Keeping the Sacred Flame

Of all the people in the world, the one we most have to learn to live with is ourselves. There is no other relationship that is as important.

In a lot of ways this looks obvious. Of course we take care of ourselves. Of course we live with ourselves. How else would we live?

And yet, it’s not something usually spoken about. We do not have a relationship with ourself, that’s just weird. We are ourselves. A relationship requires give and take, exchange, all the things that happen between two or more. Not one.

And yet…

And yet.

We do give things to ourselves. We even say as much, that something is a present for ourself or that we are making or giving something to ourself. We have hobbies that we do simply to enrich our souls. All these things are part of our relationship with ourself.

And they are important. No one else will ever take care of you the way you do. When we trade time for ourself for time to someone else, we are sacrificing something. Which is not to say we shouldn’t – as I write this, I am planning to go out to my knitting group for the night. We all do things with other people, for other people. Community is built upon reciprocity. But I recognize that there is a cost and what it is. I accept it – but I also recognize it.

So we have to live with ourselves, and accept ourselves, and love ourselves. And give ourselves time. How?

Well, that’s tricker. Every person has to figure that out for themselves. Personally, I like knitting while watching science documentaries. My husband in the same situation would go mad. He loves to tinker with his model railroad, while I have no interest in railroads whatsoever. When we give ourselves the time for these hobbies, we enrich ourselves and become better people. When we find ourselves without time or energy for those things we love, we become cranky.

That is not the same thing as those things we need to do because having them undone irritates us. I don’t like doing dishes, but I like a dirty kitchen even less. Cleaning therefore has to happen, but it does not enrich us. It just keeps us from sinking. That is important. Equating the two can put a person in a pattern where they feel like they’re always taking care of themselves and yet still feel miserable. Truly caring for oneself does not lead to stasis, it leads to growth.

I recognize that hobbies are a luxury. Spending money on hobbies is money that cannot be spent on survival. Time spent on hobbies is time that cannot be spent doing something “productive.” But since when is productivity the best judge of what matters?

I do not knit because it’s productive. If all I wanted was socks, I’d go buy a whole pack of them for probably half the cost of the yarn for a single sock. But knitting makes me a better person. It enriches me. It feeds my soul. Productive is not the only rubric to live by. Money is not the only thing that matters.

Find what enriches you, and feed your soul.

As some of you know, I am working on a comprehensive Flamekeeping philosophy/theology book.  To this end, I have finally created an outline, posted below.

I welcome comments, additions, anything else you think belongs that I’ve missed.  I will also (hopefully) be keeping track and checking off the things that I’ve written, so you can watch as it gets closer to completion!

Pieces of the book may be posted here or at the Cauldron, as I see fit at the time, for critique.  Others won’t be.  Mostly depending on whether or not I want comments on that piece at the time.  So don’t be surprised by things that get marked off but never appear in public space.

FlameKeeping outline

• What is Flamekeeping
  • Definition of terms – explanation of chosen metaphors
    • soul flame
    • bright flame
    • dark flame
    • flame balancing
  • Why future focus
    • Where we’re going and why we want to go there
    • how technology changes philosophy
    • love of science and progress
      • intelligent and careful progress
  • Religion and Flamekeeping
    • Combining philosophy and religion
    • overlap and contrast
    • looking for the Divine in the world
  • polyvalent truth
  • No such thing as ultimate answers
  • the right to be wrong
  • I don’t know
• Inward look
  • Why how we treat ourselves matters
    • Ways to be gentle to ourselves
    • Why we celebrate ourselves
  • The difference between selfish and self-nurture
  • Coping with uncertainty
    • Life changes
  • coping with loss
  • experiencing joy
  • sustainable living
    • maintaining our environment
    • lifelong learning
    • meaningful employment
• Looking Outwards
  • treating each other
    • living with people
  • coping with conflict
    • victim blaming
  • ends and means
  • parenting
    • nurturing children
    • the next generation
• Community
  • differing beliefs, common goals
  • compromise
    • shades of gray
  • Equality for all
  • multiculturalism
• Divine Living
  • Finding Divine in ourselves
  • Finding Divine in others
  • Divine Children
  • Creating goals
  • moving forwards
• Becoming Phoenix
  • Ultimate goals – living up to potential
  • Stories of what may be

She sits at a computer, cast in profile. She’s wearing flannel pajamas covered with atoms, gavels, roses and wallets. She’s wearing soft pink slippers on her feet and a wry smile upon her face. The room echoes with a dark flame.

Meaning: The Writer is internal power over internal causes, as the Scientist is internal power over external objects. It is a card of mastery and introspection.

Upright, this is a card of power over oneself. It’s drawing forth one’s inner power to create, not for others but for oneself. It is, however, a sign of exclusion as well. There is nothing for the writer but the computer and herself.

Reversed, the card’s meaning is one of isolation for the sake of control. The outside world is cast away for the sake of holding control over what is inside. It is the kind of isolation that can lead to madness, for the illusion of control can overcome the reality of the outside world.

An old man stands by a snow-covered woodpile, shivering and glaring at it. In the background is a brightly lit house with someone reading on a couch by the window.

Meaning: This is the person that clings to what has been done without regard to whether it’s the best way or not. This way usually works in some fashion, but it’s often the long way around at best.

Reversed it’s a sign of being blinded to the reality of the situation. Upright it’s a way that works – reversed it’s a way that holds to the past but denies the present.

She stands in a lab coat, half-turned away from the her desk in the foreground. She’s taking notes on something half out of sight. On her desk in the foreground is a gavel crossed with a rose and a wallet with a hydrogen atom sitting on top of it. The scientist is silhouetted by a dark flame.

Meaning: The scientist is a person in control of the situation.  All the major building blocks are in front of her, and she studies them.  A scientist studies and finds meaning in what’s in front of her.

The dark flame behind the scientist speaks to the fact that it is a card of introspection, not outward motion.  Objects of power are on the desk, but not in use.  But they are available to be used if needed.

This is a card of the power of introspection.  It is a place of control and mastery of the world with the mind.  It can be a sign of control.  When reversed, it can be a sign of inertia – of focusing on the problem instead of doing something about it.

I’m going to start a series of essays about tarot cards and my personal interpretation of them.  They can be used for seeing the future, of course, but I like to see them as ways to explore myself.  As such, that will be the interpretation I use here.  The descriptions of the artwork comes from my head, not a published deck, as are the names of the cards.  This is the deck I would make if I could draw anything other than lopsided stick-figures.  The images are modern because that’s what I see.  Anyone that wants to make this deck, talk to me – I’m interested.

0 – The Dancer

First of the deck, the Dancer stands on one foot, stretching up to a butterfly.  He wears toy butterfly wings upon his back, caught mid-leap.  He stands by the edge of a cliff, not leaning over the edge but not keeping back, either.  The safety railing on the cliffside is bent and unsturdy.  We cannot see his face.

Meaning: The Dancer is someone that’s not caring about the future.  It’s a place of stillness and yet dancing, a time of exploration and joy.  But the cliff is still there, and there’s a chance that he may go over the edge of it.

This card is a time of both joy and warning.  It can be a statement to enjoy the moment, as the Dancer does with the butterfly.  But it’s also a warning to pay attention, because we’re next to a cliff and our wings are made of paper.  If we’re aware our wings are fake, it’s safe to enjoy and dance with one eye on the cliff.  But when we believe our wings will hold us, we’re dancing with disaster.

Both lessons of the Dancer are important: to let go, and to hold on.  Which one does the Dancer say to you?

Yes, Heartshadow finally talked me into it. She has me writing for her now, as well as keeping up with my own blog. To start I guess I’ll tell a little about who I am and how I got here.

Like Heartshadow, I am currently creating my own path. Tentatively called Walking with the Gods (and that name is starting to grow on me; I may just stick with it), my path has a lot in common with Flamekeeping (but some differences as well). While Flamekeeping focuses more on the relationships between humans, and between humans and the Divine, Walking with the Gods focuses on building and maintaining relationships with the individual gods. (And it really doesn’t matter *which* gods you work with).

Like Flamekeeping, Walking with the Gods holds belief in a Divine Force which permeates and makes up all that is in existence (including us). Respect for each other and the gods is a cornerstone of my faith. The real foundation of Walking with the Gods is that *everyone* can have relationships with the gods, and with the Divine Force. There is no middle-man, no intermediary between “us” and Them. The elders of the path teach the seekers to develop the skills needed to build and maintain these relationships. While not everyone wants to take on the responsibility of being an “elder” (on any path! It’s hard work!), everyone develops the skills needed to grow within the path.

The way I view the relationship between Walking with the Gods and Flamekeeping is actually pretty simple. It’s like two denominations of the same faith; both ending up ultimately the same place but taking slightly different routes to get there. Both paths are distinct and individual, but at the same time they are very compatible; there’s no reason why they can’t work together.

The Universe is infinite, as we understand it. However, the Earth is not, and it is on the Earth where we live. Our lives are ruled by scarcity and choosing between what we want and need. We have always been defined, as a species, by what we feel we need and do not have.

We live in a time of otherwise unknown plenty. We can afford, if we try, to feed everyone. To clothe everyone. To give out fresh water. The problem is still one of scarcity, though, as we don’t have or want to invest in the distribution needed to get that food and water to the people that need it. There are costs to everything, and denying the cost or claiming it shouldn’t matter denies the problem completely. Some things are worth the cost, but that doesn’t mean the cost isn’t there.

In our personal lives, we have scarcity. There is only so much time, so much money. We can only do so much, see so much, have so much. And we have to make choices with that scarcity. We can choose to spend that time and money selfishly, or we can share and improve life for ourselves and those around us. We can’t have everything for ourselves and share. We have to choose. But when people share, the world gets better for everyone.

There will never be enough for everyone to have everything they want. But we can choose how to use what we have, and that’s a very powerful choice.

Questions:
What role does scarcity play in your life? Is it meaningful?
What do you have that you don’t need? Is it worth it?
Do you find it hard to share what you have? Why? What can you gain from sharing?

Everyone at the beginning of life has at least one person that nurtures them. Someone to change diapers, bathe, feed and cuddle them in their little baby state.

We grow out of being babies, but we don’t grow out of needing other people to love and care for us. We do grow into loving and caring for other people, if we grow up healthy. We all need nurturing and caring, both of ourselves and each other.

What does it mean to nurture each other? Who’s job is it? I think it’s everyone’s job. It’s often shuffled off into the concept of “women’s work”, the nurturing jobs. Mother, teacher, nurse. Nurturing itself is often seen as a “woman’s job”. It’s also seen as not important, a lesser job that needs doing when everything more important is done.

Nurturing is of prime importance. And caring for each other as we nurture each other is of prime importance. It’s a hard job and a thankless one, because when it is done correctly, it is invisible. The baby is happy and fed, the dinner is ready, the spouse is coddled. Everything is done. It is only when things are not done that nurturing is seen: the screaming child, the screaming spouse, the pain of rejection. Then there is anger, because things aren’t done, and no one is cared for.

We need to care for each other. We need to celebrate nurturing and treat it with the respect and value it deserves. Without it, we are all lost. With it, we are all loved and cared for.

Questions:
Who do you nurture? How?
Who nurtures you? How?
How do you value those that nurture you? Do you think it’s enough?

They exist in every religion: those people that show up for the holy days, or even regular services, mouth the correct responses at the correct times, and then disappear. Those people for whom faith is an obligation to be taken care of as quickly as possible and then ignored for the rest of the time as something meaningless.

What does that mean for the faithful? It’s difficult to work had at something and love it, and see someone else treat it as garbage. So what does it mean? Nothing.

Spirituality is something where you get out of it what you put into it. There are no shortcuts, no easy answers. No quick and dirty ways to enlightenment. The people that treat spirituality is something you do for an hour on the weekends or a social obligation are missing what it can be, certainly, but that’s their loss.

It’s very easy to get caught up into a comparison game. Who is more spiritual? Who’s getting the most out of this? Am I getting what I “should be” out of this? The truth, though, is that all of that is completely irrelevant. You get what you give out of your spiritual life. It’s personal, and it’s your own work that matters. You can’t do another person’s work, and they can’t do yours.

Someone else using FlameKeeping (or any other religion) as a social stepping stone or other non-spiritual purpose is not a threat to you or your religion. It’s just a waste of their own potential.

Questions:
What do you put into your spirituality? What do you get out of it?
What do you think of people that treat spirituality as one more weekly meeting? Do you do that? Do people you care for?
Why are you a FlameKeeper? What do you bring to it? What does it bring to you?

An important part of FlameKeeping is seeking to improve the Universe. But that takes small steps as well as large goals, or nothing is ever done.

What goals you pick are up to you. How you pick them, however, is in part a religious matter. FlameKeeping is not a path for those who dream only, but a path for those who dream and then act.

Dreams are singularly useless when not put into action. I can dream of a world without hunger, but if all I do is dream, the dream is useless. There must be concrete goals attached to the dream as well, goals that are actually attainable. Things like working for a food bank are concrete. Finding ways to make a food bank more efficient at the same time is better. Or perhaps one would go into political work and seek to address the causes of hunger, or create a charity that helps grow food specifically for the poor. There are many ways to deal with hunger. Simply sitting and dreaming about it, however, does nothing. Nor does deciding the system is broken and then refusing to act.

Our dreams need to be out of reach to make us strive for them. A world without dreams to reach for is dead. But we must also find concrete ways to make our goals come true. If we do nothing, then we know the Universe will not be improved. We may make a mess if we try, but then we can clean it up as best we can. What is certain is that if we do nothing, nothing will happen at all.

There is no leaving the system.

Questions:
What do you think needs improvement most? How do you work on it?
Are there things you think need improvement but you refuse to act on? Why?
Can you distinguish between your dreams and your goals? Are they set too high? too low?

It is so very easy, with whatever we deal with, to get overcome with the trappings. We focus on the things that don’t matter because they’re the things that are easiest to deal with. When facing parenthood, it’s easier to focus on booties than the lack of sleep. When dealing with religion, it’s easier to focus on the candles and the clothing than it is to focus on the personal changes and the hard work involved.

The problem is, trappings are empty. They’re easy, but they’re empty. One can have every bootie in existence, and you’re still no more ready for motherhood. One can have memorized every meditation of FlameKeeping, have candles of every type and shape, and blather on about the Divine, and yet have absolutely no clue about what FlameKeeping is.

The core of FlameKeeping is the Divine and that we are part of It, as is everything else. It is the Flames, Bright and Dark, and balancing and growing them. It is ourselves. Trappings would be things like the mechanics of the meditations (which are important only in what they teach you, not in the mechanics themselves), the poetry, the essays themselves. They lead you to the core, if they’re done well. But the core isn’t the essays, the core is where the essays lead you to.

Questions:
Do you tend to get caught up in the trappings of things? Do you find the core? Does it depend on what it is?
What happens when you get caught up in trappings? What does it do to you?
What is core to your beliefs? Why? What does that core mean?

An integral part of FlameKeeping is that we are all part of the Divine. But what does that mean, really?

We are capable of many things, us humans. We can use tools to see things beyond the reaches of our galaxy, to guess at the beginning of time, to speculate about the future. We can conceive of worlds that probably never exist or speculate on the inner workings of an atom. And we are of the Divine.

It is easy, really, to have faith in a separate God that things are going to work out for the best. It requires faith, but not in the people you live with every day. FlameKeeping requires faith in humanity.

This doesn’t mean to close your eyes and jump, assuming someone will catch you. FlameKeeping is very much about pragmatism: if it’s not going to work, it’s a bad idea. But it does mean that we need to both have a basic faith in humanity’s decentness (for we are the Divine) and to be people that one can have that faith in, as well. We are of the Divine, and we must take that seriously. Be someone others can take faith in, and find others to take faith in.

When we cannot have faith in each other, there is something wrong with humanity. It is not the Divine one must have faith in, for the Divine exists regardless of the faith. It is humanity in which we must find faith, and humanity which must prove worthy of it as well.

Questions:
Do you have faith in other people? What does that mean to you?
Are you someone other people can have faith in? Why or why not?
What does believing in humanity mean to you? Is it meaningful? Scary? Empowering?

We all do it a little. There are activities which we know are bad for us, but we justify them because they feel good, or because they are the only way we can spend time with our friends, or a host of other reasons. So we hurt ourselves a little here and there, nibble at the edges of our lives, and justify it with the idea that we’re hurting only ourselves, so it doesn’t really matter.

But we do not exist in isolation. While we have every right to engage in self-destructive behavior, it’s still not a moral act. What we do affects the people around us. When one person engages in damaging behavior, the effects ripple outwards. One person’s self-destruction affects their friends, their family, their work.

We are of the Divine. What we do affects that Divine, even if no one else ever knows that we’ve done it. When we act in ways that are self-destructive, we deny that Divine.

Questions:
In what way are you self-destructive? Why?
How do your self-destructive habits affect other people? The Divine?
How have you been affected by other people’s self-destructive behavior? Can self-destruction happen in isolation?

The one thing I’ve taken out of both Wicca and Jung is the idea of the shadow-self. I found the idea first in Wicca and chased it down, because it’s an idea that stuck with me. We do denigrate parts of ourselves, and we do hate that part we denigrate in ourselves when we see it in others.

In my shadow, I think I have issues with anger. (hence using it as an example). I’m never sure how to deal with it, and I’m a little scared of anger, both my own and others. I was reading about anger as a motivator to do things, and felt all smugly superior because I didn’t feel that anger. Then I thought about it, because my reaction seemed all out of proportion. And .. I do feel anger. I just squelch it, or deny it, or try to relabel it something else. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t there .. it means I fear it.

This doesn’t mean I want to get more angry. Anger is scary for a reason, and there’s no real advantage to being angry. What it does mean is that I need to accept the anger I do have, and find productive ways to channel it and deal with it. Even if that’s to decide to not be angry about the issue, I can’t do that until I recognize the anger in the first place.

I have a shadow side. We all do. The trick is doing my best to not let it take control over me.

Questions:
What is in my shadow? Did that part. I’m sure there’s more there, but that’s what I’m finding today. (it’s a hard question to answer, after all).

Why do I keep them there? What’s my advantage? Well, anger scares me. As long as “I don’t get angry” I don’t have to deal with the fear (I’ve no idea why it fears me, either. Working on that too). But avoiding the situation completely doesn’t work either, because I either let people walk all over me (no good) or I deny the motivation for my own actions (also not good).

I react badly to anger in other people as well. It terrifies me. I don’t know how to deal with it or what it does. I don’t like the fact that it seems to take people out of control or that it spurs people on past what would be “logical”. And that’s not a rational reaction either, because anger is useful and helpful at times as well.

But knowing that anger is related to my shadow helps me cope a little more with that anger, because I recognize my reaction is irrational. And that gives me a chance to slow down and think for a moment.

Part of the impetus for this essay was someone telling me that I didn’t have the “right” to be hurt by the way someone else was acting, because she had every right to act that way. I found that doubly insulting .. both the idea that I was trying to constrain her behavior (I wasn’t, I hadn’t even TOLD her I was hurt!) and the idea that I didn’t have the right to have my own feelings. And I found that idea incredibly insulting.

There seems to be no middle ground for feelings. Either I feel it and that’s reason enough to act, or feelings are meaningless and everything should go by logic. Both of these are patently unreasonable expectations, but we still seem to operate by them anyway.

It’s soul-defying to be told you’re not allowed to feel things. It invalidates everything that you are. Being told you’ve no “right” to be hurt, or angry, or insulted .. that’s saying you don’t have a right to exist, in a way. It’s a way to imply that you’re not even real. When someone told me I didn’t have a right to be hurt, it felt like a kick in the gut .. and I didn’t even hear it firsthand, nor do I take the speaker as a person of high importance in my life. And it was STILL a kick in the gut.

We have an absolute right to our feelings. Even if they’re inconvenient .. I have an absolute right to have a crush on someone inappropriate, after all. I just don’t have the right to ACT on that crush. And that distinction is absolutely critical.

Questions:
What feelings do I just react to and why? mmm .. I try to not “just” react, although that’s hard. Irritability is a hard one to rein in, although I know I should. Happiness is one I tend to just let loose .. it’s hard to be dangerous with happiness. Although even then, I try to be sensitive to place and the people around me. Sometimes that works better than others. (and sometimes, I just don’t care. When I’m around people that glory in moping, I’ve been known to be defiantly happy just because I could. EVERY directed emotion can be used as a weapon as well).

As far as “safe” emotions .. I don’t think there are safe emotions, I think there are safe emotional situations. It is safe to react to the love I feel for a spouse (usually, depending on the marriage. it SHOULD be safe, at least!). It wouldn’t be safe for me to react to a crush, especially in front of said spouse. It’s usually safe to be happy. It may not be wise to be angry. It’s almost always not safe to react to anger by throwing a punch. It’s not what you feel. It’s how you react to it.

How can we allow ourselves to feel while still limiting our action? I think the first step is acknowledging that it IS possible. It’s perfectly possible to want to hit someone and yet refrain from doing so. Indeed, it is the stronger person that doesn’t throw the punch. But more, I think we need to promote restraint in a systematic fashion. It’s not simply as individuals that we need to show restraint, but also as a culture. How we respond to other people’s emotional reactions determines how much of an emotional reaction we’re likely to have the next time. But we also have to allow ourselves to feel. We need to respect and acknowledge our emotional reactions. It needs to be safe to say, “This made me mad because.”

When we as a culture or as individuals say that someone is not allowed to feel, we set ourselves up as arbiter over their Flame. This is absolutely immoral, and I think it’s damaging on both sides. We all have an absolute right and need to feel. Only reactions should be judged and controlled.

Children are a special case when it comes to FlameKeeping. They are dependent upon us, needing us to help nurture and shelter them, but at the same time they are their own people and need to learn and explore their own Flame. Finding a balance between protection and freedom is a constant tightrope nightmare for every parent.

So far, I have it pretty easy on that. My little one is only one year old (almost!) and can’t get up to much. His freedom is one room, and I’m always there to watch him. But I still have to not run when he falls .. only when it hurts. I have to let him scream out his frustration at night so he can go to sleep, as opposed to holding him the entire time. Even now, when he can’t even walk or talk, I have to let go a little.

So how do you balance? I don’t know .. and there’s certainly no clear-cut rule, no one thing that will fit every child and every situation. Parenting is too individual for that. I do know that too much freedom with hurt a child, because he won’t have a chance to learn about rules .. and sooner or later, rules come for all of us. And too much protection will hurt a child, because then when they do get freedom, they won’t know how to handle it.

We have to love our children .. and we have to put their needs ahead of our own. As hard as it is, we have to do what’s right for the child .. not just what’s right for us.

Questions:
Should we try to eliminate risks? No, in general, both because risk is inherent for success, and because teenagers could make crossing the street dangerous. You can’t make safe someone that doesn’t want safety. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make things safer, because there’s no point in needless risk. But it needs to be thought out and the tradeoffs weighed.

How do you balance care against suffocation? Carefully and constantly. There’s no way to make one single rule, because children and situations vary. All broad rules will have exceptions, sometimes very important ones.

Love your child, and try very hard to do what’s best for the child in these decisions, not what’s best for the adult. It can be hard to tell, sometimes .. but when we have a child, we make a promise to that baby that we’re going to do the best we can for the little one. That promise never runs out.

Mindset is an important part of life. How we view the world does change how the world reacts to us. Have hope for better, and we will find the better. Expect only worse, and we will find worse. The same event will be viewed differently, and reinforce what we already expect to have happen.

Even more, however, hope and despair is a statement of faith. (I do not speak here of clinical depression. If you’ve got a medical problem, get thee to a doctor!) When you fall into despair, you say that the Universe is limited and the Divine has abandoned you. But you are of the Divine, and to claim the Divine has abandoned you is to abandon yourself.

Hope and despair are how we view the world. They are lenses which color everything else we look at. And while it is reasonable to try to have lenses which match the world, there will always be a bias. Being pessemistic is not “just being honest.” Refusing to see the good in the world because it is transitory is not “protecting yourself.” It is so very easy to close oneself off from all the Universe has within it because it’s too much work to reach out, or because we’re afraid, or because we’ve been hurt before.

We won’t always get what we want. Sometimes we succeed, and sometimes we fail, but the point is to have a mindset of hope. When we refuse to believe options exist, we remove them from our lives. When we see nothing but destruction, destruction is all we’re left with. Despair says that destruction is the best we can expect, and that denies the Divine.

Questions:
What is despair? Why is it so harmful?
What is hope? What do you hope for in your life?
How do you balance seeing clearly with being optimistic? Do you think optimism is actually the best way to go?

The important part of this is the mindfulness. It’s so very easy to view food as nothing but fuel, meals as just something to get through to get on to the next thing. This is a time to actually think about it.

What difference does it all make, I bet you’re asking. Who cares where the food comes from? Well, it matters. Food isn’t interchangeable. Some choices are more environmental than others, some are more humane than others .. there are a lot of choices to make. Being mindful is an important part of FlameKeeping, and refusing to think about these things because it’s all too big is an abrogation of responsibility. We vote with our dollars every time we buy food. It’s important to make certain that’s a vote we’re happy with.

And it’s important, too, to take time with family and friends and simply enjoy them. We are a species that craves contact with each other, and yet we’re very good at making that contact less than what we need. This is a time to enjoy each other, enjoy yourself, and put aside worries for a short time.

After all, the Universe is improved when people in it are happier, and that includes you.

I’m frequently bothered by the rhetoric of punishment and retribution in our country. People talk about deterrence, but we seem to be focused on the idea of punishment. There’s the idea that someone hasn’t paid “enough” for what they’ve done, as though a year in jail or a certain dollar amount was equivelent for what they’ve done. And that always makes my blood run cold. There is no “enough” .. there simply needs to be an adequate deterrence. (this also bothers me with corporate law .. the fines are usually so small they don’t get high enough to stop the behavior).

I think about this sort of thing a lot because I have a baby, and he’s old enough that I have to start paying attention to what he’s doing and start corralling him. And of course, there’s the spank/no spank debates and everything else. What I’m finding, though, is that the only thing that gets his attention is removal .. sticking him in the playpen. So I don’t engage in the issue of spanking, because this “works”. Punishment isn’t the goal here .. getting him to stop turning off the computer is.

Questions:
Why do we punish people? Well, I try to punish or push back to stop the behavior. I don’t want to actually PUNISH them .. I want it to STOP. Sometimes this means removing myself from the situation .. and if that’s what it takes, that’s what it takes. While I want the person involved to learn from it as well, the only person I can control is me.

I don’t deal well when people try to “teach me a lesson” .. usually because I find such reactions amusing. One person went around trying to spread rumors that I “radiate evil”, which I find absolutely hilarious. I think I was “supposed” to learn to not tell this person anything that she doesn’t want to hear. What I did learn was that she’s got a messed-up view of reality.

If I was in charge, how would I punish people? I’m not sure there would be jails .. or at least, jails would be solely for people that couldn’t be allowed out in public. I’d make people work for their punishment, because I think you learn a lot more slaving away doing meaningless labor than you do locked away from society. And I would make it something that couldn’t be construed as “manly” so people wouldn’t want to “go to jail” to “become a man”, which happens now. As far as what would happen after that, I don’t know. But it might be interesting to see.