Jan. 24, 2017 (a post that was previously lost)

I manage  a swim team.  Sometimes that requires me to herd the swimmers one way or another.  Not often, but sometimes.  I don’t particularly enjoy the herding; I just want to swim. But sometimes disorganization begins to break out and I need to speak with swimmers privately.

I feel fortunate that my team mates are supportive and cooperative.  We’ve had our conflicts, but by and large we all want the same thing: to get a good workout in the pool.  But sometimes I feel like a sheep dog barking at the sheep.  I truly don’t enjoy those moments.

Anyway, today, I had to speak with a swimmer who, basically, hadn’t  paid to use the pool.  It felt awkward and I was concerned that he/she would react defensively when I addressed the issue.  Short story, short, he/she immediately expressed total willingness to cooperate as soon as I asked.

This was reassuring: my teammates want to do the right, supportive thing.  But they don’t necessarily know what that is. I need to tell them.

Evidence of a friendly universe: me asking for what I need to manage a situation and, other people, happy to cooperate and help.

Pretty cool.

Q

Jan. 23, 2017 (a post that was previously lost)

Hundreds of thousands of protesters and marchers in Washington DC, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, St. Paul…   All peaceful.  Evidence of a friendly universe.

https://nyti.ms/2jJAHnn

Protesters on 42nd Street in front of Grand Central Terminal during the Women’s March in New York.

Credit: Nicole Craine for The New York Times

Q

Jan. 20, 2017 (a post that was previously lost)

I had a long conversation with a friend today.  It felt good.

A universe where something as simple as an honest conversation can make us feel deeply satisfied: surely evidence of a friendly universe.

Q

My understanding of “dana” comes from attending meditation classes for lay people like myself. Dana, to me, means that the teacher isn’t paid and we, the students, aren’t obliged to pay for the class. The students pay because they wish, out of generosity, and pay as much as feels comfortable — too little and maybe we feel badly, too much and maybe we again feel badly.

When I hear a teacher is supported only by dana, I’m impressed. It can only mean that there are enough people who love that teacher’s message, that between all of them, the teacher makes enough to survive. If the teacher happens to live in New York City, all the more impressive.

I don’t wish to explain dana poorly or falsely, so I’d like to reprint here an explanation from the website Dharma Wisdom.

Dana (generosity) Practice
In the Buddhist tradition, the teachings are given freely because they are considered priceless; in the Buddhist tradition we also practice dana, or generosity, by making monetary offerings for the teachings. – See more at: http://dharmawisdom.org/teachings/articles/meaning-pali-word-dana#sthash.LRz9RK8t.dpuf

A definition for “dana” is provided in the on-line glossary “Access to Insight.”

I’ve attended classes from, or listen regularly to the podcasts of these three dharma teachers, who are supported by dana.

Tara Brach (Great Falls, VA)

Peter Doobinin (New York, NY)

Josh Korda (New York, NY)

 

 

Evidence of a friendly universe: dana.

Why, from the perspective of evolution, do we have emotions? Is it so we can bond with others? And so we know who to avoid? Is it a way to think rapidly, faster than thought? Does it make life more fun?

I feel fascinated about this today. It started with my listening to a wonderful podcast called “Invisibilia” that included a story about a woman who was unaware of the world of emotions that surrounded her. Then, during an experiment, she got a glimpse into that world, which changed her perception of the world, from thinking she knew what was going on around her, to believing that she didn’t.

I began wondering how much of the emotional world do I myself perceive? I’m imagining that there is a spectrum, and that some people are very astute at perceiving the emotions of others while there are people on the other end of the spectrum who are tone deaf and oblivious to emotions, both their own and those of others.  I’d guess that all of us fall somewhere along the spectrum. Where would I fall? Honestly, I generally feel I am more oblivious than astute to emotions, both my own and those of others, so I imagine I live on the oblivious side.

But, from there, it got me thinking about the emotional content of music and whether, when I play, I am listening for the emotional “chords” — tones, colors, feeling — in the notes and, whether, by paying more attention to the emotional content of music, I can improve my ability to see…sense…perceive the emotional dimensions of the world — people, music, books, food, art. It brings me to wonder about those things that I can’t imagine having an emotional dimension — does math? computers? initial public offerings of stock?

Emotions: Evidence of a friendly universe. A hostile universe would surely have no use for such things.

 

Here’s a link to the Invisibilia podcast.

From National Public Radio: SCIENCE

 

Robert Plutchik’s Wheel of Emotions

I found this wheel of emotions compelling:

 

Robert Plutchik’s theory says that the eight basic emotions are:

• Fear → feeling afraid.
• Anger → feeling angry. A stronger word for anger is rage.
• Sadness → feeling sad. Other words are sorrow, grief (a stronger feeling, for example when someone has died) or depression (feeling sad for a long time). Some people think depression is a different emotion.
• Joy → feeling happy. Other words are happiness, gladness.
• Disgust → feeling something is wrong or nasty
• Trust → a positive emotion; admiration is stronger; acceptance is weaker
• Anticipation → in the sense of looking forward positively to something which is going to happen. Expectation is more neutral.
• Surprise → how one feels when something unexpected happens