2020 Vision of Truth

On this last day of 2019, I found myself sitting on the tarmac at Chicago O’Hare long after my scheduled departure time.  Nearly an hour earlier, I had watched a frazzled gate agent recite the clearly false information about delayed crew – a lie only evidenced when, having boarded the plane, I saw the same crew that had been there all along.  Then came the de-icing delay clearly falsifiable as I had already watched the plane being de-iced from the comfort of gate F-20.  Sitting motionless at the gate nearly 30 minutes later, the pilot apologized for the fact the we couldn’t push back because a de-icing form confirming that de-icing had taken place was missing and without it, he couldn’t get ramp clearance to push back.  And then another 30 minutes of silence before we started moving.  For this nearly 2-hour delay of United flight 4852, I mused about the fact that several people had been comfortable reciting false statements to rationalize what in fact was a cascade of human error.  And as I sat on the plane, I pondered the fact that for the next 90 minutes, my life was entrusted to people who had no apparent objection to lying.

This is an odd way of beginning my annual Litany of Saints post for 2019.  But this year has been marked with major league dishonesty.  Some of it we’ve all seen play out on the nightly news with caricatures of officials clearly dismissing observable reality with false statements.  Others have been profligate abuses of business agreements I’ve made throughout the year in which written and contracted expectations have been dishonored with predictable regularity.  Most deeply painful have been personal experiences in which assurances of love and relationship have been shown to be weaponized and manipulated.  In short, I find that the well of gratitude that has marked many years of my life has been deeply impacted by a drought.  And, as is always the case, I seek to examine this experience and see what I can learn.

My life was greatly enriched by Nic Wales who demonstrated that, regardless of the challenges I faced throughout the year, his capacity to persistently ‘show up’ as the genuine friend and colleague was as certain as the sunrise.  During many of my most challenging times, his first-to-the-line spirit often rallied both my spirits and those with whom he interacted.

My year culminated with an exceptionally deep appreciation for my son Zachary who, in spite of several struggles throughout the year, declared his intention to pursue his life’s passion resulting in his move to California to begin his next pursuit as a golf coach.  And, speaking of setting lofty intentions, my daughter Sienna concluded that her academic and athletic goals included being exceptional and, as a Freshman at Monticello High School – her first American school year – was a member of the varsity cheerleading squad (winning District titles) and has been achieving near perfect marks in her classes.

I observed my friend, colleague, and source of inspiration – Amanda Gore – strive to achieve new levels of elegance and excellence in her dynamic public speaking career and marveled at the discipline evidenced in her relentless commitment to integrate perspectives she learned no matter how uncomfortable that transformation may be.

And above all, I witnessed Kim Martin incarnate her stated desire to break patterns of thinking and behavior that had restricted her living giving life to a much more dynamic and vibrant person than the woman I met nearly 5 years ago.

These – and others – earned my respect not for what they said they would do, be, or manifest, but rather for the fact that they actually did their truth.

Which leads me to my point this year.  I’m afraid that truth – like many other constructs – is a cognitive fallacy.  Let me explain.  We are all sensitive beings (in an apathetic sense).  By this I mean that as we transit life, we are aware of our lived experience informed by our surroundings, our interactions, and our synthesis of stimuli.  The irony in my use of ‘apathy’ is that while we sense and perceive – that which we sense and perceive is selective to our conditioning, recollection, and implicit values.  In other words, the exact same experience does not and cannot be replicated with identity in another.  So, while we seem to obsess about “truth” as a theoretical abstraction, the truth is, it never exists.  And by never I actually mean that.  That’s because by the time reality is processed, it is selectively curated to form meaning, understanding, or judgment.  With the passage of time, that selectivity is further narrowed to fit a narrative or worldview.  By the time we’re conveying it, thinking about it, or judging it, IT no longer is the lived experience.

I frequently comment about the monotonous goodness of most of our lives and I often get quizzical looks.  Think about it.  Most next moments are both unimpressive and basically good.  While you’ve been reading this, your heart has beaten several hundred times and, you didn’t do anything to conspire to make that happen.  If you are reading this sentence, your optical nerve has already processed 5,140 characters and you didn’t care about most of them.  While you were reading this, your computer didn’t blow up, your house didn’t burn down, you were not tortured, and you basically had it alright.  What we remember, too often, is the punctuations in the monotony, and far too often, what focuses our obsession is that which is misfortune or challenging.  But most of most of our lives is good.

What does this have to do with “truth”?  Thanks for asking.  By ignoring the monotonous goodness of life and narrating our lives through the punctuated drama of either ecstasy or suffering, we actually lie to ourselves.  We’re so obsessed with being interesting (both for good or ill) that we curate a storyline that ignores most of our lives.  When President Trump says that he “doesn’t recall” prostitutes, bribes, or Russian blackmail, he may be telling his version of his own selective recall.  Evidence, schmevidence!  We can make all the observations we want but if the selective curation of a narrative is absolute, then everything that doesn’t fit ceases to exist.  Evangelical Christians swear they’re pro-life but applaud missile strikes on the infidel du jour.  Capitalists want persistent economic growth but seek to maintain exclusionary rights and privileges to prevent others from growing.  You name it, hypocrisy is rampant only when you don’t share a common definition of truth.

Which leads me to my year end gratitude.  I am grateful this year for all those in my life who have turned truth into a verb.  Being genuine.  Being authentic.  Living coherently with their values.  People who don’t need to ‘tell the truth’ because their too busy living it.  To those I’ve named and to the many who are reading this and knowing of our interactions that were characterized with these hallmarks of integrity, I honor you this year.  Thank you and here’s to living true in 2020!

x

Optics of “Truth” – Constantine to Einstein to FINRA

One hundred years ago this month, a group of astronomers commenced their observational engineering in Sobral, Brazil to prepare for the Total Eclipse of the Sun of May 29, 1919.  Sir F.W. Dyson, FRS, Professor A.S. Eddington, FRS, and Mr. C. Davidson were intent on measuring the “Deflection of Light by the Sun’s Gravitational Field” in an effort to confirm Professor Einstein’s 1911 General Principle of Equivalence which would alter Newton’s “Law” of gravitation.  Enlisting astronomers, scholars, politicians, and clergy from three countries, their results, published in November of 1919, solidified the public’s canonization of Einstein and his world view.

Sixteen hundred ninety-four years ago on May 20, Emperor Constantine convened the ecumenical Council of Nicaea to resolve the official story of what would become “Christianity”.  In a gathering of astronomers, scholars, politicians, and clergy from three countries, he sought to quash deviant narratives that would call into question any version of “truth” other than his approved version.  Among the Council’s task was to resolve the three hundred-year-old questions of which version of accounts of the teachings of Jesus and the commentary of Apostles (notably Paul who ironically had no knowledge of Jesus or his teachings from experience) would be accepted and which were heresy.

Between May 20 and May 29, 2019 I’m engaging in an effort to shed light on an equally occult collection dogmatic beliefs – money.  And as I’m wont to do, I like to learn from successful propaganda campaigns throughout time to see how perspective is codified as “truth”.

I’m fortunate to have been born in a family that included an astronomer (my father) and a linguist (my mother).  While I can claim no expertise approximating either of their life-long learnings, my osmosis exposure to their worlds fueled my inquisition of the two seminal May events listed above.  Without the former, we would not have our current scientific framework and without the latter, we’d have one less reason to separate ourselves from each other based on cosmological and metaphysical dogma.  Ironically, both involved the quadrangulation of men of astronomical, political, scholarly, and ecclesiastical persuasion.

While I won’t do justice to the meticulous records of both events (which I commend to your reading), I found interesting resonance in these two events.

• 1.      A priori Singular Assumption Supremacy:  In the solar eclipse experiment, scientists postulated that during a total eclipse of the sun, the visible light from stars near the sun would deviate in its path in a manner that would be perceptibly different from the same light from the same stars without the solar mass influencing its passage.  By observing the photographic plates of the exact same stars without the eclipsed sun and those same stars during the eclipse, deviation of light in the X-Y coordinates “should” be quantifiable.  In the Council’s case, the assumption was that hand-scribed copies of texts over a three-hundred-year period across at least three language translations would contain an inerrant consistency.  The gathered scholars would be able, when assembled, to confirm truth by comparing all variations and settling on the negotiated deviation which would constitute the “authentic”.  In both cases affording one variable the capacity to arbitrate all other considered and unconsidered postulates, extrapolated consequence hung on a single argument.

• 2.      Dismissal of Dissent:  Considerable treatment is given to the optics of the telescopes and lenses used in the solar experiment.  From the nature of mirrors to the precision of lenses to the photographic plates, going into the observation, the scientists knew that their instruments would produce error.  The Oxford and Principe observations demonstrated inconsistencies in the lead up to the eclipse.  Further, while care was taken to consider meteorological conditions, variations for atmospheric differences in the upper atmosphere were unconsidered.  Never mind, the assumption was that, on the day, the standard deviation of the reference would be treated as static and serve as the basis for comparison of true deviation.  Similarly at Nicaea, the known error was the notion of a unitarian divinity (the notion that the Father and Son are co-equal in all respects).  The Arian Controversy had caused a power dispute between Alexandria and Constantinople and (I know this is going to come as a surprise) the Roman emperor wanted his perspective to prevail.  So the triune nature of the godhead became the lens through which everything was filtered.  Oh, and if you didn’t agree, no worries, your perspective was considered…. Oh, no, you were banished and labeled heretic, excommunicated or subject to the sword.

• 3.      Selectively Objective:  Going into the solar observation, 13 candidate stars were selected for their photographic magnitude (the sufficiency of light to expose to plates) and their proximity to the sun.  Great lengths were taken to explain the rationale for only 7 (61%) being used to confirm the study findings.  While the records of the Council of Nicaea are a bit clouded on the point, it appears that about 78% of the candidate “books of the Bible” (which were not officially concluded in the “canon” until the Council of Rome in 382) were considered as definitive while the remaining set that didn’t substantiate the a priori doctrine were excluded.  In short, in both cases, only that light which confirmed the hypothesis was considered.  All of the rest was rejected.

• 4.      Infallibility of Consequence:  When the findings of the light experiment were published in November of 1919, the consequence was the effective elevation of Einstein to detriment of Newton.  When the Council of Nicaea arrived at the outcome that was pre-ordained by its convening monarch, Rome and Constantinople were elevated and the Arians were excommunicated.

It was with great interest that I performed a few calculations on the Principe 4” lens plates – the ones that “proved” Einstein’s theory.  One would consider that, if the gravitational effect of the sun was to deflect light, that deflection would be equally altered by: 1) proximity of the sun to the starlight; and, 2) the x-y coordinate shift observed in both right ascension (“longitude”) and declination (“latitude”).  Unfortunately, the calculated deflection (based on Einstein’s theory) and the observed deflection don’t meet either of these presumptions.  The correlation between solar distance and the observed change in right ascension is 0.4 while the effect in declination is 0.36.  In other words, even in the instances of the selected objective, the “effect” wasn’t the reported effect.  Similarly, when one considers only the over 5,000 Greek, 10,000 Latin, and over 9,000 other texts of the canon from 382 until Erasmus’ work in the early 16^th century including parchments, fragments, and other copies reproduced by scribes who may or may not have had any experience with the images of the letters they were copying, the textual agreement is somewhere around 40% as well.  This statistic is derived from a simple compound error calculation between literal translation precision, penmanship and reproductive accuracy, to say nothing for the disputed content between the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus which were resolved based on dogma – not literal archaeological evidence.  Ironically “error” exceeds “consistency” in each of these examples.  While the masses are told of “truth” and “laws”, it is heresy to review the inherent error in the “ground truth.”

So whether, on this Sunday, you venerate a divine composite of mysteries, metaphors, myths, and messiahs or whether you are so “enlightened” as to venerate mathematics, mechanics, metrics, and measurable, our collective paradox is that the assumptions upon which both stand are exactly that – assumptions.

For the last four weeks, I’ve been in communications with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) about what is and is not authorized in communications regarding some of our commercial business.  For those unfamiliar with FINRA, their job is to insure that investors receive fair and complete information upon which to make decisions.  FINRA has copious rules upon which they opine to attempt to certify compliance.  However, FINRA never has had to deal with a business like ours.  We have done a number of novel things – quantifying the effect of intangible assets (things that are not recorded on corporate balance sheets) for banks, businesses, governments and investors.  And it turns out that while we have measured many things with a precision not afforded by any other metric, FINRA only has room in its world for things that “fit” their template.  In their effort to achieve “compliance”, they have mandated that we alter or eliminate historical material to make our presence less disruptive.  That’s right, FINRA has explicitly sought to manipulate full, complete, and accurate information rather than adjusting their optics to account for something that challenges the consensus hypothesis.  What’s worse, with a recently completed business partnership with another not-for-profit government recognized organization, we’ve been advised that we may not be able to report the nature and substance of a reality that the whole world will be able to see on a daily basis and associate it to investors’ decision-making information.

In short, FINRA’s actions – like those of Constantine, Erasmus, James I, Eddington, Dyson and Davidson – evidence the operating definition of “truth”.  They define it simply as that which confirms catechisms held by controlling consensus.  If it preserves ideology and the hierarchy dependent on manipulating the masses, it’s “true”.  If it challenges this status quo and disrupts occult power and influence, it’s heresy.

So what can we learn from the 4 Propaganda Pillars?  Well, the answer is simple.  Start by questioning ALL assumptions.  Is it likely that a deity would insist on the penmanship of scribes across three languages and two millennia to convey an oral wisdom and lived experience?  Is it likely that an geocentric observation which takes into account none of the earth’s magnetic, meteorologic, or other effects to say nothing of the unknown kinetics in multiple dimensions that may describe light emitters both near and far forms a universal “law”?  Is it likely that a government agency under the thumb of financial interests will want independent data that competes with incumbent interests represented as true, fair, and balanced?  Of course not.  Second, encourage dissent.  Welcome those who innocently inquire together with those in vehement opposition.  Encourage each party to come to the table with their own insights and welcome discord that remains unresolved yet respectful.  Third, acknowledge subjectivity.  In the case of our business, we explicitly publish our methodology and approach.  We’re not saying it’s “right”.  We’re simply stating our perspective.  And in our case, we’re applying that perspective to information that is public but is unused by financial institutions and regulators.  So we’re even telling people where and how to look at something that is not commonly seen.  And finally, engage with arrogant humility.  What I mean by this is simple.  What we do represents decades of research and scholarship.  The perspective we have is based on ample consideration.  Therefore, the views we share with the world are correctly OUR VIEW.  That DOESN’T MAKE IT RIGHT!  It just makes it us.

Who knows?  With an approach that doesn’t require swords, cruelty, division, and harm, maybe we can form a more profitable union!

VI^a/W

Faith + Hope + Belief = Anything But Love

“I had a conversation with my mother about faith and religion,” my dear friend told me over the weekend.  “I asked my mother if I had been a disappointment to her as I had not remained part of the Catholic Church.  Her response was that while she was greatly troubled at this point in her life, I would only be a true disappointment if she died before I embraced the faith she held.  I don’t know how to choose between making her feel good and being truthful to my own experience,” she continued.

Over the past several years I’ve encountered many people who struggle with the social imposition of “beliefs” by family, friends, colleagues or community.  As polarizing litmus tests proliferate from “likes” on Facebook to dogmatic political, social or religious allegiances, the pressures to “choose sides” comes with considerable trauma and persistent harm.  In my own experience, I’ve marveled at the frequency with which I have experienced people who embrace beliefs over friendship, family, and fellowship.  Excommunication is as alive and well in 2019 as it was in the 4^th century when to be Christian meant to be “right” or suffer in this life and the mythical next.

One of the models I use to make sense of the world around me is the Carbon atom.  With 6 neutrons, 6 protons and 6 electrons (6-6-6), it is the building block of much of what we call life.  When light and life interact, they seem to conscript Carbon rather persistently.   As such, I find it a lovely template to use to consider the energies that make things work in the human experience.  When working with groups or individuals, I often look at each individual’s 6 core energies that dominate life experiences and themes (the neutrons); the 6 persistent characteristics that these energies animate with a person (the protons); and, the 6 polar energies paired in opposition with the protons with which serve as the energies with which the outside world interacts with a person (the electrons).  Using this simple model, one can readily see that each person has unique affinities to certain external energies and equally has no connection to other energies. 

Belief is one of the energies with which many struggle.  They feel either that they “should” have it or there’s something quite wrong if they don’t.  Like all energies, in life, belief exists in polarity.  If someone experiences considerable internal doubt, belief (and community-held belief systems) can be quite helpful.  Religious teaching adds particular gravity to the notion of belief with Jesus’ rebuke of Thomas after the resurrection when it is stated, “Blessed are those who believe even though they have not seen.” (John 20:29).  And again, “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and being convinced of what we do not see.” (Hebrews 11:1).  Faith, hope, and belief…all attributes or energies that may apply to the lives of some, but not all.  But if you’re among those to whom these energies don’t hold particular connection, you’re definitely a prime target to be ostracized.

Faith, hope and belief all share come common energetic attributes.  First, they all rely on seduction.  Sometime, somewhere, or something else is held out as “better” than now, here, and what’s present.  I’m perplexed with the number of times I see those in politics and religion promote an indeterminant and ephemeral “other” condition with aspirational ideals that neither they nor their adherents experience.  Second, each of these energies rely on ego.  Think about it. For any of these energies to hold sway, you first have to construct an abstract framework in which observation has to be subordinated to a worldview or perspective other than the observed.  Then you have to judge each moment for its conformity to that abstraction.  In the end, you must assess the proximity or distance of your experience or interaction to that abstract ideal.  YOU are the arbiter of both the abstraction and its expression (or lack thereof).  Third, these energies rely on judgment.  Conformity and dissonance are the constant companions to the persistent judgments that accompany faith, hope and belief.  And finally, and perhaps most regrettably, faith, hope, and belief often require some variant of fear, guilt, or shame.  I associate these three constructs as I find that they all arise from a common notion of inadequacy.

Seduction, ego, judgment, and fear are all energies that, in varying degrees, may be part of many people’s lived experience.  When used to build genuine, constructive relationship and community, they may serve a meaningful role.  But when they are imposed upon relationships, their toxin can do far more harm than those who embrace these energies appear to know (or care to know).  And more insidious than their individual expression is their collective utility.  When someone for whom belief, faith and hope play an important role interacts with someone for whom these energies don’t resonate, conflict is frequently imagined or imposed.  Did my dear friend “reject” her mother’s faith?  Absolutely not.  First of all, her mother wasn’t the initiator of the Catholic dogma and therefore it wasn’t hers at all.  It was a social technology used to characterize the belief complex that served a role for her life.  My friend didn’t have her mother’s experience.  That the Catholic religion didn’t fit is not a rejection.  One cannot reject an option or reality that never existed.  When I go to a shoe store and walk past women’s high heel stilettoes, I’m not rejecting them when I don’t buy them.  Thankfully, they’re not made in my size (or maybe I’d be tempted...NOT!).  And when the mother dies, will my friend be the source of her disappointment?  Equally, no.  Her disappointment will arise from her election to place belief, faith, and hope over the full expression of living in her daughter. 

Which brings me to my final observation.  For most of my life, I’ve heard the celebration of “faith, hope, and love, and the greatest of these is love,” in sermons, at weddings, and in countless other events.   I find it most tragic that “love” is lumped into this triumvirate.  For most of my life, many of those purportedly “loving” me fully integrated the four energies referenced above – seduction (you’re supposed to desire an ideal regardless of the present condition), ego (it’s all about me), judgment (it’s value is derived from the exclusion of others), and, fear, guilt and shame (it’s expected regardless of integrity and reciprocity).  Love meant sacrifice, deferral, emasculation, and isolation.  This was all justified because of social conventions and belief systems that defined classifications of relationships that are entitled to concessions that would not be afforded to anyone else.  For the past few years, I’ve engaged in a simple exercise.  I have expressed unconditional love – investing in attempts to build relationships with those with whom faith, hope and belief have led to estrangement.  And in return, I’ve experienced greater isolation.

Does my friend’s mother “love” her?  Yes, in her own way.  For reasons that she probably cannot truly articulate, she wants her daughter to gain some eternal benefit for membership in the right club.   Is the threat of eternal disappointment going to demonstrate genuine affection?  Absolutely not.  Its effect is destructive in the present and will have lasting harm. 

My advice to my friend is the advice I give myself each day.  Be kind, generous, compassionate, and caring to others.  Celebrate those relationships with whom that value is shared.  The glass slipper that fits you fits YOU.  Don’t try to wear others’ and don’t try to lend yours out.  And in the event that proper nouns like family, community, or group animate within you an impulse to tolerate judgment, hostility, or cruelty that you wouldn’t otherwise accept, engage it only when you can explicitly do so based on your value of those social structures not expecting humanity in return.

x

Entitled…and other popular delusions

“I’m entitled to my feelings and you can’t tell me otherwise,” yelled an enraged person just the other day.

Something inside me snapped.  Mind you, it’s been under a ton of strain for the vast majority of my life but something about this moment was when I had enough.

Let’s start with the offensive pieces.

First, no person is “entitled” to feelings, emotions, or any other reflexive neurocognitive impulse.  Entitlement, by definition, requires a community in which someone or some set of individuals is recognized as having or deserving “special or preferential treatment”.  While hosts of popular psychologists, therapists, and counselors feed sociopathic addictions (and line their co-dependent pockets) by reciting the “entitlement” delusion, objectively entitlement is an agreement, consideration, or an imposition that requires someone to give or have taken from them a concession.  Without a priori agreement in each instance, neither you nor your outburst constitute such an agreement.

Second, they’re not your feelings.  There are hosts of genuine sensory inputs that conspire to build the notion of “feelings”.  But the dominant narrative likes to shriek about “my feelings” without doing any consideration about where those “feelings” came from.  When someone you think you love finds other priorities, are “your feelings” injured or have you decided to opt out of accountability (possibly a contributing factor to the perceived loss) rather than sit and consider pathways to understand and reconcile relationship accountability?  When someone dies, are they “your feelings” or have you attached meaning to temporal attributes of life rather than living in complete fulness of each present moment?  When situations don’t work out the way you wanted them, are “your feelings” damaged or have you projected an unreasonable surrogacy or dependence on other people or circumstances without consideration for their conscription into your illusion?  I’ve yet to meet anyone yelling about their “feelings” that isn’t parroting an entitled social cliché derived from consensus myth values considered neither by themselves nor their purveyors. 

Third, I have no interest in agreeing to, acquiescing to, or recognizing “your feelings”.  While I can see conditions in which external or internal situations have created adversity to be sure, my humanity can easily be stimulated to empathy.  In transparent dialogue about a situation and the self-aware processing of senses that give rise to pain or sadness, a listening ear, a hug, or another expression of concern is quite accessible.  But the conception of control of an imaginary, ephemeral notion of controlling in another a reflex that is out of control in the person ranting about “feelings” is a road too far. 

Unwilling to let go of tirade when the bait wasn’t taken, the person amped it up.  “Yes, I’m angry and I get that way when you try to control me.”

Funny, that one.  That sentence was yelled – face glowing red – by a person who had just heard me say that if our conversation was to proceed, I would only continue the conversation if tones were kept low and a commitment to truthful communication was maintained.  The comedy in this was the fact that I had no interest in controlling another.  What I did have was an interest in setting boundaries for the protection of my own well-being.  The only control in the conversation was my emotional disengagement from meeting the escalating frenzy.  Setting ground rules for communication – particularly when there’s been a history of reflexive loss of control – is not a patriarchal imposition.  Rather, it is a means by which both parties can make conscious decisions about the value of communication.  Keep the ball on the field – it’s a game.  Kick the ball onto the street – it’s a fatality waiting to happen. 

What’s missing from this conversation?

• 1.      Genuine commitment to integrity:  There’s no question that people have unique perspectives on words, experiences, and most of all, recollections.  Everyone’s perception of events, communication, and the like is, in fact, their own.  However, insidiously, many times that perception is shaped not by the protagonists in a conversation but rather in the perspectives and worldviews of others that are implicated without attribution into those interpretations.  A person should have lived longer.  You should love me.  My project should have succeeded.  Integrity CANNOT exist when the uninvited guest of unspoken assumptions are allowed to be recklessly invoked. 
•  
• 2.      Autonomy:  One cannot give or receive “permission” from another for any reflex.  Reflexes are autonomous and unconsidered.  They – by virtue of our anatomy – do NOT INVOLVE cognitive filters and attenuation.  Short of anesthesia or lobotomy, the ability for anyone to “control” in real or figurative ways, your perception is a direct function of YOUR ceding surrogacy to others for your experience.  In other words, loss of control is ALWAYS on you.
•  
• 3.      Self-governance:  While emotional trauma, pain and disappointment are in fact unique human experiences, mature communication never affords license to venomous attacks of others in the conversation.  You may be hurt.   You may have emotions.  You may be frustrated.  But only sociopathic abusers feel entitled to yell, curse or storm off enraged to exercise manipulation (not control) of a situation.  These behaviors are NEVER acceptable and NEVER justified.

Having lived for over 30 years with incapacitating pain in both of my legs has made me intolerant of self-inflicted pain.  When my legs collapse in the normal course of walking or navigating stairs, I find myself impulsively drawn towards thoughts of other realities in which this wouldn’t happen.  But in an instant, I’m reminded of the fact that I’m walking.  When I’m in conflict, I’m frequently drawn towards questioning the merits of the relationship I’m seeking to build, maintain, or heal.  But in an instant I’m reminded that I am blessed with the fellowship of others and don’t live an isolated life.  But I’m to a point in my life where I have come to embrace the IS nature of the senses I have and I strive to separate the reflexes that those engender from the interactions I have with others.  And that, my friends, is because I’m not entitled to anything.  I’m grateful for life… and that makes all the difference.

x

Living a Lie

I’m sure you’re with me in the persistence of your rapt fascination with the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) measurement of gravitational waves measured in Livingston, Louisiana and Hanford, Washington and the 1.5-billion-year-old black hole collision from which they originated.  Even more so, I’m sure you sleep better at night knowing that nature (yes, that same thing that allegedly created a cataclysmic shock wave 1.5 billion years ago) obeys the theory proposed by Einstein on general relativity.  Thank heavens.  After all, how disappointed would we all be if we found out that our myopic projection onto nature didn’t follow “our rules”?  Thankfully, the Nobel Committee awarded med/tals to three researchers – Barry Barish, Kip Thorne, and Rainier Weiss – which in the medal’s own atomic composition were the product of the theoretical genesis of the very gold from which their medal was struck!  Au79 – aka gold – is supposedly born of stellar events incapable of being replicated at scale on Earth.  I’m sure you chuckled with the irony that the medal was from metal derived of a cosmic event resulting in the precipitation of gold that was derived from an equally improbable theoretical framework of cosmic proportions to the discovery for which the medal was awarded.

In the months following the measurement of the first gravitational wave, there’s been a plethora of confirmatory measurements.  Imagine that!  We go 1.5 billion years without a ripple and then, boom, waves are popping out all over like acne on a 13-year-old version of my face!  And as we take this step closer to answering the existential question of why matter exists and how it came into being – something that I know keeps me up at night – we’re a few billion dollars and a few years away from confirming Fritz Zwicky’s 1933 postulation of “dark matter” that makes up most of… well, pretty much everything.  And if you’re like me, you can’t wait until 2022 when we finally power up the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope in Chile when we get to learn when to set our Mayan calendars for the “Big Rip” which is when the universe is torn asunder by the accelerating pace of the expansion of the universe and all its “dark matter”.

I had the privilege of reading Julius Pretterebner’s The Unifed Theory – Electricity, Magnetism, Gravity, and Mechanics which seeks to unravel the hidden structure of Maxwell’s equations in pursuit of a rational Unified Theory.  I had an interest in this as I’m continuing to entertain myself with the “consciousness” and “discernment” evidenced in playing with magnets and iron filings.  Weaving a tapestry of Newton, Lorenz, Kepler, Faraday, Helmholz, and others, Julius takes us on the journey from geometry to kinetics in a flurry of formulae worthy of Jackson Pollack unleashed with a paint bucket and a blank canvas at the MoMA.  What I find fascinating in the blinding Greek characters is the persistence of separation – distance, time, vacuum, and direction all in the quest to find what makes it all stick together.

Over the years, I’ve encountered people seeking to end relationships, rationalize grief, or justify callous neglect who utter the fatalist epitaph, “I must have been living a lie.”  This refrain of the hard-done-by is the unconsidered product of an illusion projected onto reality lubricated generously by therapists who prey on the wallets of those who seek solace and justification to assuage pain receptors symptomatically triggered by an absence of personal culpability and accountability.  Understanding “WHY” is attempted to be resolved: by becoming remote from the supposed ‘cause’ (distance); after a situation has become irreconcilably destroyed (time); in complete absence of personal responsibility or self-awareness (vacuum); and, with a notion of finitude that must be reified to support a socially sympathetic narrative(direction).  Like colliding black holes, neutron stars, and dark matter, our capacity to apprehend in hindsight the copious and persistent neglect we had for the present addicts us to telling the “WHY” story using variables that science conveniently offers us as “laws” and “unified theories”.

A simple journey through Wikipedia will be helpful for those who don’t read the footnotes of chemistry, physics, and mathematics journals.  Matter, is made up of electromagnetically charged particles.  For convenience, we’ll stick to the generally accepted atomic model of protons, neutrons, and electrons.  The guts of matter (the nuclear core of atoms) is made up of things that don’t seem to totally compute.  Allegedly neutrons beget protons and around this nuclear core, negatively charged electrons orbit in various energy states.  Based on the number of spinning electrons, multiple atoms can bind to form molecules, molecules organize to beget stuff and, presto! We’ve got stuff!  Neutrons are born of stellar formation and destruction.  Our theoretical models have a ticklish problem in that neutrons are supposed to decay pretty quickly – in the matter of a few minutes.  Now hit pause on that thought for a quick reality check.

I’m writing this blog post from 38,000ft above the Pacific Ocean in an aircraft made of aluminum.  How is it, precisely, that neutrons from deep space keep ‘showing up’ in aluminum form to keep this plane in the air?  And how is it that the carbon, phosphate, sodium, potassium, and chlorine which currently allow my fingers to keep typing on my keyboard keep persisting in their form when the average neutron hangs around for less than 15 minutes?  Am I sitting less than 15 minutes away from a supernova, a black hole, or a neutron emitting energy source?  If I was, wouldn’t I be incinerated?

Julius points out the uncomfortable math problem that Kepler eluded to and Newton calculated when they described the Earth’s elliptical orbit of the Sun.  ‘Separate points in space’ don’t exist as physically isolated actors.  While we want to make everything fit into lines-between-points models, that very model is broken in its opening assumption.  Everything is in motion and unlike our mathematical simplistic assumptions is not seeking ‘normal distributions’ or ‘homeostatic balance’.  When one passes a magnet over iron filings, some of the iron filings respond and some don’t.  Pass the same or a different magnet over the ‘unresponsive’ filings and their response changes.  How is it that when presented with a field, some particles respond and some don’t?  How is it that the exact same experimental conditions applied exactly the same way a second time leads to a different response?  Is the iron filing that doesn’t jump in the first instance “living a lie” as some alternative nonferrous substance or is it the case that the field in which its experience the present moment simply not eliciting a response as presented?

One of the most romanticized separation illusions is the inadequately characterized notion relationship loss.  In a recent conversation I had about the concept of grief I suggested that the emotional notion of grief could benefit from re-examination.  In the conversation, I recounted the over 30 years I’ve lived with excruciating pain in my legs following a tremendous accident and multiple ensuing reconstructive surgeries.  Reflexively, I have been bombarded with three decades of the question, Why?  Why do you have to suffer pain every day?  And I join the millions who are sympathetically patronized with Why.  Why did he get cancer?  Why did my child die?  Why did my marriage end?  Why was I abused?  Why, why, why?  And what I’ve come to recognize is that WHY is merely the pretext for symptomatic relief – not for fruitful living!  Oh, you poor dear, you’re in pain… I’ve got an opioid for that.  Oh, you poor dear, you neglected your relationship… I’ve got a therapist who can help you blame someone.  Oh, you poor dear, your loved one died… you can disengage living your life in homage to…WHAT!!!???  Like our billion dollar quest to find out the WHY of the Universe, we play out in miniature the same madness in our own social orbits.  Substance abuse, surrogacy and dependency on prostituted empathy, escape and isolation, reclusiveness all mark the profitable trail of a Unified Theory of disunity.

“What would happen,” I inquired, “if we reconstituted GRIEF into a Gratitude Reminder In Emotional Form?”  Rather than seeing the distance, time, vacuum, and directional illusions that we project, what if we used the dark energy of emotion to animate in impulse of gratitude?

Life spoiler alert!  Around 2033 when we read the news out of Chile that at long last we’ve seen and measured ‘dark energy’ and we confirm that in a few more billion years it’s going to complete the Big Bang cycle by rending our universe asunder, we will have learned nothing.  As long as we chase a non-present projection of an illusory construct on each of our todays so as to render them somehow defective in favor of an ideal condition which we couldn’t imagine given our space-time limited fantasies, we’ll continue in missing what’s in front of us in the moment.

Which brings me to the point.  WHAT’S THE POINT OF LIFE?

Well, thanks for asking.  I’m pretty sure the answer is, there is none.  If by life you mean judging the present as inadequate; obsessing about a linear future as something to which one aspires; a rejection of present relationships for your enculturated definition of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; and, a determination that through passive aggressive isolation or outright cruelty a judgement will be rendered on the wrongdoer, well then, it’s pointless.

But if we golf clap for the Nobel Prize committee and then go about emancipating ourselves from the illusion of separation, we can:

Realize that one person’s pain is a sensation to heighten our own experience of and gratitude for what is whole and properly functioning;

Realize that one person’s ‘loss’ is an invitation for deepening cherished connections and reinvigorating the social, material, and energetic networks that sustain us;

Recognize that in our unfiltered expression of insights and wisdom, we’re merely resolving for ourselves and others resonant chords which can remind and stimulate wisdom in others; and,

Celebrate that each moment is entangled with all other moments in all other dimensions and thoughtfully engage our field effect in our awareness so as to bend and accommodate the field effects in the experience of others in positive manners.

In short, while my life and your life may have no purpose in isolation, our purposeful living appears to  shape the field of reality and, in so doing makes an indelible mark in the ever present NOW.  No stories; no justifications; no excuses – No Lies.

x

Who Do You Say That I Am?

Take a moment and try to remember your first conversation using words.  No, really pause and see if you can recall your very first conversation.  And by that, I mean when you knew that you were using language, logic, and your capacity to formulate organized thought with another person.  How long ago was that conversation?  Where did it happen?  Who was around when it happened? 

I think my first memory of a conversation was on March 7, 1970.  I was standing in the Mexican desert in the State of Oaxaca near the town of Mitla.  It was sometime between 11:38am CST and 11:41am CST.  I know that I was proudly proclaiming to anyone who was within earshot something to the effect of “my daddy has a telescope”.  I was about 4 years old.  The day before, I had a staring contest with a cactus that was about my size.  During that week, I had climbed the 75 meters up the Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan.  It was during totality of a solar eclipse.  And some mix of all these exceptional experiences fuses in my mind the capacity to recall the artifact of a conversation with remarkable precision.  I remember that there were around 5 people to whom I addressed my comments.  I remember that one of them was a little Mexican girl about my age who was wearing a yellow and orange dress.  I remember a man who was crouched down looking at the pin hole shadow of the eclipse on a board laid out on the ground.  This memory is 48 years old.

Most scholars would suggest that the first record of the recollected (not witnessed) words of Jesus were written somewhere around 57AD.  The appearance of the story of Jesus’ conversation with his disciples recounted in Matthew 16:13-20 was probably originally written around 80-90AD.  Suggesting that anyone could “quote” a recollected conversation received through hearsay across 5 decades is beyond implausible.  Consider your own fallibility in the exercise above.  If you haven’t considered it, redo the exercise and see how memorable YOUR OWN MEMORIES are.  But let’s set that aside for a moment.  That’s not the point.  In Matthew, after a host of acts regarded as unexplained phenomenon by their witnesses, Jesus asks his disciples, “But who do you say that I am?”  In the story, this question arises in exasperation from his observation that people were trying to figure out who he was after he had fed 5,000 with 5 loaves of bread and 4,000 with 7 loaves of bread.  I’ve yet to hear anyone talk about the appetite of the 4,000 which required so much more bread!  And worse than that, his own disciples were thinking that they were in trouble for not packing a lunch on their boat trip.  For those of you who didn’t grow up with the eschatological obsessions that characterized my childhood, I’ll connect some dots.

According to the Gospels, Jesus spent his life living and explaining values that were an “ideal”.  He didn’t apply titles to his person or his actions.  He simply lived and tried to explain the philosophy behind the “how”.  It was his observers who insisted on titles.  “Messiah”, “Prophet”, “Healer”: all attributes suitable in a moment in the context of what had just transpired but none of them descriptors of his full essence.  And this irritated everybody – especially those in his closest circles.  “It’s hard to explain what you do,” one can imagine them protesting after their last conversation about the guy they were hanging out with.  Was he a carpenter?  Fisherman?  Seafarer?  Water-walker?  Vintner?  Sommelier?  Physician?  Prophet?  Friend?  Revolutionary?  Iconoclast?

The Second Commandment in the 10 Commandments is the prohibition of idols or graven images.  Language generally – and our obsession with classifier nouns specifically – represents the most insidious idolatry of our time.  A label on a person, a group, a movement, an institution and suddenly nuance is replaced with reflexive duality.  Our capacity to see metaphoric coherence in pluralistic expression diminishes with each passing “cause” or “outrage”.  With definition comes dissonance.  Few comedies have matched the comedy of idolatry itself.  Around 726, Emperor Leo III decreed that all images and icons should be removed from churches with all veneration of the same outlawed 4 years later.  Fifty years later (and with the lobbying of those who found veneration quite a profitable venture), the Second Council of Nicaea (or the Seventh Ecumenical Council) reinstated icons and veneration.  Somewhat ironically, Constantine V – who had outlawed veneration of images – had a carve out sanctioning the preservation of images of the emperor!  Funny how that pissed off the folks the Byzantine and Roman churches who saw themselves demoted in favor of the emperor who monopolized the iconography of the day.  On October 13, 787, the council specifically authorized the, “manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments to be exhibited on the walls of churches, in homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them.”  The business of propaganda justified the rejection of Second Commandment.  Oh, and in 1536, John Calvin found himself siding with Leo III and re-banned images in favor of, you guessed it, words.  And this father of the Protestant movement had the decency of burning at the stake those who would challenge his words.

What is it about nouns that leads to murderous obsession, flagrant inhumanity, ostracization, and all manner of destruction of the human family?  I find it amusing that the text in Matthew shares an eerie resemblance to another biblical text – Genesis 2:19.  “Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them.  And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.”  In our common myth, the FIRST thing we do on earth is name stuff!  Seriously?  To be human is to exert dominion by classification?  And when an ideal human is doing some amazing things showing humanity what is possible (against the carnage of the Roman occupation of Palestine), his followers insist on “naming” him at least as the story is told?  Seriously?  Isn’t it funny that the only term Jesus reportedly used to describe himself is “I am”?  That’s right, whether you think of him as divine, deific, inspirational or delusional, the only title embraced by him is the evidence of his being and doing.  Is a giraffe more “giraffe” or “tall spotted, furry, gangly quadruped leaf eater that looks pretty damn funny bending over to take a drink”?

Over the past 45 years, I’ve been plagued by well-meaning people who want to know “what” I am.  Countless branding experts have been brought in or offered their services to package me so that others can “get it”.  “When I look at your company’s website, I don’t “get it”,” I hear with monotonous regularity.  “Do you run and non-profit?”, I’m asked by those who see the work I’ve done in conflict-torn and marginalized communities.  “So you’re an investor,” conclude those who see the work I do in the capital markets.  “Are you a quant?” inquire people mystified by the fact that I developed the world’s leading large cap equity index.  “So you are a doctor?” concluded a group of people who recently saw me attend to the injured and one fatality that died in my hands at a car accident.  “So you’re a futurist,” concluded a friend who saw a video from 2006 in which I detailed the precise cause and consequence of the 2008 global financial crisis.  Speaker, futurist, doctor, polymath, healer, joker, idiot.  One recent commentator on my criticism of the hype around Tesla raged, “Who does this guy think he is?” before suggesting that I should be silenced with a gun.

What’s wrong with, “I am”?

I had an interesting experience in Indiana in the late 80s.  There was a high school athlete who was an exceptional quarterback setting records for yardage and touchdowns with nearly 4,000 yards and 30 touchdowns in his senior year.  His success attracted the attention of a prominent university where he received a football scholarship.  As the football season was coming to a close, his success as a point guard in basketball pulled him between the snowy fields and the steamy gyms.  And with the playoffs in basketball bleeding into the baseball season, his role as star pitcher called his attention again.  Oh, and he was homecoming king, popular… and resented.  He was too good at too many things.  “You have to focus,” the university coached yelled at him after telling him not to play baseball for a State Championship team.  I watched as this great kid “focused”.  At university, he set records for career touchdowns, all-time total offense and slipped away from basketball and baseball.  In 1993 he was drafted to the NFL where he set the rookie record for attempts, completions and yards.  In each subsequent year, his performance diminished.  Seven years and 4 teams later, this all-around athlete retired.

Did he “need” to focus?  Did he have to “choose”?  Or was it us who couldn’t wrap our head around someone that was just skilled at everything he touched?  Was Rick a great quarterback?  Sure.  But wasn’t there something more?  Wasn’t it the case that he was a master of greatness?  He knew the value of persistence, valued excellence over mediocrity, embraced discipline and effort over entitlement.  And did we all lose the real impact of his genius by a world that made him conform to what we could productize?

History tells us that Joseph was a spoiled brat.  He was a favorite son and rocked some cool threads.  This pissed off his brothers who beat him, stripped him of his coat and sold him as a slave to Potiphar – a jailor in Egypt.  He worked hard, looked amazing and gained the favor and attention of his master (and unfortunately, his master’s wife).  After refusing her advances, she unleashed the venom of sexual harassment and Joseph wound up in prison on death row.  His ability to interpret dreams put him on pharaoh’s radar and he became the originator of history’s first recorded commodity exchange and reserve bank and in so doing, saved the Egyptian population – and his duplicitous family – from 7 years of famine.  What was he?  A brat?  A fashion icon?  A slave?  A general manager?  A fortune teller?  A politician?  A commodities trader?  A Central Banker?  A Governor?  No.  He was.  That’s it.  He just brought his excellent stewardship to each situation and, combined with his integrity and power of analytic discipline, put in motion the culture that once received a young woman on a donkey, a Palestinian carpenter, and their son when they were refugees from a Roman occupation near Bethlehem.  There’s no Jesus without Joseph.  And there’s no Joseph without all the “I ams” that came before them!

In the Ramayana, after proving his devotion to Rama in the epic battles and against the humiliation of the military generals, Hanuman is asked by Lord Rama, “How do you look upon me?”  Hanuman’s triangulated answer is instructive.

“From the perspective of my physical body, I am your faithful servant.

From the perspective of the soul, I am a spark within your eternal Light.

From the perspective of pure truth, you and I, my Lord, are one in the same.”

For those of you who are familiar with the ordinates of Integral Accounting, you will undoubtedly see in this answer the polarities of Alchemy, Eidos, and Gnosis.  From the perspective of matter and energy (commodity), my value is service.  From the standpoint of perception (custom & culture) my shared experience is propagation of light (technology).  And from the knowledge of truth, I have identity with everything in the universe (well-being).

So, who am I?  Well, here’s the paradox:  from which perspective are you asking the question?  Because the answer is that I understand matter and energy and align it to productive service.  I see things in the multi-dimensional contexts and create reproducible ways for others to engage and benefit from these perspectives.  And, thanks to the countless wisdoms to which I’ve been exposed, I finally know that I am.

x

My Naked Reality...Undressing Shame

On the final morning of my wedding anniversary trip to Como Maalifushi in the Republic of the Maldives, I opened my e-mail to see the following message from a family member: 

“Anyway, I see many of your postings on face book.  I recall some of the beautiful nature pictures of flowers and capturing God’s beautiful earth.  Recently, the focus seems changed.  BUT it also reminds me to pray very much for all of us to be what God has meant for us to be.  God has given you abilities…. I care.”

For those who are not on Facebook or for those who don’t engage in social media connections with frequency, allow me to make the following point of clarification.  At this romantic island resort – the location of Kim and my honeymoon one year ago – I have enjoyed sublime moments of bliss with my wife.  At times, we have elected to share these with photos of sunsets, turtles, sharks, sailboats, and yes, us celebrating each other’s beautiful bodies.  Growing up in the oppressive environment that sought to crush my spirit for nearly 5 decades, I am, for the first time being who I “was meant to be” – naked, in the garden unashamed. 

I love sailing.  I love the ocean.  I love the sun and the dance of light across each cell of my being.  I love the feel of skin lightly pricked with the sun’s rays.  I love the pulse of the waves caressing each part of my body.  And, without question, I love sharing this experience with a woman who sees and loves me. 

Religion corrupted beaches for me at an early age.  I associated beaches with beautiful, lightly clad women and men celebrating life and freedom.  From nudists on the California coast to surfers in Hawaii, I loved to see how ‘others’ were able to enjoy what I was conditioned to despise.  Because for me, the beach and ocean were precisely the places of temptation for which Matthew 5:28 was my eternal indictment.  “I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”  As a teenager, I fantasized that one day one of these beautiful women would find my pimply-faced visage attractive (or at least sympathetic) and I would enjoy what seemed to be beyond my fate.  

And what religion defiled, marriage obliterated.  While I begged and pleaded for physical beauty to be a shared value – heightened by my incapacitation from my severe accident in 1988 and my loss of use of my legs – I was bombarded with lies at every level.

•         ‘Love’ what’s on the inside regardless of what’s on the outside;
•         Men who look at good-looking women are ‘superficial’;
•        ‘Physical beauty’ fades so you have to diminish its importance;
•       “You should” look at me the way you look at her; and, worst of all,
•        “It's normal to fantasize when you're having sex."

And here’s where the lie metastasizes into the cancer that destroyed much of my life.  I gave most moments of my life to the reverential service of my ‘partner’.  The utility I represented was appreciated and frequently acknowledged.  But I was castigated for desiring what I …, well…, like breathing…, DESIRED!  And on the few occasions where to possibility of shared aesthetic and erotic values emerged (and they did on three occasions in three decades), the brief interlude of physical prioritization ended with actual contempt and anger.  “I hate being controlled by exercise and what I have to eat,” was the benediction on effort before apathy shrouded life’s beautiful potential.

So back to this morning’s e-mail.  Ironically, I spent years making my life look like the beautiful image I desired.  A review of my Facebook posts shows hundreds of images curated from thousands in which lighting, angles and vistas were curated to highlight the natural beauty I sought to celebrate.  I’m beginning to experience a life where the “ideal” and “reality” match.  I have a wife who celebrates my reverence for her - beauty and all.  And I choose to celebrate it! 

But now I’m going to get a lot more blunt (and controversial).  I’m sick and tired of living in a world where a flower, a mushroom, a sunset, or a puppy can be celebrated but a photograph I take of Kim in her beautiful essence or the two of us together “crosses the line”.  People who once shared my life and family are incapable of “liking” the posts of my life on Facebook while having no problem “liking” nature posts from my family, my friends, or complete strangers.  And why?  Is it really because they find the content offensive?  And if so, why?  At 51 years of age, I am finally celebrating my beautiful body aided in large part by a wife who baffles me each morning with a smile and an affirmation about how much she loves “my beautiful body.”  And I’ve walked into enough venues around the world where I’ve seen men’s heads whip around in admiration (and lust) for Kim, seen some women inspired by her beauty and seen the cruelty of those who have contempt for the same to know that my beautiful wife is… beautiful.  Do they truly despise me or us or do they wish to defile what they’ve decided is their justification for suboptimal physical expression of inner beauty?

When Kim and I work out together most mornings of our life – hitting the gym between 5 and 7 most days or riding bike for a few hours – we’re not obsessing about fitness to fit a “social ideal”.  When we juice celery and kale, are we “denying” ourselves or are we choosing to feel vital and unbloated?  What we’re doing is celebrating the amazing beauty of the gift of living and doing everything we can to honor and reverence ourselves and each other by presenting each other with the gift of beauty.  Kim in a bikini is stunning.  Kim, as “God meant her to be” is even more breath-taking.  I’ll leave Kim’s view on me to her post if she feels like it needs a comment.

And my journey isn’t an easy one.  I struggle most days with the fact that my life and values were diminished and disregarded.  In every day, I’m exorcising the demons of shame, guilt, and fantasy.  For the first time in my life, I’m able to have intimate honesty and transparency with my wife and lover who compassionately seeks to mend what was broken.  And while the God of my childhood and much of my culture can only trade on shame and guilt to entrap loyalty and adoration – I’m falling into the loving embrace of a Universe that constantly reminds me that to Fully Live is to be beautiful - birds, bees, bosoms, breasts, butts, bears, bison, black-eyed susans, barley, barramundi, and all!

x