By Pat Pillar
Being part of this writing staff has many perks. One is the rational and intellectual discussions among members – even civilized discourse.
Since this is my first writing in this the first week, I want to explain the thought process in the articles to be offered.. While it is true that we can write our opinions, we have to fact check them. Even when the facts don’t match the article, we can submit it as sarcasm or a spoof.
During this process of fact checking I came to understand myself better. Our editor-in-chief does not get upset as the rest of us do. He practiced as a neuropsychologist for 31 years and showed the benefit of rational emotive thinking and experimental design.
I found that none of my ideas fact checked. I am a liberal and hold fast to my beliefs. In my writing here I came across information that has turned my world upside down. The conservative writers have the same problem.
So while I come to grips with my awakening I had to find something to write about that met the guidelines of our writing experiment. We write articles that we discuss from both a philosophical view and a literary angle. We experiment with writing techniques that will be presented later.
I decided to write about a long discussion we (the staff) had on thinking and emotions. I saw an article that mentioned how the human heart sends out electrical impulses under certain stimuli. I made the comment that I think with my heart. I was asked to give an example of “heart thinking.” I couldn’t do it. As I said the things that defended my statement I knew they made no sense and were not verifiable.
We think with our brain. We extrapolate and say that a kind or kinder thought comes from the heart – but it doesn’t. I associate with many people who believe that the heart, the muscle that pumps blood, has a mind of its own. These people tend to be females who think that men also have a penis that thinks.
We laugh but that logic is observed by people, some who realize how inappropriate that thinking is. I saw an article on a recent former Saudi king who not only believed the world was flat but ordered you put to death if you disagreed.
My colleagues likened my thinking as no different that the Saudi king. The discussion morphed into being right and being wrong. This proved very enlightening because being wrong, in our culture, comes down to a feeling. Facts, rational, measured bits of knowledge no longer matter.
For example if someone lies to me I get upset. When presented with not one but numerous lies by a candidate I support, I did not give all the lies the weight it deserved as a lie my neighbor told. At this juncture it was no longer a discussion, it was therapy.
Then the therapy addressed my being upset. Of course I was upset. Most people would be upset finding out that their life had a major thinking flaw at the center. This led to the statement that “all feelings come from your thoughts.Irr ational thoughts irrational feelings”. There were exceptions like feeling gas or abdominal feelings which were autonomic responses. But I understood. I had a flash of insight.
“When somebody calls you a bigot or a racist, doesn’t that upset you?” I asked one staff member.
“Initially it did. But since I know I am neither I had to ask why my opinion on a subject leads that person to say that. That’s when you see that one’s thoughts lead to one’s feelings. This person, who preached love, thinking with the heart, acceptance of another viewpoint, lied. They lied to me and worse to themselves. Their thinking is no different that the world is flat and if you don’t see that then you are a racist and a bigot.”
“So how come so many people support this person?” I asked feeling justified.
“That’s the sad part of any culture at its very root.. The irrational becomes the norm and nothing you say, no facts you offer will change that.”
“What about a comment that someone makes that is inappropriate?”
“Good example, let’s take a political candidate or talk show host that you don’t like. Let’s agree that we all don’t like this person. But he says something that offends our belief in what we want to accomplish. But what he says is accurate and to the point. Our dislike for the person overwhelms the validity of the statement let alone his right to say it.”
“But I read a study that said his facts were wrong,” I said.
“If it’s a fact it is neither right nor wrong, it just is. You then put that fact into a thought process that will make that thought acceptable to what you believe. But then you have to decide whether your belief is warranted.”
At this stage I wanted to know. Maybe there is a reason I can’t sleep at night, maybe my thinking is wrong. Heck, I eat well, I pray, I wish nice things for people and I volunteer. That should prove my thinking is right.
“If psychologists or medical doctors can prove with a high degree of accuracy that dogs from Mexico that come across the border carry a virulent disease that will kill with impunity anyone who comes in contact with that very specific dog, what would you do?”
“That’s not fair. You are comparing an apple to an orange.” I replied.
“Okay let’s make it simpler. They are bringing apples and oranges across the border. And we know that one of these fruits harbors a death sentence. But we don’t know if it is the apple or the orange but it is certain.”
“You’re being ridiculous”
“That’s how I can resist getting angry. No matter how the argument is presented I am wrong, I am a bigot and a racist. I ask a simple question about fruit that any rational person can answer, but you won’t because following that logic you know the rational answer to the next question. And that answer does not match your belief system or your agenda.”
“So my side wins.”
“If you call that winning, unless I get enough racists, bigots and rational thinkers to counteract your logic. You see I do not have the beliefs you think I have so I have to allow the real bigots and racists into my camp to vote for what is rational.”
I must admit I got angry at this discussion. The group seemed to not care. When I got home I sat down, thought about what we shared and wrote this article. There is a saying in my country of origin, “If enough people beat their head against the wall –the wall will fall down.”

by Chris Cross

I read accounts about people like Copernicus and Galileo who told the powers that be that they (the powers) had it wrong.  The earth revolved around the sun.  Under penalty of death these men recanted but still believed they were correct in their findings.

These men of science gave evidence to support their claims.  But the powers and the masses did not believe in evidence.  They believed in their opinions.

Much the same today.

I am a people watcher.  I notice that men talk openly and freely among men as do the women.  The conversations from both sexes are animated and filled with life.

I see a married couple who do not talk to each other.  They are not happy.  They separate and each joins the same sex group and immediately show signs of life.  They each laugh, smile and resemble social human beings.

What if we got  it wrong?

What if we were supposed to be separate.  What if the other five humanoid tribes died out because they found life with their own sex.  The occasional exchange of body fluids kept them going until they could no longer stand the other sex.  So they ended their species.

What if we got more wrong?

That there is a God and this Being realized that in order to keep this species alive he’d have to do something drastic.  He gave the male testosterone and the female estrogen.  Now the two hated sexes, the Hatfield and McCoys, had this urge to get together.

And I was witnessing the miserable couple, a by-product of chemical engineering (GMO if you will) finding others like them and hoping to find a way back to happiness.  A way to share life as the differences in chemicals sought comfort in their own kind.

So we make up a culture to even the playing field. And…

Beginning today, I have the pleasure of trying something new.  I have found six writers who will write a regular article  in BETTERTHNTHERAPY.

These writers are all locals living in and around Cuenca, Ecuador.  They demand anonymity.  The months of work pulling together this group I hope will be well worth the effort.  As you know Cuenca is home to the artist and writer.  These are expat writers who were hand picked for this endeavor.

The selection process proved formidable.  The reason being that there are so many writers in Cuenca — some if them very good.  The problem with most of the writers is they have an agenda.  They don’t see it.  They are so far to one side or the other on the political spectrum that their bias is bigoted.  We have writers who spew anti hate dialogue in a hateful way.  These writers had to be culled from the forum.

So beginning today you will read articles about nothing.  Each writer is given a topic thge day of the article and must fashion an article that is non political.  They can make the article relevant to a current topic.

They will be given certain writing parameters that you might figure out in the article (such as no passive voice, deductive or inductive paragraph structure, etc.)

We are working on a POINT/COUNTERPOINT team that will spoof political rhetoric.  (that reminds me, I have to check on their cages).  These two are feisty

We run this like a newspaper.  We meet and go over the various ideas and hope to tickle your involvement.  Yes, I am the editor-in-chief and it is my job to enforce the code. (code not fully formed yet)

There is no seriousness allowed, well sort of.  Every opinion is accepted as just that.  Any untoward language is prohibited edited and ridiculed. At the end of the writing week I will recap the authors and articles and  have the writers address comments.

Let the writing begin.