weekend and had a great time. While I was there a nice and unexpected piece of advice for living unfurled.

The dealer at one particular Blackjack table put on one heck of a show. He was funny in an almost abusive (though non-offensive) way. A really tough line to walk, but it was working. We were laughing at him, at ourselves, at the idea of being in Reno and gambling, and of course at the play of the card game. He coaxed, coached and cajoled us through hand after hand of cards, and we all won money.

The biggest obstacle between you and winning at Blackjack is usually the other players, sometimes the alcohol, and most often a combination of the two. The dealer has an extremely limited set of rules for play that are, of course, based upon statistical odds in the casino’s favor. Luck, oddly enough, only manifests itself in tiny moments during a hand. A good set of rules will win more money for you more often than merely luck. If the other card players were SMART, they would adhere to a set of rules that were equally as strict as those followed by the dealer. When you can find a table where everyone is following these rules, sit down and do not leave–you are going to win.

At one point, the dealer turned his comedic attention towards me. I sat at the last seat before the dealer on the far left side–the infamous “third base.” I needed an strange card (like a 5) in order to beat the dealer, and my odds were poor. Someone else on the table asked for a card, and the dealer gave her the card that I needed. The next player asked for a card, and the dealer gave him a card that would have substituted nicely for the one that I originally wanted. And, each time that happened, I mumbled something like, “That card would have worked.”

Before the dealer gave me my card, he gave me a brief, but appropriate few words of wisdom. He said, “You have to have fortitude to sit at third base. You have to have the strength to see everyone on the table take the card that you need. If you can’t do it, you need to move.” He punctuated his last words by throwing my card at that very moment.

The interesting part was not the implications of his advice upon the card table, but rather the implications that it holds in all of life. When sitting at third base, you get to see more of the cards played before you get to play your own hand. You get to have more information to make your own decisions. That might make your decision easier, or it might make your decision more complicated. That is an externality of possessing more information.

The same is true with life. More information can make your decisions easier, or it can make them more complex. If you stay inside of your self, you may have an ignorant, happy life–but you will not get to see very much of the world. And, if you decide to pursue more information, or more of life, you have to have the strength to see everyone else take a card that you could have taken–making choices that could have worked for you.

He gave me a face card, and I busted. But, the table won . . . .

Believe it, or not, fine dining has seasons. During the summer time, when the default meal is to barbeque and be outside with friends, upscale restaurants are filled with bored food servers who are pleasantly surprised if the night gets busy. Friday and Saturday nights of the summertime will find the same restaurant staffed by blood-thirsty waiters trying to squeeze every penny out of every table to compensate for the slow nights the rest of the season. By contrast, as the weather reaches lower and lower temperatures outside, you will find higher and higher numbers of recreational diners inside. There is a direct correlation between temperature and the amount business in restaurants.

Certain holidays, however, mark the exceptions to the seasons. They are the sudden heat wave in the middle of winter. The mid-July snow. Of all the Holidays on the calendar, there is one perched aloft the highest pinnacle of painfulness. From a food server’s perspective, Valentine’s Day is simply the most foul of all the holidays.

This particular holiday falls in the middle of the dining high season. So, first of all, it spoils what would usually be a good night. The calendar year, however, determines the actual evening, and while there are no good nights to stage one of these Valentine’s Day “celebrations,” it is usually best if it falls on either a Sunday or Monday night–the slowest nights of the week.

This is the point where you ask, “What makes Valentine’s Day so awful?” Quite simply, it is the people. Middle America opens its gates for one evening of every year, and out spills a huge throng of people who never dine, who watch television from the big-screen TVs in their living rooms, and who order delivered pizzas to eat while watching rented movies as a part of a typical Friday night. While there is nothing wrong with those activities, there is, however, a fundamental problem with the idea of Valentine’s Day. It forces all of the people who are comfortable with those activities to put on a tie, or perhaps a skirt, and go out to an expensive restaurant where they have to pay to have someone park their car, pay four times more money for their dinner than if they had just ordered a pizza, never get enough food of their plate for all the money they are spending, and have them sit in that “stuffy” restaurant for hours upon hours. Sounds like fun, doesn’t it?

Let’s take a peek at the hostess stand for a moment. Regardless of the day of the week, there are 600% more reservations than the restaurant normally seats on any given evening. A large percentage of them have been made by crafty guys who have made similar reservations at three other restaurants at 1-hour intervals in case they are running a bit late. The location is invariably “a surprise,” so they can take their dates/girlfriends and boyfriends /wives/mistresses to whichever of the three locations is the most convenient. Regardless of the drop-off rate, the Valentine’s Day reservations reach alarming proportions from the perspective of the restauranteur.

In response to the sheer suggestion of those kind of reservations, every employee the restaurant has ever employed is working that night. All of the part-timers who have “real” jobs and who are trying to quit the addictive cash-in-the-pocket-rush of waiting tables are scheduled weeks in advance to take a temporary hiatus from their twelve-step programs to return for just this one night. The normal wait-staff are locked into a closed-room meeting and flatly ordered to attend. No vacations. No plans. No excuses. If, for any reason, sickness-included, they decide to be absent on Valentine’s Day, they will not have a job when they return.

Once the diners arrive, the real fun begins. They grumble as they pay to have someone park their car. They grumble when they realize that even WITH their reservations, they are going to have to wait 10 minutes for their table to be ready. They grumble that the two drinks that they ordered while waiting cost almost $15. They grumble as they peruse the menu to see the prices on the steak–the one menu item that doesn’t have French words in the description. They grumble at all the other people standing around them grumbling in the exact same ways about the exact same things.

Meanwhile the staff is grumbling because there are 300 parties of two, and not a single table of four (twice the tip money for the same amount of time). They are grumbling because their dates/girlfriends and boyfriends /wives/mistresses are at home watching chick-flicks and complaining because their Valentines are at work on the “one night of the year” when they are supposed to do something special for them. The staff is grumbling because they watch the diners’ eyes travel over to the price column on every item of the menu. They know the restaurant will sell out of the cheapest wine, as well as the menu items without any French words in the description. And, the staff is grumbling because every guest will want to stay for twenty extra minutes. After all, when was the last time they had spent this much money on dinner.

When posed with that question, my guess would always be . . . last year, on Valentine’s Day.

I am certainly not advocating lying, but I am, however, also not passing judgment on those who do. In actuality, I am advocating better health, reduced stress, and indirectly, a better world. So, start by drinking a glass of red wine every day. It is good for your heart. Try to exercise between 30 and 45 minutes at least 4 times a week. This will keep your heart healthy, your weight down, indubitable make you feel stronger and improve your self-esteem. It will also help almost every aspect of your body–the only machine that works better the more you use it.

The other way to reduce stress, and the subject of this entry, is to simply make a choice in your life. Choose whether you are going to lie, or or not–and, stick with it. If you decide to lie, trust no one with the truth, and lie to everyone. If you are going to tell the truth, tell the truth all the time and in every situation.

It is the place between these two extremes, however, that is the stressful situation. If you tell half-truths, or truths to some and lies to others, you will need to constantly manage the interaction between the two groups of people. You will need to keep the people who know the lies away from the people who know the truth. The people who know the truth might slip-up, and ultimately, your lie will only be as safe as the truth-knowing person’s lying ability.

In the long run, it makes for a stressful situation–for everyone involved.

Let’s start with a working definition of Authenticity. The most succinct definition that I could develop upon first reflection is:

While this is a problematic definition, it is an adequate place to start. It is improper to start a definition with the term itself, and I am not satisfied with describing the subject by describing what it is not. And, the term “Authenticity” must address the situation of the slippery and deliberate misusage of meaning through the process of misappropriating components of the truth (or truthful facts).

While fact-finding for this definition, I came accross some other discussions of Truth (and perhaps Authenticity). Plato addressed Truth in his Theory of Forms, while Descartes indirectly addressed “Authenticity” in his Evil Genius argument. The phenomenologists tackled it in an off-handed way, but argued that the “authenticity” of an experience was derived from your tangible experience of it. While they are interesting arguments, I am addressing something else. More specifically, I want to address the deliberate misuse of the truth for political or personal gain. The most prolific philosophical discussion of Authenticity can perhaps be found in Albert Camus. His concept of “double-speak” directly addresses the political and slippery usage of language for deliberately misleading aims.

While I am continuing to think through these ideas, I will continue to post them. I am not prepared to tackle this tiny dilemma between Absolute and Relative Truths tonight. Although it must be addressed before we go any further, we must save that discussion for another day.

A while back, while ruminating over coffee at a coffee shop, I stumbled onto a dilemma that was a little disheartening. I was examining my own behavior, as well as the behavior of others in my past. I realized that there were instances in which we were physically telling the truth of the events, but the manner in which the details were conveyed created a false impression or misrepresented the actual situation.

By the technical definition of the word “truth,” each person (myself included) was, in fact, telling the truth. The details of the situation had been accurately recounted. A distinction must be made, however. While the details are an important piece, I argue that over-arching evaluation is the more important component. Being accurate to the details, while misrepresenting that larger picture is a slippery situation, and in my opinion, somewhat more sinister than an accidental or intentional misrepresentation of a detail.

At first, I was rather disheartened at the inadequacy of the term “truth.” This complex relationship exists between details and meaning, and between intention and appropriation. Truth is merely not complex enough to cover these association. My first impulse was to address the inadequecy of that term, but I soon realized that the place to focus would be instead to define a more comprehensive term for “appropriate” usage of the truth–or the correct conveying of meaning.

After ruminating on this topic, I have selected the term “Authenticity” to describe this additional requirement.

I saw you in a dream, and I remembered . . . .

My missed connection is that idyllic outlook on life that people are good, that they say what they mean, and that they are not out to harm you.

My missed connection is that first kiss where her lips are so alluring, and the passion is so crazy-wild that the electricity between us can almost be seen. I miss only thinking about that kiss, and not whether the kiss would be worth the drama later . . . .

My missed connection is the fresh eyes, the beginner’s eyes, that I had for the mundane: cooking dinner, driving to wherever, and opening my eyes to the rising sun.

My missed connection is my innocence. I have grown up, and I miss you. Just tell me what I can do win you back.

I’ll try not to be harsh, but there are some things that you have to worry about–the alarms should be sounding right now for women all over the United States. Last year, the current administration passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, right? This big, controversial law has some really scary elements to it–the US Government has written a law that denies you a medical procedure based upon a premise of morality. Regardless of whether you agree with the morality not, they have passed legislation against your BODY.

Modern feminists worry about the same things that old-school feminists worried about. Margaret Atwood wrote The Edible Woman more than 20 years ago, and we clearly have the same issues today.

The scary aspects of this surface in the details of the transaction of passing this law: the picture of the signing of this legislation has our President sitting at a table and about 8 or 9 guys standing behind him joking and giggling with one another as if they were waiting for a batch of chicken wings at HOOTERs, or something. Not ONE woman was on that stage to support that piece of legislation. And, it doesn’t matter–with or without women’s support, they signed it into law. It may be tied up in the courts, the language might be problematic problematic, and yeah, they will have a hard time enforcing it, but this legislation calls back to several other pieces of legislation that were problematic.

Ever heard or used the saying, “Rule of Thumb?” This actually was a british law that specified that it was LEGAL to beat your wife–as long as the stick was smaller than the diameter of your thumb. This was a LAW!!!

There was also the “Contagious Diseases Act” passed in England in the 1830s. This law allowed the government of a small harbor town to forceably detain and subject an unescorted woman to a gynecological exam–to ensure that she wasn’t passing contagious diseases to the sailors. The implications of this one are really incredible–as in unbelievable. The “unescorted” part implies that rich people didn’t have to worry about it–they would never leave their house without a driver or a servant, or someone. But the law made it so that male police officers could take a woman, make her go to a male doctor, who would then give her an exam against her will–more legislation against the body. (Side note: the tools of the time looked like something you would use in your fireplace)

Economically, England has been another forerunner of American gender politics. They passed the Right of Property Act in the 1860s. This law made it acceptable for a woman to own 10% of her original dowry if she was successfully granted a Divorce by British Courts. So, let me get this straight: she can legally own 10% of the money her dad gave to her husband for marrying her IF and ONLY if the courts granted her a divorce (a highly unlikely proposition in the 1860s). So, although it marked an improvement in the rights of the women, it really was still a dismall situation. Women were not allowed to own anything in British society. They could be in the care of their father, their husband, or an uncle, perhaps–but not in charge of themselves. (Factoid: This law inspired Ibsen to compose the play “Hedda Gable.”)

That myth that things are equal now is just that–a myth. Things are better than they were in the 1800’s the 1980’s, and the 1990’s, but the struggle has changed–not dissipated.

Feminism was given a bad name in America when bras were being burned in the late 70’s (Susan B. Anthony was a feminist, but she was never labelled as such–she was a “suffragist”). The highest profile people–the ones that made the news–were the extremists! The majority of feminist, however, are looking for equality in the workplace, in language, and in voice.

Although there are plenty of differences within feminism, what I studied, and my understanding of it goes like this: There are dominant groups, subordinate groups, and a place of intersection between the two–a shared space. The dominant group speaks louder than the rest–or has the final ruling when all is said and done (see the above example with the Partial-birth Abortion Ban, Contagious Diseases Act, Right of Property act, etc.). Feminism strives to give an equal voice to those subordinate groups. This is a continual process–not an epic battle, with peace in the land for all afterwards. Because there will always be dominant and subordinate groups, Feminists will always struggle to provide a voice wherever that voice is suppressed.

You don’t have to burn your bra to be a Feminist–you can look for embedded inequalities in our language and in our spheres of influence. When someone says”she’s just a girl,” they are reinforcing a stereotype that women are the weaker gender, or that women are overly emotional and not logical, or that women are not suited to work in business, etc. Don’t you want to say something? When someone judges you more by your physical appearance (Margaret Atwoods Edible Woman) than by your ideas or your words, don’t you want to say something?

I guess I could go on forever and, I just might have to . . . .

Poetry can contain elements of the self and self expression, but there is more to life–and more to poetry.

I gravitate towards poetry that pushes beyond the self and into something more: W S Merwyn, Pablo Neruda, Anna Ahkmatova, Federico Garcia Lorca, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, and on and on.

The interesting point is the place of convergence–where you as a person meet and interact with the external world and other people. But just-the-self poetry is a solipsistic ride not meant for other people. I think this last week, someone was offended by criticism and said that it is fine if the reader doesn’t understand his/her words (it probably happened more than once). And, the author was correct: a self-expression of that nature belongs in a journal–a hidden file–certainly not for us. They were right in being offended–it was not written to endure criticism–it was written to sustain or express the self.

Hundreds of years ago, in Ireland, Kings feared the words of poets. The words of poets could cause action–and those same Kings believed that it could manifest reality. Pablo Neruda, a poet, was an Embassador for Chile to 15 different countries (France, Mexico, etc.) because of his power with language. Anna Ahkmatova could not be assassinated by Stalin because of the revolution it would cause in Russia because of her words. The link between language and power has always been clear–the people with the words were in power.

Today, language is still about power. If you lose your voice and your words, then others will speak for you and you will lose your power–a dangerous situation. A poem that is not meant to be seen is a waste of those words (unless it is practice). Even if your poem is about and for yourself, make it mean something. Make it part of a larger dialog about society, values, morality, punishment, torture, politics, sex, intimacy, inequality, happiness, struggle, whatever. It is extra work–it will require you to turn your brain on, and leave it plugged-in from here on out. It will require you to not only taste the emotions, but to struggle to understand them. But it is worth it.

I am saddened that poetry has been marginalized into a self-serving, self-help form of expression for “those artists.” The story of how our culture killed the power and even the words of Walt Whitman is terrible–and only one example of many. And, our words are next. We may be low on the list, but we are on that list. I want poetry to regain it’s prominence as a force to be reckoned with–I want King’s to fear the words of poets once more. We need to write poetry that matters about bigger things. We need to examine the world outside of ourselves and write poetry about it. We need to reclaim our place in history and in the discussion. We need to claim our power.

In order for any of that to happen, it will have to start with us–the poets.