The Chameleon, the Cave, the Lizard...and Maia

I love conversations with my son, Drew. I never know where they are going to go. I particularly enjoy when he shares songs that mean something to him. We both resonate with the arts and I have found some deep truths in songs he has shared with me, from "Straight, White Male" to "Terrible Things." On this particular occasion, Drew shared with me a song called, "Bad Liar," a song about a divorced man singing to his wife. The potential meaning is complex and so I asked him what he thought it was saying. His answer took me into an epiphany that was timely.

An epiphany that strangely enough deals with chameleons, caves and lizards.

Background

Just the day before I had hit an unexpected place. I was home with my cute little three while all the "olders" are wandering the world in their variously unique places, some closer to home than others. They were quiet upstairs (undoubtedly eating a stolen candy bar, the wrapper of which I found under my bed the next day). The house was clean enough. I had nothing due. Nothing I felt like I had to do. I was walking around a peaceful house at the end of a pretty chill day and yet I was feeling confused. (Best word I can think of.)

Now, I am quick to pick up on unusual emotions during the last few months. Thanks to my Heavenly Father and October, I have:

(1) a new level of inner peace which has completely banished self-disparagement for the most part, and

(2) a primal understanding of His absolute love for me independent of any thing I have ever done. I no longer base my feelings of worth upon my accomplishments nor the responses of others to my actions and have been reveling in that feeling of peace for the past few months.

It is beautiful and has been freeing.

So this feeling of disquiet on a night that had no reason for disquiet caught me off guard. I had nothing I had to do, needed to do, felt inspired to do. I felt like a blank sheet. And I didn't really like it. It confused me.

Who am I? If God doesn't need me to serve for His sake but only my own, doesn't need me to change a world that He is entirely capable of saving, doesn't place another's salvation contingent upon my actions...then what? Who am I? What do I want? As a driven idealist, what next?

I felt myself caught up in self-reflection and sat down in a chair. "I want to read," I thought. "That's what I want to do."

Lesson about "filtering" from Anne Frank

I picked up "The Diary of Anne Frank" since I had never read it and Hava is currently reading it. I was immediately drawn into her vibrant self-reflection. At the beginning she shares how she was excited to write down those things that she feels deeply and privately. And she does just that, in a beautiful, real, teenager way. It made me stop and think. I don't do that. I keep my writings and my reflections honest yet filtered.

Let's talk about "filtered." It's like writing itself. If I were to keep on the page the mis-typed, ill-written grammatics that initially come from my dyslexic fingers, no one would be able to make heads or tails of my writing. My personality when it first comes out in raw, unfiltered form is poorly understood and never really appreciated.

I see it in my Maia. I see her energy, her exuberance, her endless passionate reaction to both help and respond to any given situation. She feels so deeply and reacts so unfiltered. And people have a hard time seeing that big beautiful heart that lies behind all that is "Maia."

Anne Frank opened up to my mind a life full of teenager personality. I found meaning not so much in the fighting, not in the tragic circumstances, but in the little things like how she found her favorite area to bathe herself or what a challenge it was for her--a chatter-box--to sit still for three days while the plumbing was worked on.

It left me feeling at peace.

Back to Chameleons

It was in this state of self-reflection that Drew's interpretation came in. He told me about the way the "Mentalist" described people: how we have three layers of reaction (in my own words).

(1) chameleon: the layer of reaction most common. How we change ourselves for the situation, for people, for ourselves. It is the controlled reactions we create based upon circumstances and how we choose to react.

(2) cave: the place of reaction that is more primal, more concealed. It is a safer, more hidden place that we only show a certain set of people, perhaps seen as more real. It is how we act in our homes or in our private lives. (Drew could flesh it out better.)

(3) lizard: this area of reaction is "fight" or "flight." This is something I had experienced on Sunday when my emotions were raw from experiences the days before and I reacted strongly to an unfortunate sweet soul in first a "fight" then "flight" manner. While I felt sorry for the woman and the unintentional hurt that she felt, I also felt sorry because our friendship wasn't strong enough for that interaction. She couldn't take that part of me that is very real but most often filtered.

As Drew shared this with me, I got stuck mentally. I found myself trying to process where the real me was in relation to the chameleon, cave and lizard. The implications upon the meaning of the song is the story for another day because what I realized at 2 am the next morning was: I was something MORE than a chameleon, a cave or a lizard. I am more than my reactions to other people. While that is also who I am--as my personality is intermingled in my reactions--my identity, my self exists outside of my interactions with other people.

Which led me back to Maia.

Maia and My Personality

Maia is so much like me, for which I am grateful. It has given me an opportunity to learn about myself from the outside.

If you have any experience with Maia, chances are feelings of frustration, anger, bafflement, intrusion, unexpected physical force and irritation come to mind. From a certain point of view, she is a whirlwind of messes, physicality and volume. As I have prayerfully sought how to interact more positively with her, I have been blinded by the sheer radiance and sincerity of her soul. She is a good, kind, earnest person who only really desires to act upon what is true and right and she is trying to figure it out. She doesn't know how to turn it off. She is driven.

Maia loves everyone with her whole heart and body, so "love" means climbing on you, yelling your name at the top of her lungs, and lots and lots of art that is dedicated to how much she absolutely adores you.

The reaction? Most people are put off by, annoyed by or down-right antagonistic towards her. Correct, tolerate, stifle, moderate, shape, change...all these are usual reactions to Maia.

And that's my personality. I see in her all the things I did as a kid. I knew everything. I made huge creative messes and never cleaned up. I wrote letters to everyone who might possibly love me, showering them with love. I licked up any kind of affection and approval. I was in many situations in school, church and among "friends" where I knew that I was barely tolerated when I wasn't outright rejected. I saw potential in everything and never gave up.

I probably deserved some of the negative reactions. As a five year old, I threatened to punch my mom in the stomach a week after her c-section. Precocious. I was bossy to my brothers, spunky, vivacious, loud and kind of all out there.

I look at her. I think of me. Who am I? Who is my natural, non-conditioned response self?

Strangely, as part of this journey, my mind wandered back to one of the darkest times in my life.

Lesson in Paradise

I find it interesting that one of the deepest moments of my depression happened in a picturesque beachfront apartment in Brazil with Tova, Quinn and Liesl. 

Without recognizing it,  I was in a situation where they didn't need me to do anything or be anything to be happier.  They just wanted me to be happy and they were already content. 

It was at this early stage of my healing I realized:

A) I was scared and embarrassed of being who I was after years of living in feedback mode.  Here were two people who felt no differently towards me regardless of what I did or even who I was.  At the time I think I allowed it to make me feel worthless because my worth or value before hadn't really been in who I was but the good I was able to do.  

B) I was horrified at the thought of hurting others so lived in constant fear of generating a negative response in others because of something I did, said or was.  Here I was with three people who were content with me just for who I was outside of that.

C) I am not sure what my personality outside of conditioned response is. I think at a basic level I don't like or am afraid how "the full real me" will be taken,  which is interesting to recognize now that I have a blessedly more healthy and stable outlook at my external interactions.

It was at 2 am Friday morning that I realized on a conscious level that I have learned to not like my personality, a personality that can be every bit as irritating, loud, messy and overwhelming as is my Maia's, bless her heart.

I am grateful for the space and awareness I have been given to be my beautifully distinct and imperfect self. I realize now at this stage in my life that other people's negative reaction towards who I am doesn't reflect anything inherently wrong with me. Of course, my core desire to never hurt anyone remains the same. Of course, I will have chameleon, cave and lizard responses. But I am looking forward to the unfolding, the re-emergence of my beautiful personality because even if I can't see it in myself, I see it in Maia.

My self will manage the chameleon, not the other way around.

The Touch of an Artist

As I knelt to pray this morning and was asking forgiveness for some specific mindsets and judgments I had the day before or in general, at first it felt like a gentle nudge in the right direction... but then I felt my usual tendency to cascade into harsh self-berating mode. 

And then something stopped me gently.

I wish I could describe what I just felt.

It was as if for the first time that I saw that God has never intended for me to be punished or corrected with the brutality with which I normally face repentance in myself. Instead, I saw that His correction for me has only ever been intended to be the touch of a paintbrush on my soul. It is me who has opted for the raw instruments of internal torment and torture that have haunted my experience with repentance. Me and Satan, who glories in the chains he wields. God's correction is a light touch, a gentle change, full of love and with the eye of potential as only seen by an artist.

Where Democrats and Republicans fit in: Part III

More from Oliver DeMille, about how the elites in the Democratic and Republican parties play with these two words to increase their influence:

III.

The American framers knew this history, and they tried to find a middle ground. They hoped that by separating powers and further checking and balancing the forces of government, they could keep the elite economic class working in the Senate and in the Executive branch, and the elite political class busy in the House of Representatives and the Court—all fighting each other. Fighting enough, in fact, to keep both elite groups too busy to dominate the regular people.

The framers’ plan worked and it failed. It worked because it improved the situation from what it had been before. The branches of government do attract much of the attention of the elite economic and elite political classes, and they do fight each other—a lot. Enough, in fact, that they dominate the regular people less than before the Constitutional system (for example, compare the English system from 1078 to 1894, and the Continental model from 1530 thru 1915).

But the Constitutional system failed too—because both elite classes still spend some of their time dominating the regular people. Result: we live in a society that isn’t fair, and is often unjust.

Did the founding model improve things a bit? Yes. Demonstrably so. Did it entirely fix the problems of unfairness and injustice? Not even close. But it did better than any of the societies aiming for equality—just look at Russia, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, all of Eastern Europe between 1945 and 1989, and nearly all of Western Europe after the 1960s.

The elite economic class and the elite political class are still growing, and still inflicting their various agendas on the rest of the people. Thus our modern world: Not fair, not just. Also: not particularly free, and not very equal.

IV.

To understand this more deeply, compare the two groups as they currently operate in the United States. The elite economic class (largely Republican) is trying to convince everyone to support it by calling for “freedom,” “liberty,” “capitalism,” and “free markets.” It uses these phrases and slogans as catchwords for its real agenda: “Let’s use economics to increase our power over the elite political class.”

The elite political class (mostly Democrats) does the same thing. It uses terms like “equality,” “social justice,” “democracy,” “fairness,” “higher minimum wage,” “free college for everyone,” and so on to promote its actual agenda: “Let’s use government to increase our power over the elite economic class.”

In all this, here’s the thing that everyone who wants to avoid being swayed or manipulated by the spin machines of either side needs to understand:

Both groups—the political elite class and the economic elite class—win when they keep their message complex. They both lose when the regular people understand very, very basic principles of freedom and fairness.

As a result, they both put a lot of money and resources into influencing academia, the media, the professions, and the entire upper middle class.

Let’s get specific. When anyone argues for “equality,” you have to move it out of the realm of complex, academic, deep, intellectual, and expert, and into the realm of very, very simple. The same is true when anyone argues for “freedom” or “free” markets, etc.

If you’re in a place of complex, the elites are winning. If you get to very simple, extremely basic, the regular people might win.

V.

So how do we take complex “equality” and complex “freedom” and make them truly simple? The answer is easy. Just know the following two definitions of “equality”:

• Equality of Opportunity. Everyone has the same opportunity before the law, meaning they can do whatever they want as long as they don’t violate the inalienable rights of any other person. And this has to be simple, not complex! Meaning: people can do anything, as long as they don’t violate someone’s inalienable rights. This might sound like too much freedom to the intellectual crowd, but the regular people get it. It works.
• Equality of Result. The government tries to make sure everyone has the same results—a generally similar level of income, similar levels of ownership, similar levels of wealth (or poverty). Or, failing to obtain this, they settle for enforcing limits on how much any business, person, or family can own or grow—to try to keep everyone at least somewhere near the same level.

Anyone who argues for Equality of Opportunity is likely on the side of the regular people. They want things to be simple: A government that protects us from foreign invasion and local murderers, rapists, and thieves—and does nothing else at all.

That’s simple: nothing else at all. Protecting inalienable rights, period. And doing nothing else.

Go beyond this, and you’re into complex. Seriously: Any fudging of this moves society into complex, where the elite classes can step in with their experts and intellectuals and take charge.

Again: The simple approach wants government to allow people to do whatever they want, and own whatever they choose to earn, as long as they don’t violate anybody’s inalienable rights. Period.

In contrast, the forces promoting Equality of Results usually want either the elite political class to win, or the elite economic class to win. The political elite class dominates the regular people by using government to regulate, intervene, and keep down the power of the wealthy elite—or so they say. But in all of history this has never once actually happened.

What happens in real life is that elites promising “equality” and “fairness” get elected or appointed to power, and then they and their friends use their position and influence to rig the system so they end up keeping more of the money and power for themselves. This is what has happened every single time. No exceptions.

Literally—there are no exceptions in history. No matter how good the theory of equality and fairness may sound, nobody has ever done it in a lasting way. Some have gotten close—but within a few years it broke down. Always.

Always!

But that’s not all. If the economic elite class dominates, it does the same kind of thing. It promises the people that it will keep the political elites from dominating, and then once it is in power it works to rig the system so it can dominate the regular people. Again, this is how it always works.

This bears repeating: There are no lasting exceptions in all of recorded history. It always ultimately turns this way, as long as either of the elite groups (political [Left] or economic [Right]) have the power.

The only time it doesn’t happen this way is when the regular people maintain the majority of the power—by keeping the government protecting inalienable rights, and doing absolutely nothing else. This creates a true Equality of Opportunity. But this is a very rare situation indeed.

It happened briefly—for some of the citizens—in ancient Athens (the Solonic era), for two short periods during the ascendance of Rome (see the Gracchi and the Aurelian eras), during the Saracen golden age and later in the Swiss Vales period, during the Frank and Anglo-Saxon golden ages, after the implementation of the Magna Carta and again after the English Bill of Rights (but only for aristos), and after the American Founding (but only in the North and West, and only for some of the population).

Again, it is rare.

We don’t live under such a system today. We are firmly dominated by the economic and political elites, and their battles with each other. They both claim to want to put the power in the hands of the regular people—but they never do.

Those calling for equality and freedom mostly want Equality of Results—either led by political elites (Democrats) or economic elites (Republicans). Neither of these ultimately promote the interests of the regular people. If they call mainly for “equality,” “fairness,” and “social justice,” they are nearly always political elites vying for ascendancy over their Republican enemies. On the other hand, if they call for “freedom,” “capitalism,” and “America first,” they are nearly always economic elites seeking to beat their Democratic foes.

People who are convinced by their slogans, catchwords, well-compensated intellectuals, and candidates are routinely disappointed, year after year after year

(as quoted from Oliver DeMille, in "The Recurring Topic of Equality")

Closer look at Equality: Part II

"One more thing. Understanding the historical roots of the idea of equality is very important. The word equality came from the ancient Greeks, and they meant something precise. Something specific.

“Equality” was holding the same status before the law. But what does this phrase actually mean?

Well, for example, small landowners were “equal” with wealthy landowners, even if the wealthy owner had 100 or even 1,000 times the amount of land and wealth. (See Victor Davis Hanson, The Other Greeks) How could they be considered “equal” in such circumstances? Answer: on their land, their own private property, they had the final say. They couldn’t do something to somebody that took away that person’s universal rights, but they could kick that person off their land simply by choosing to do so.

It was their land. They actually owned it. Entirely. If the wealthy landowner with many thousands of acres came on the property of the subsistence owner with just ½ an acre—the small owner was in charge. Period.

They were equal—because on land one person owned, he had the power. And they both had this power, each on his own land. The law backed the owner up on this, even if the person losing a dispute was the very wealthy owner. If he was on the small owner’s land, the small owner was the boss.

Equal.

And vice versa, if the small owner, or anyone else, went on the big owner’s land.

This is where the concept began. “A man is the king of his own home.” All men are thus equal.

Note that there is no forced equality here. Only enforced equality. The difference is important. Jefferson put this exact concept in eloquent terms: “endowed by their Creator…” In other words, the big and small owners were equal because “Nature and Nature’s God” made it so.

They didn’t become equal because of some act of government, and they weren’t granted equality by some government decree. Instead, they were born equal, regardless of government. The government didn’t force equality—it had no right to do so in this worldview."

(as quoted from Oliver DeMille, in "The Recurring Topic of Equality")

Freedom and Equality: Part I

These are two very demanding ideas that don't ever truly exist in a way that satisfies everyone's expectations.

I have been thinking a lot about these words while taking a course called, "Black Belt of Freedom." Here is one man's observation on those ideas:

I.

Free enterprise isn’t perfect. But the most popular alternative proposed in human history—equality—isn’t either. Neither of them bring full justice or fairness to society.

The truth is, freedom has a lot of problems. Still, humankind hasn’t come up with anything better than freedom as the guiding societal arrangement—and so far in history the many human attempts at creating lasting equality have brought disaster after disaster.

Here’s why: Life isn’t fair. And life isn’t just. There is unfairness and injustice in every era of history—in every nation and time period. A world that is entirely just and fair simply doesn’t exist—and has never existed—among humans.

Even in an ideal society, whenever that comes (and I believe it can and will come), there will still be unfairness. Just like there is unfairness in every family, every business, every friendship, every marriage, every relationship, every church, every group of humans anywhere.

No exceptions.

To repeat it one more time: If it’s human society, then human nature is at play, and therefore there will be injustice and unfairness. Period.

II.

Of course, people don’t like this reality, so all through history we’ve tried to change it. Some people attempt to fix this frustrating reality with more “freedom,” but it doesn’t work. Not perfectly. So they try to fix it with more “equality,” but that doesn’t work either.

They try to fix it with increased government regulation, intervention, and oversight, and guess what? There is still injustice and unfairness. In fact, such governmental attempts nearly always increase the amount of injustice and unfairness.

Here’s the reality:

1. The problem with freedom is that it always ends the same. In a free society, an elite economic class eventually rises and dominates the regular people. Without government controls to keep those who succeed in the market from becoming too big and powerful, elite economic classes always take over.

2. The quest for equality is also problematic. In a society seeking equality, an elite political class always rises and dominates the people. If there isn’t a level of economic openness that truly allows anyone to rise economically, and to rise as far and as big as they choose (as long they don’t violate anyone’s inalienable rights), a few elites always use government power to keep certain people from competing in the marketplace—and this results in even more inequality.

If you like the allure of “equality,” read Item #2 over and over until it makes sense. It is, literally, the history of almost all human societies.

(as quoted from Oliver DeMille, in "The Recurring Topic of Equality")