The Mammal Brain Can Beat the Reptile Brain!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-fox/the-real-winner-at-the-re_b_11173542.html

Wonderful article by Matthew Fox on the US presidential election. Fox is one of my favorite theologians. His book Original Blessing had a big impact on me about 18 years ago when I was coming out of college. I haven't engaged with his writings much since then until I met him at the Wild Goose Festival this past summer and participated in his Cosmic Mass.

***

My take: This presidential election is a tug-of-war for the soul of America. Which will win--the reptilian or mammalian brain? Sometimes I think we are doomed to fall victim to the reptile and have few defenses against the onslaught of the media marketing machine--but something very encouraging is happening this election cycle.

Trump is treating this election like a reality show, and Clinton is treating this election like a marketing campaign. Each has a different style, but they are both working on the voters at the same level of consciousness: It's about branding, "other"-ing, divisions, distractions, trying to control the narrative with buzzwords. It's all fear, fear, FEAR!! Trump supporters are motivated by fear of Clinton, and Clinton supporters are motivated by fear of Trump. Step back a minute and you may see some astonishing similarities. It's as if America is one big reality TV show, where your votes don't matter and people are kept poorly informed and easy to manipulate. Policy is very rarely discussed--it's buried on their respective websites, somewhere.

I see in Sanders, Stein (and possibly others on the conservative/libertarian side who I'm not as familiar with?) an attempt to awaken the population and use the upper level of our brains. Let's talk principles, ideas, our greater good. Let's have actual debate with a back-and-forth of complex ideas. Let's find a way to build compassion into the infrastructure of our society. Let's listen to the concerns of others. Let's lead with passion, integrity and ideas rather than cheap shots and all manner of crazy making diversion and denial tactics. Is this a hopeless venture?

Those media manipulation tactics only work when a population is asleep. The Clinton marketing tactics during the primary--which may have worked during previous elections--largely fell on deaf ears with the majority of Sanders supporters. The fact that Sanders supporters are still not just falling in line with the party line is very refreshing to me. It means that once a population has been awakened, there is no going back. We are not doomed to fall victim to the near-steady brainwashing of the propaganda machine, which is running in overdrive right now.

It doesn't look like Sanders is going to win, but he came very close. He came close enough to convince me what's possible.

It's still an enormous task to live out of a higher consciousness. But at least there's hope that it is possible.

River Currents: The Physics of Prayer

Floating in style.

My view of the spiritual life is that it is like the currents of a river.

We are born in this river and that's where we live our lives. It is all around us, and it has energy and movement. Like a person swimming in the river, we are a part of it and yet also have some autonomy--at least, for a time.

We have the ability to either swim with the currents of the river or against them.

There are things we can do--or that can happen to us--to align ourselves more closely with the Spirit.

Religious traditions have identified methods--prayer, meditation, academic study, works of charity, artistic pursuits, our daily labors, our family, friendships and community involvement--that can put us more or less in line with the currents of the river.

When we are moving with the current, we seem to swim more easily, seem to cover more ground and seem to be doing what we are meant to be doing. When we fight against it, it's sometimes dangerous, but not always--but it's a lot of effort with perhaps little gain. We're out of sync.

We don't control the river, but we can make ourselves more receptive to it.

And sometimes the river will simply move us no matter what we do. Call it grace.

The current can also be dangerous, too--a long tradition of martyrs witnesses to this.

Maybe this is not an original thought--saying that the Spirit is like a river is borderline cliché, after all. How many of you reading this have Garth Brooks' The River going through your mind right now? (I'd link to it here but I wasn't able to find any good versions online.) But it feels new to me if we apply this metaphor of the river specifically how it relates to spiritual practices. It's a way to understand prayer. It's a way to understand religion--it's the physics of spiritual practices.

A lot of people reject the notion of the power of prayer, saying--if there is a God, how can we pretend to control God through our petitions?

A common response to this is: Prayer changes the one who prays more than it commands the activity of God.

Pope Francis seems to be echoing these thoughts in the meme above. This is one of my all-time favorite Francis quotes. He has an ultra-earthy spirituality that I just love. It's a spirituality so concrete it sounds like atheism. He is challenging anyone who has lulled themselves into a false confidence that the amazingly passive action of praying for the hungry is actually going to somehow bring food into their mouths. That is not nearly enough. I don't think he is saying that prayer itself isn't enormously beneficial, I just think he's suggesting that if all you are doing for the hungry is praying for them, that's not exactly bringing your "A" game by any stretch.

Prayer changes us, but not just our attitudes.

I think it's more about energy. When we pray, we turn toward the current and allow it to carry us--like a sunflower that turns toward the sun. We vibrate at the same frequency of the Spirit. Or at least, we tune ourselves to harmonize with the cosmos better. Prayer--and other practices--help align ourselves to go with the current rather than against.

Instead of resisting the current, attempting to muddle along inch-by-inch through our own power, we instead submit ourselves to the current first. Then our efforts are supported and encouraged by the momentum we have put ourselves in line with. It's the same spiritual energy that gave birth to us and which is our ultimate end.

Prayer brings us into a resonance with the deeper, life-giving wavelengths of the universe. It does not just change our attitude or direct our awareness, both of which are also good, impactful things--it causes us to vibrate at a different frequency. Once we are vibrating at a different frequency, the world around us changes, too, because we will then be drawing other people, activities and things that resonate with our new vibrations.

Imagine yourself a street musician. If you play sad songs, you might invite the tears of those who pass by. If you play happy songs, you may find yourself surrounded by happy people dancing. If you align yourself with the deepest currents of the universe--the deepest of which is love, according to all the mystics from nearly all the world's religions--then your life and activities will correspond with love, and you will probably witness daily miracles.

However, I reject the notion of what many called the "prosperity Gospel." This is the idea that if you do what God wants, then you will be rewarded with material riches, as if God is locked into some kind of contractual relationship with you. Prosperity Gospel enthusiasts will say that faithful believers will be rewarded with happiness, wealth and easy-to-see material rewards. I do affirm there is a power to positive thinking, but it's not as linear as that. A lot of people surrounded by love also have great tragedy. Spiritual abundance does not always correspond to the material abundance we were hoping for. The spiritual path takes bravery for this very reason.

I'm not against the idea that prayer not only changes the people praying but can also effect change outside of themselves, too. There are probably ways that prayer can impact the collective consciousness or draw positive energy toward us or others, like some spiritual gravitational field. I also think that this is also personal and not merely mechanical, although I cannot claim to be able to work out the theology for that.

A lot of people think they opt into the Spiritual life when they join a particular religion or get initiated. I don't think so. We are already in the river. We have a physical, emotional and spiritual life by our very nature. We don't just opt in. You don't get a body by joining a gym, and you don't get a heart by seeing a therapist--but you can choose to cultivate those aspects of yourself through these mechanisms. Religion is an attempt to do the same for the spiritual dimension of life.

Much of Christianity has skewed this, I think. There is a longstanding belief that we can choose what kind of afterlife we want or whether we have one at all--rather than simply believing that we are all just part of it all no matter what. In my view, we can choose to thrive in it or not, but we can't choose whether or not to participate--at least, not in this life.

We can choose to glide gracefully over the waters or thrash about--why? Perhaps for the sheer beauty of it. Perhaps it is not tied to any end other than just that. Maybe we can do good just because it's good--a pure gift, just like how God gives to us. That's when we know we are truly in line with the Spirit.

Too much of Christianity has claimed that the value of cultivating a spirituality is for the purposes of securing a certain kind of afterlife for oneself. I think that stagnates growth as it is based on fear. The Biblical tradition instead calls us to let go of fear and just love for no other reason than because we were ourselves loved openly and freely first. Does this come with some kind of consequence?  I'm sure it does, but not in some simplistic sense of buying ourselves a ticket to heaven. But it does put us more closely in line with the power of Christ who will ultimately reconcile all of Creation back to God--why not support that rather than resist? Maybe all the workers receive the same wage whether they arrive early or late (Matthew 20:1-16), but wouldn't you just rather be early to the ultimate party and be part of it as it is unfolding? That is its own reward.

I think the spiritual path is more about behavior than belief--that's why nonbelievers who are full of abundant love are in line with the Spirit, even though they may understand it differently than I do.

I would also suggest that much, if not all, of what I'm saying here is not far removed from more traditional religious speak. There may be different language for it, but if you step back and look with a mystical eye, you might conclude that I'm not saying anything new at all.

What meditation looks like.

Why You Will Marry the Right Person

I like this article:  Why You Will Marry the Wrong Person

It has some great lines, especially in describing how a partner will get us into those family-of-origin issues while many friendships will just skim over the deep stuff. I can see how the pessimism it describes can be freeing.

It's tough to admit, but in some way, shape or form, we all start off looking for a partner as an object to meet our needs--a puzzle piece that will "complete us," where everything just magically (and passively) falls into place. If a relationship doesn't work, the blame is on not having found the "right one."

Both men and women do it. Men want the 'princess in a tower' and women want the 'prince charming to rescue her.' The fairy tale may vary in some of the details, but the overall emotional structure is the same. He is treating her as an object, and she is doing the same to him. That's actually why they are a match, because they are both at the same stage of development.

There are definitely some growing pains when the fairy tale falls short and lived experience points to a different calling. The pessimism the article talks about seems to be the author's way of attempting to cope.

Where the article falls short is not seeing the karma in this. Partners will come into our lives to meet us exactly where our emotional work ends and our unfinished work begins. We actually are objects for each other's growth, but in a far different way than we thought as young romantics. Those old illusions have to shatter in order for the new growth to emerge out of those shattered expectations. Cynicism is only one of the first reactions in the aftermath of the fairy tale, but it does not have to be the last word. A renewed optimism emerges.

The "flaws", "rough edges" and tensions start looking like opportunities for growth--rather than signs of incompatibility or obstacles to be overpowered.

It's tough to watch young partners who are constantly bickering who don't yet realize the source of their bickering nor the fruitlessness of it. The relationship is urging them to grow but they are digging in their heels and refusing. They can go many, many rounds for many, many years. They won't win by winning the arguments in some simplistic sense, at least, not ultimately, not existentially. Their stalemate is actually quite a gift--it forces them to seek another, better way.

The relationship then takes on a new hue and becomes a deeper journey. I love the line in the above article that compatibility is an achievement, not a prerequisite. That goes against the massive tide of popular culture in America, where Hollywood aims and endings are mostly a voice for the fairy tale expectation. And fairy tales have their value and their place, but like Don Henley sings, we've been poisoned by these fairy tales.

I agree with the author overall, I just wouldn't call it pessimism. It's only pessimism if you are still grieving those fairy tale allusions. I think it's an exciting journey. 

I don't want to change you, I don't want to need you, and I certainly don't want to spend my time like some blacksmith hammering you into the perfect puzzle piece to fit all my rough edges. That wouldn't correspond to either my dignity or yours. An occasional truce may be in order to get through a rough patch, but not as a lifestyle. I'd rather just be with you, enjoy your smile, appreciate the differences and be companions for the journey.

Take it away, John Denver!

My Genetics Test

Frank Lesko, 23andme Ancestry Report
Click on the picture if you have trouble reading the text.

Intro

I sat at the dining room table several weeks ago spitting into a vial for what seemed like an eternity. After I had produced an ample sample of saliva, I sealed it up and mailed it off to 23andme.com for a comprehensive genetics test. Thankfully, the provided return box didn't require any spit to seal.

 

Several weeks later, a computer spit back a report.

MTHFR Gene

My primary goal was to test for methylation issues. Because of the way I respond to stress and interact with certain vitamin supplements, I am almost certain I have the infamous (and comically named) MTHFR gene. I will be exceedingly surprised if the test does not confirm this. The MTHFR gene is only the first in a long line of potential methylation issues in the body, so it is good to have a thorough test to build a targeted approach to addressing it.

The initial report arrived in my inbox recently. I need to submit the data into another program to get the methylation results, and I may blog about that in the future.

However, what did come back in the initial report is, among other things, a detailed description of my probable ethnic ancestry. It caught me off guard, as I was only half aware that the test would deliver this information. There were some major surprises that have left my imagination swimming since then!

Family oral history

Let's start with what I've always been told. Family tradition has been consistently straightforward: My dad is 100% Slovak, and my mom is 50% Polish and 50% Slovak.

My dad’s parents met in Cleveland, OH, but were from neighboring towns outside of Košice, a city in eastern Slovakia. My Polish ancestors were from southeastern Poland, not far from Košice, as well.  I think my mom’s Slovak ancestors were also from this region, but I need to confirm this.

Somewhat reliable family tradition also says that somewhere in the double or triple great-grandmother level was a German ancestor, both on my mom’s Polish side and somewhere on my dad’s side.

Other than that, though, my background seemed darn near homogenous. It sure looked like my immediate family came from a very specific region of the world! We were peasant class folk who had been living in the same area for as long as anyone knew.

 

At first glance, the test seemed to corroborate with what I've always been told. However, the more I looked, the more surprises I discovered.

 

Bombshell #1

I was somewhat disappointed to find that I tested almost exclusively European. I seemed to have a predominately Eastern European ancestry. There were no traces of African, no Ashkenazi (Jewish), no Middle Eastern, no Native American, no Asian—well, except for one small exception.

What drew my attention immediately was that the test showed I have a small representation of genes from East Asia. Granted, it is an extremely small amount, but it’s there! 0.3% of my genes are specifically from the Siberian population of the Yakut people, with an additional 0.2% classified as unspecific East Asian (which could include Chinese, Mongolian, Japanese, Korean or Yakut). 

The mind wonders and wanders how in the world did 0.5% of my genes come from East Asia. Granted, it is a small number, but it is there.

I started imagining scenarios as to how this could have happened. Did a Yakut migrant wander into East Europe? Did a European missionary interact with the Yakutz population? Then it hit me:  This could be a living remnant of the Mongolian invasion of Europe in the 13^th century. I remember reading in James Michener’s Poland that many Poles to this day have noticeable Mongolian features. I researched and sure enough, the Mongolian army would have included people from the Yakut population. Chilling.

This kind of genetic report has a margin of error. In fact, there is a sliding bar where you can adjust the algorithms for a more conservative or risky estimate of your ancestry. However, even on conservative settings, a portion of the Yakut genes remained. Wow.

Bombshell #2

At first glance, my ethnic ancestry on this report seems to match what my family had always told me. The test showed me as predominately Eastern European, what we might call northern Slavic. No surprises there, right?

Well, not so fast. When I looked closer, a very different portrait of my ethic ancestry emerged.

The test only showed me as 63.7% Eastern Europe. By all accounts, I should have been a whole lot closer to 90% or more.

By far, the biggest surprise was that the test showed that I have an ethnic makeup of 21.2% from Southern Europe. This includes a whopping 14.7% from the Balkan region, 0.5% Italian and the remaining 6% as broadly Southern European (meaning: the test couldn't drill it down any further).

Absolutely nothing in my family history corroborates this in the least.

21.2% is a large swath—it is almost the portion of a grandparent! The Balkan region identified by this test includes everything as far south as Greece/Crete on up through Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania, Bulgaria, Moldovia and Macedonia. Perhaps this explains my longstanding fascination with all things related to the Ancient Greeks! Romanians are Slavic people from the Balkan region but also have a Roman heritage, so perhaps that is a connection?

Again, my mind wonders and wanders through scenarios. My grandma Lesko used to tell me stories of encounters with the Gypsies and the tensions between them and the local Slovak population. She was often not very polite about the problems between these groups. Had there been any mixing with the Gypsy population, given the tensions and stigma, it is highly possible that it would have been hushed and the child raised as Slovak. But would the test regard Gypsy ancestry as “Balkan?” I am not sure about that. I’m actually surprised "Gypsy" doesn’t have its own category, given what must be a very unique genetic history. I think 23and me is working to expand and develop its genetic database and may include more categories in the future.

The Balkan region includes some of the poorest parts of Europe--Albania and Bulgaria come to mind. It would have made sense for people in this region to migrate looking for work or as war refugees. For a thousand years prior to the 20^th century, most of Eastern Europe had been united first under the Ottomans and then under the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. As a result, it probably would have been easier to migrate within this empire than elsewhere. Perhaps Slovakia saw an influx of people from South Europe who just blended in over time. Perhaps it was individual workers or even whole families who came to call themselves “Slovak” or “Polish” over time. 

The test cannot show which parents the specific genes come from, but it can suggest whether the genes are from a single parent or from both parents. In this case, it seems that both of my parents have some of these South European genes. It seems safe to say that there was more than just a single person of Balkan ancestry who got mixed into the family. [If another family member took the test and linked up with mine, the test could better determine which side of the family the genes come from.]

My Polish great-grandfather said that before coming to America, he and his brother (Karol and Kasimir) were often farmed out—literally—across western Europe. Since the family was “poor as church mice” back in Poland, they followed the harvests as migrant workers in France and Germany in the early 20^th century. It is well within reason that people from the Balkans did the same thing in earlier generations, either as individuals or as whole families, and either settled or left some offspring in Slovakia or Poland. There has been far more genetic mixing in the "Old World" than most of us are willing to consider.

Still, 21.2% is an extremely large percentage, and it is surprising that not a trace of this history remains anywhere in the family's collective memory, given that it probably had to have been pretty recent.

Not a Bombshell, but Still Fascinating

Despite family tradition, the test showed no decisive traces of German ancestry. However, there is a category of Northwest European, which could include German. This accounts for 5% of my ancestry:  2% Scandinavian, 0.4% British/Irish, 0.2% Finnish and 2.5% Broadly Northwestern European. So perhaps this piece does corroborate oral history.

The small portion of Scandinavian ancestry could also have a wartime origin. The Vikings were well known for invading the British Isles, but they also terrorized Poland centuries ago with a war as recently as the mid 1600s. Given the close geographical proximity, though, there are other more benevolent possibilities for how those genes got mixed into the family line. Perhaps a missionary, soldier or a traveling royalty mixed with the local population.

 

Further Reflection

 

It is very unnerving to discover that my ethnic ancestry may be quite different from what I have always been told! I spent a day or two just finding my footing. Still, I have to wonder: Is this test accurate? Am I getting carried away for no reason? Did the test "sensationalize" my ancestry, creating a more imaginative background than reality? If these other ancestries are true, how far back could those genes come from?

A concept like "ethnic ancestry" is a constantly moving target. All of humankind is ultimately related, and some say that every human on the plant shares at least one common ancestor going back perhaps as recent at 5,000 years ago. That seems hard to believe until you do the math.

A test like this only shows ancestry going back maybe 10 generations, which would probably have been around 250 years ago (if you average 25 years per generation). 10 generations ago, there were 1024 people who were my direct ancestors--each of them would have been my grandparent with 8 "greats" in front. Each one of those people accounts for slightly less than 0.1% of my total genes.  The test doesn't drill down any more than 0.1%. And that only takes us back to the mid 1700s.

If you keep doubling the amount of ancestors every 25 years, then there would have been about 8 thousand ancestors during the most recent Swedish invasion of Poland and a whopping 536 million people who were my direct ancestors at the time of the Mongolian invasion of Poland. That assumes that there was no "overlap" in the family tree, which is impossible. It is doubtful that there were 536 million people in East Europe at all during that time. I am unclear whether the genes I have today would match a modern Yakut or Scandinavian person or whether those genes would have come from something much more recent.

So I'll continue to brood over this and share more insights. Whether this test is accurate or not, it is fascinating to imagine what could have happened and where we all come from!

How Is Everything Tasting?

I’m not sure when it came into use, but a few years ago I started noticing that wait staff in restaurants would come to my table with a new question:  How is everything tasting?

It’s in near universal use now. In fact, it is quite noticeable to me whenever a waiter doesn't use this exact wording, because those times are extremely rare. In those cases, I figure it must be a trainee who is quickly taken out back and throttled after this faux pas.

This question disturbs me. It’s not just because it's a grammatical hack job: I certainly hope that my food is not tasting anything at all, because I prefer my food to be dead before I eat it. I am the one doing the tasting, not my food, thank you very much. If that’s not the case, I would certainly like to know, so I could make my exit and find another establishment where I could enjoy a meal of good, dead food. I’m okay with a few living microbes on my plate, but animals and plants should not be alive when the wait staff brings them to me. It sounds morbid to state this out loud--and it is, quite literally-- but it is the reality .

I'm not much of a grammatical snob. I enjoy regional variations in dialect. Language evolves, and what’s incorrect today may be in the rulebooks tomorrow. This particular phrase does stick in my craw, however, as it is particularly tasteless, if you pardon the puns. 

But that’s not what’s really bothering me.

No, what bothers me is that mealtime has been downgraded from a holistic experience of culture, memories, dreams and relationships to simply a matter of bodily pleasure.

I consider this a telltale sign of the downward trajectory of the health of our culture.

In the past, a waiter might have asked: How are you?  Or: How is everything?

Though very general, those are open-ended questions through which the staff would have been trying to gauge all aspects of their patrons' dining experience--food, ambiance, service. Within that, there would have been a deeper, implied question--how are you?

Mealtime is a cornerstone of human culture, so these questions are mightily important.

To now ask, how is everything tasting? reduces the meal experience to only an experience of pleasure sensations. Complex social interactions are being described as consumer transactions. You are purchasing a product, and the sly-but-ever-so-significant implication is that its taste is the only relevant factor in the dining experience. In fact, this question is not only a sign of the decline of civilization, but it actually helps to facilitate that decline.

How so?  It's an illusion of choice: You are not being told outright what opinion to have. No, that would never happen in freedom-loving America. Your opinion absolutely matters, as any marketer would tell you. It is, after all, all about you.

But it's not. What is going on is much more sinister. You are being told the category and range in which meaning itself is recognized or, dare we say, allowed.  You can like or not like the food all you want, and the wait staff and their employers really want to know. But it's taste is the sole criterion for your opinion.

Human flourishing, cultural meaning, the spirituality of mealtime--those are non-criteria. Those are not to be discussed. Those aspects are not being refuted or argued against--no, that would actually give them power. Even worse, they are completely ignored altogether. They simply don't exist. Those kittens have been drowned in the river. Human hope, where the sum is greater than the parts, that language is gone. No, we are merely cogs in the wheel of consumer transactions, moving from one sensation to another.

Please, pass the red pill. I hear it's really tasting good.

Not Quite Dumpster Diving

I saw my hero today for the first time.

At a local supermarket, there is a manager who does a very noble thing. This person goes the extra mile to liberally distribute the “Manager’s Special” orange tags on some choice items as they approach (and sometimes pass . . . shhh!) their expiration dates. As a result, the store is often glistening in little orange labels, like the glitter of new fallen snow, and they call out to me.

It seems like they could just round up these items and throw them out. I consider it an act of service to the poor to take the time to re-tag all this stuff, and it is a task much appreciated. Other store do not have nearly as many tags.

I have been partaking of this catch quite a bit, lately. I try not to touch anything unless it is at least 50% off. Often, the discount is even closer to 80%.

I saw this manager today for the first time. I wanted to go up to him and shake his hand. Instead, I just sort of stalked him as he meandered about the store with his little cart and sale gun.

I’m still one very important step removed from dumpster diving.

The Gymnasium as a Capitalist Conspiracy

I got my membership to a local gymnasium yesterday.

It’s time to work off some Christmas turkey (from 2 years ago) and get serious about my health.

I often think about my grandma’s comments about people who workout. For the life of her, she could not understand them. She would get so outraged when bikers and joggers would pass by in front of her house. She’d go out into the street to call them back in—if they have that much energy to waste, she would be glad to put them to work on the farm! There’s work to do! That made perfect sense to her.

I was afraid to tell her I bought a workout bench in high school with my money from mowing her lawn. She didn’t say much, but we knew she didn’t like it.

I have to admit, looking at the gymnasium through those eyes changes things a bit. There are roomfuls of people expending boundless energy . . . on absolutely nothing. They go round and round on their exercycles, sweat themselves silly, as if somehow those activities are even remotely interesting. Nowadays, of course, they plug you into various TV and radio channels to entertain you during your workout. Why can’t they at the very least route their energy into some sort of power generator for the building? I’m sure those cyclists can at least keep the lights on. Maybe that would even be a good incentive for them, too!

Sure, there are health and fitness goals! Many of us do not use our bodies in well-rounded enough ways in our days jobs and we have to fulfill that elsewhere. I get that. But it still baffles me when there are so many good things that need doing in this world—and then to walk into this gigantic room where people are exerting ridiculous amounts of effort just going around in circles like some hamsters in a cage, I have to scratch my head. You see powerful men, lifting thousands of pounds, and they are rendered totally ineffective in society because all this activity and strength is contained in this little gymnasium—it never gets out there where it can be a force for positive movement in our society. All they do is lift the weights . . . and then proceed to put them right back down where they found them.

I’m all for a little bit of sport and recreation, but most of the men in our society have been totally pacified and rendered useless by it.

Our arms are made for lifting. What about lifting babies in an orphanage, lifting food for the poor, or planting flowers to beautify our world? You can get a workout and do something with yourselves, too! I’m not trying to steer people into some sort of obsession with productivity, either. Society has gone through those phases and we have had to re-learn how to have fun. But where is the balance? Our bodies are part and parcel of our vocation in life. They are meant to be used on behalf of our life’s mission. What are we put on this world to do?

You may go to the gym and see family connections, friendships developing, and people focusing on health and well-being. I go and see various science fiction scenarios playing out, not to mention a whole host of political conspiracies: Keep them busy so they don’t get into the business of world affairs.

It is any accident that the gymnasium was a favorite place in Ancient Greece and Rome—our two favorite models of Imperial Overlords? Something to think about while I'm on the exercycle!